Agricultural Marketing Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Children and Families Administration
Community Living Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
National Endowment for the Arts
Federal Aviation Administration
Maritime Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
United States Mint
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.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Final rule.
This final rule incorporates by reference the current version of the industry testing standard for commercial prerinse spray valves, which will not substantively change the current test procedure. The Department of Energy (“DOE”) also amends the definition of commercial prerinse spray valve to codify existing guidance on how to apply the definition. This amended definition do not change the current scope of the test procedure.
The effective date of this rule is April 11, 2022. The final rule changes will be mandatory for product testing starting September 7, 2022. The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register on April 11, 2022.
The docket, which includes
A link to the docket web page can be found at
For further information on how to review the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
Mr. Bryan Berringer, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-0371. Email:
Ms. Kathryn McIntosh, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2002. Email:
DOE incorporates by reference the following industry standard into 10 Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) part 431:
ASTM F2324-13 (R2019), “Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray Valves;” Approved May 1, 2019 (“ASTM F2324-13”).
Copies of ASTM F2324-13 (R2019) can be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (610) 832-9585 or by going to
For a further discussion of this standard, see section IV.N of this document.
Commercial prerinse spray valves (“CPSVs”) are included among the “covered products” for which the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6291(33); 42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(14); 42 U.S.C. 6295(dd)) DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for commercial prerinse spray valves are currently prescribed at 10 CFR part 431, subpart O.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6296).
The testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered products must use as the basis for (1) certifying to DOE that their products comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(s)), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of those products (42 U.S.C. 6293(c)). Similarly, DOE must use these test procedures to determine whether the products comply with any relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(s))
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered products established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6293, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered products. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section shall be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary) or period of use and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3))
With respect to CPSVs, EPCA requires DOE to use ASTM International (“ASTM”) F2324 (“ASTM F2324”) as the basis for the test procedure for measuring flow rate. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(14))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered product, including CPSVs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle or period of use. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(1)(A))
If the Secretary determines, on her own behalf or in response to a petition by any interested person, that a test procedure should be prescribed or amended, the Secretary shall promptly publish in the
DOE's existing test procedures for CPSVs appear at 10 CFR 431.264. DOE most recently amended the test procedure for CPSVs in a final rule published December 30, 2015, in which DOE incorporated by reference the 2013 version of ASTM F2324 (“ASTM F2324-13”). 80 FR 81441 (“December 2015 Final Rule”).
On June 5, 2020, DOE published a request for information soliciting public comment and data on all aspects of the existing DOE test procedure for CPSVs. 85 FR 34541 (“June 2020 RFI”). DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) for the test procedure on May 20, 2021, presenting DOE's proposals to amend the CPSV test procedure. 86 FR 27298 (“May 2021 NOPR”). DOE held a public meeting related to this NOPR on June 9, 2021.
DOE received comments in response to the May 2021 NOPR from the interested parties listed in Table I.1.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
In this final rule, DOE amends 10 CFR 431.264, “Uniform test method for the measurement of flow rate for commercial prerinse spray valves,” as follows:
• Amends the definition of “commercial prerinse spray valve” to codify existing guidance on how to apply the definition; and
• Incorporates by reference the current industry standard—ASTM F2324-13 (R2019), “Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray Valves.”
• Explicitly permits voluntary testing using a test pressure other than the test pressure required for determining compliance with the standards at 10 CFR part 431.
The adopted amendments are summarized in Table II.1, including a comparison to the test procedure before amendment, as well as the reason for the adopted change.
DOE has determined that the amendments described in section III of this document and adopted in this document will not alter the measured efficiency of CPSVs or require retesting or recertification solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the amendments to the test procedures. Additionally, DOE has determined that the amendments will not increase the cost of testing. Discussion of DOE's actions are addressed in detail in section III of this document.
The effective date for the amended test procedures adopted in this final rule is 30 days after publication of this document in the
“Commercial prerinse spray valve” is defined at 10 CFR 431.262 as “a handheld device that has a release-to-close valve and is suitable for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment.” DOE notes that EPCA defines “commercial prerinse spray valve” as “a handheld device designed and marketed for use with commercial dishwashing and ware washing equipment that sprays water on dishes, flatware, and other food service items for the purpose of removing food residue before cleaning the items.” 42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(A) In the December 2015 Final Rule, DOE observed that some products were being designed by the manufacturer for other specific applications but were marketed to rinse dishes before washing. 80 FR 81441, 81443. Accordingly, DOE amended the definition of commercial prerinse spray valve to provide more explicit direction that any spray valve “suitable” for prerinsing purposes is subject to energy conservation standards in order to ensure a level and fair playing field for all products serving commercial prerinse spray valve applications. 80 FR 81441, 81443-81444.
In the preamble of the December 2015 Final Rule, DOE provided additional guidance on the various factors that DOE would consider in determining whether a spray valve model is “suitable” for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment.
In response to the June 2020 RFI, NEEA commented that there were valves on the market that appeared to meet the definition of commercial prerinse spray valve and either had marketed flow rates above the energy conservation standard and/or were not being certified to DOE. (NEEA, No. 6 at p. 1) To provide further certainty as to the definition of “commercial prerinse spray valve,” in the May 2021 NOPR DOE proposed to amend the definition of “commercial prerinse spray valve” to codify the guidance that had been provided in the December 2015 Final Rule for determining whether equipment is suitable for removing food
ASAP, NRDC and NEEA commented that the proposed definition adds clarity and reduces the risk of misclassification of commercial prerinse spray valves. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 10 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 1-2) ASAP and NRDC commented that there are many CPSV models that appear to meet the current definition of a CPSV, yet do not meet the efficiency standards that DOE previously prescribed. These commenters believe that considerable water savings are likely being lost due to non-compliant products and believe that the definition DOE proposed in the NOPR encompasses the CPSV models in violation and will help close loopholes in the current standards. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 10 at p. 1; Webinar Transcript, No. 9 at p. 14)
NEEA stated that the first two criteria provide clarity that products marketed for use as a prerinse valve (no matter where they are sold) and valves sold via commercial kitchen retailers (even if they are marketed as “utility” valves) meet the definition of a CPSV and therefore must meet the CPSV regulated flow rates; and the third criteria clarifies that valves sold and installed in CPSV applications also meet the criteria of a CPSV no matter where they were sold or how they were marketed. (NEEA, No. 12 at p. 2)
The CA IOUs generally supported the proposed definition for CPSVs, stating that it is likely to reduce the risk of misclassification of higher flow valves not intended for food service prerinse applications. (CA IOUs, No. 11 at p. 4) The CA IOUS also stated that some ambiguity could still exist under DOE's proposed definition for certain products meant for other applications like washing walls. The CA IOUs recommended adding that CPSVs are “intended to be installed in fixtures with a faucet or overhead pull-down hose over a multi-compartment sink, wash-down trough, or a scrapping device.” (CA IOUs, No. 11 at p. 5)
PMI opposed the proposed definition, claiming that manufacturers would no longer have a clear definition by which to produce and sell CPSVs, and would instead rely on a subjective set of requirements that would be left up to the discretion of DOE to apply and enforce, leading to confusion. (PMI, No. 13 at pp. 1-2; Webinar Transcript, No. 9 at pp. 12-13) PMI commented that NEEA's comment in response to the June 2020 RFI demonstrates that use of the word “suitable” has led to confusion in the market and scrutiny of products that were never intended for food service applications.
PMI further asserted that manufacturers provide clear statements on their websites, and within their product literature, regarding which products are intended to meet DOE's current CPSV regulations. (PMI, No. 13 at p. 2; Webinar Transcript, No. 9 at p. 13) PMI provided four examples of product literature: (1) A product with a represented 1.15 gallon per minute (“gpm”) flow rate marketed as “SUITABLE for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment”; (2) a product with a represented 2.45 gpm flow rate marketed as “NOT SUITABLE for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment”; (3) a product with a represented 1.07 gpm flow rate marketed as “EPAct/DOE Compliant” and “2019 DOE PRSV—Class II compliant”; and (4) a product represented with a 5.6 gpm flow rate marketed as “Not Intended for USA Pre-Rinse.”
PMI additionally commented that manufacturers will incur additional costs if they are required to meet energy conservation standards for products not intended for removing food residue, such as washdown equipment or pet grooming equipment. (
Regarding the CA IOUs' suggestion to base the CPSV definition on the intended location for installing the fixture, intent suggests subjectivity, which not only reduces regulatory transparency but also creates challenges for enforcement. DOE has previously rejected such an approach. 80 FR 81441, 81443. As discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking to the December 2015 Final Rule, DOE has also observed products marketed as “pull-down kitchen faucet” or “commercial style prerinse,” which generally are handheld devices that can be used for commercial dishwashing or ware washing regardless of intended installation location. 80 FR 35874, 35876 (Jun. 23, 2015). DOE notes that these categories of products typically do not have a release-to-close valve and therefore generally do not meet the definition of commercial prerinse spray valve. However, if such a product does have a release-to-close valve, it would meet the definition of commercial prerinse spray valve regardless of intended installation location, provided it were being sold through channels of marketing that sell to food service entities.
In response to comments regarding lack of clarity around the term “suitable,” DOE notes that neither DOE nor manufacturers have identified any physical characteristics that would distinguish valves suitable for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment from other valves. In the absence of any physical identifying characteristics that could be used to distinguish a CPSV, DOE articulated in the December 2015 Final Rule the means by which DOE would consider a spray valve to be “suitable” for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment. 80 FR 81441, 81443-81445 The intent of DOE's proposal in the May 2021 NOPR to codify this guidance as part of the CPSV definition is to provide manufacturers with greater certainty as to how DOE would determine whether a particular spray valve model is covered by the scope of DOE's CPSV test procedure and
In response to the suggestion by PMI that the definition of CPSV reference the use of the equipment as intended by the manufacturer, DOE notes that the definition of CPSV as defined by EPCA references how the device is “designed and marketed for use” without limiting consideration of the marketed use to that of the manufacturer. (42 U.S.C. 6291(33)(A)) As discussed in the December 2015 Final Rule, DOE observed instances in which products designed by the manufacturer for other specific applications were marketed on retailer websites for commercial dishwashing and ware washing. 80 FR 81441, 81443. This, in part, prompted DOE to codify a definition of CPSV that replaces the term “designed and marketed for use” with the phrase “suitable for use.”
With regard to the concern expressed by PMI that manufacturers would incur additional costs if products not intended for removing food residue (such as washdown equipment or pet grooming products) are required to meet the CPSV energy conservation standards—the revised definition proposed by DOE and adopted in this final rule does not change the scope of the definition. The amendment to the definition of CPSV adopted in this final rule codifies the guidance DOE has previously provided on the factors to consider when determining whether a valve is suitable for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment. If a spray valve model is not represented as being capable of rinsing dishes, is not marketed or sold through outlets that market or sell to food service entities, and is not sold to end-users that are restaurants or commercial or institutional kitchens, is not a CPSV. A spray valve that a manufacturer markets exclusively for wall washing and floors (
For the reasons described in the May 2021 NOPR and reiterated in this final rule, and in consideration of comments from interested parties, DOE is amending the definition of “commercial prerinse spray valve” to mean “a handheld device that has a release-to-close valve and is suitable for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment. DOE may determine that a device is suitable for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment based on any or all of the following: (1) Equipment design and representations (for example, whether equipment is represented as being capable of rinsing dishes as compared to equipment that is represented exclusively for washing walls and floors or for animal washing); (2) Channels of marketing and sales (for example, whether equipment is marketed or sold through outlets that market or sell to food service entities); (3) Actual sales (including whether the end-users are restaurants or commercial or institutional kitchens, even if those sales are indirectly through an entity such as a distributor).”
The CPSV test procedure incorporates by reference ASTM F2324-13 at 10 CFR 431.263. The specific sections of ASTM F2324-13 that are specified in the test method in 10 CFR 431.264 are the test methods for measuring flow rate at Sections 6.1 through 6.9 (except 6.4 and 6.7), 9.1 through 9.4, and 10.1 through 10.2.5 of ASTM F2324-13. 10 CFR 431.264(b)(1). The DOE test procedure incorporates the corresponding calculations in Section 11.3.1 of ASTM F2343-13. For the spray force test method, the DOE test procedure references Sections 6.2, 6.4 through 6.9, 9.1 through 9.5.3.2, and 10.3.1 through 10.3.8 of ASTM F2324-13. 10 CFR 431.264(b)(2).
In the May 2021 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the DOE test procedure to reference the reaffirmed industry testing standard, ASTM F2324-13 (R2019), and tentatively determined that such a change would not result in any substantive changes to the existing CPSV test procedure. 86 FR 27298, 27302.
The CA IOUs and PMI both commented that they support DOE incorporating the reaffirmed industry test standard. (CA IOUs, No. 11 at p. 5; PMI, No. 13 at p. 2; Webinar Transcript, No. 9 at p. 15) PMI commented that incorporating the reaffirmed industry standard would not lead to any additional costs. (PMI, No. 23 at p. 2) DOE did not receive any comments opposing incorporation of the reaffirmed industry standard ASTM F2324-13 (2019). For the reasons discussed in the May 2021 NOPR, DOE is updating the incorporation by reference in the CPSV test procedure to reference the reaffirmed industry standard, ASTM F2324-13 (R2019).
ASTM F2324-13 specifies testing CPSVs at a water pressure of 60 ± 2 pounds per square inch (“psi”).
In the May 2021 NOPR, DOE stated that it did not receive any data suggesting that a different test pressure would be more representative and noted that the DOE test pressure aligns with the industry-consensus standard. 86 FR 27298, 27302-27303. Therefore, DOE proposed maintaining testing with a dynamic water pressure
DOE received several comments suggesting a different water pressure may be appropriate and one suggesting an additional labeling requirement. NEEA encouraged DOE to review
NEEA commented that low water pressure is an important consideration when installing a CPSV, as dissatisfied CPSV users are known to replace low-flow valves with higher flow valves in order to achieve the performance they need. (NEEA, No. 12 at pp. 2-3) NEEA stated that with the current test pressure of 60 psi, consumers with lower water pressure do not have the information they need to know if a valve will perform as they need it to before purchasing and installing it.
As an accompaniment to the December 2015 Final Rule, DOE provided a separate report titled “Analysis of Water Pressure for Testing Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Final Report,”
In the December 2015 Final Rule, DOE acknowledged that water pressure will affect the flow rate of a CPSV once installed. 80 FR 81441, 81446. Typically, lower pressures result in lower flow rates and higher pressures result in higher flow rates. Nevertheless, DOE noted that testing at a single specific water pressure to demonstrate compliance with the maximum allowable flow rate would create a consistent and standardized reference that would be comparable across all models
As discussed, the requirement in 10 CFR 431.264 to test at 60 ± 2 psi is based on ASTM F2324, which is an industry consensus standard that includes input from a wide variety of national stakeholders and was corroborated with the data compiled for the December 2015 Final Rule. The data cited by the CA IOUs are largely consistent with the data previously presented by DOE in support of the December 2015 Final Rule. DOE has not received any new data indicating that an alternative test pressure would be more representative. Because the weighted average pressure of the available data is sufficiently similar to the prescribed test pressure in the industry test procedure, DOE reaffirms its prior conclusion that a 60-psi test pressure is sufficiently representative of the water pressures CPSVs will experience in the field. Moreover, testing at a single test pressure is appropriate for measuring flowrate for determination of compliance with the maximum flow rate applicable under the energy conservation standards. Based on the reasons discussed in this section, DOE has decided to maintain the current test pressure of 60 ±2 psi.
With regard to the suggestions to add a second test at a test pressure of 40 psi, DOE recognizes that some consumers may value representations of flow rate corresponding to other water pressures than 60 psi. DOE has determined, however, that requiring all manufacturers to perform an additional test at a pressure of 40 psi, for mandatory energy conservation standards and/or a mandatory labeling requirement as suggested by the CA IOUs, would be unduly burdensome, because this would require manufacturers to retest and recertify all CPSVs and the current test pressure is representative of average use. However, based on the comments received from NEEA and the CA IOUs in response to DOE's request for data regarding water pressure, DOE recognizes that representations of flow rate at pressures other than 60 psi may provide useful information to consumers at the lower end of the water pressure range. Therefore, in this final rule, DOE is explicitly providing for optional testing at test pressures other than the required 60 ± 2 psi. Specifically, DOE is establishing a new paragraph (d) of 10 CFR 431.264, which provides that manufacturers may voluntarily test pursuant to the DOE test procedure using other test pressures in addition to the 60 psi test pressure required for determining compliance with the standards at 10 CFR part 431. When making voluntary representations, manufacturers must represent flow rate at alternative water pressures in accordance with the sampling plan at 10 CFR 429.51(a); however, manufacturers are not required to submit certification reports for voluntary representations.
In this final rule, DOE amends the test procedures for CPSVs to amend the definition of CPSV to clarify the current scope, incorporate by reference the reaffirmed industry standard, ASTM F2324-13 (R2019), and explicitly permit voluntary testing at alternative water pressures.
As discussed, the amendment to the definition of “commercial prerinse spray valve” codifies DOE guidance on factors for determining whether a spray value is suitable for removing food residue from food service items before cleaning them in commercial dishwashing or ware washing equipment. The amendment does not change the scope of the definition or the scope of the test procedure and energy conservation standards.
DOE has determined that the reaffirmed industry standard, ASTM F2324-13 (R2019), is not substantively different from the prior version referenced by the DOE test procedure. As such, reference to ASTM F2324-13 (R2019) will not change how the testing CPSVs is conducted and would not impact the measured values of water use or spray force used to determine compliance with standards. Regarding voluntary representations, the provisions providing for testing at additional water pressures are optional only.
Accordingly, DOE has determined that these adopted amendments will not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct. Further, DOE has determined that the adopted test procedure amendments will not impact testing costs already experienced by manufacturers.
The effective date for the adopted test procedure amendment will be 30 days after publication of this final rule in the
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined this test procedure rulemaking does not constitute “significant regulatory actions” under section 3(f) of Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
As stated, the amendments adopted in this final rule revise the definition of CPSVs without modifying the scope and update references to the reaffirmed industry standard, which made no substantive changes to the test procedure. DOE has determined that the adopted test procedure amendments would not impact testing costs already experienced by manufacturers.
The amendments adopted in this final rule would do not have significant economic impact on small businesses. The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) considers a business entity to be a small business, if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers or earns less than the average annual receipts specified in 13 CFR part 121. The threshold values set forth in these regulations use size standards and codes established by the North American Industry Classification System (“NAICS”).
The NAICS code for commercial prerinse spray valve manufacturing is covered under NAICS code 332919, other metal valve and pipe fitting manufacturing. The SBA employee threshold for small businesses for NAICS code 332919 is 750 employees or less.
DOE collected data from DOE's compliance certification database to identify manufacturers of commercial prerinse spray valves.
In summary, DOE concludes that the cost effects accruing from this final rule would not have a “significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,” and that the preparation of a FRFA is not warranted. DOE has submitted a certification and supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
Manufacturers of CPSVs must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including CPSVs (
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
In this final rule, DOE establishes test procedure amendments that it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for CPSVs. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE examined this final rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this final rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a regulatory action resulting in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This final rule will not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation will not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; “FEAA”) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC”) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition.
The amendments to the test procedure for CPSVs adopted in this final rule incorporates testing methods contained in certain sections of the following commercial standard: ASTM F2324-13 (R2019). DOE has evaluated this standard and is unable to conclude whether it fully complies with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will state that it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
In this final rule, DOE incorporates by reference the test standard published by ASTM, titled “Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray Valves,” ASTM Standard F2324-13 (R2019). ASTM F2324-13 (R2019) is an industry-accepted test procedure that measures water flow rate and spray force for CPSVs and is applicable to product sold in North America. Specifically, the test procedure codified by this final rule references various sections of ASTM F2324-13 (R2019) that address test set-up, instrumentation, test conduct, and calculations.
Copies of ASTM F2324-13 (R2019) can be obtained from ASTM International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428-2959, (610) 832-9585 or by going to
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 6, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(1) Equipment design and representations (for example, whether equipment is represented as being capable of rinsing dishes as compared to equipment that is represented exclusively for washing walls and floors or animal washing);
(2) Channels of marketing and sales (for example, whether equipment is marketed or sold through outlets that market or sell to food service entities);
(3) Actual sales (including whether the end-users are restaurants or commercial or institutional kitchens, even if those sales are indirectly through an entity such as a distributor).
(a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) must publish a document in the
(b)
(1) ASTM F2324-13 (R2019) (“ASTM F2324”),”Standard Test Method for Prerinse Spray Valves”, Approved May 1, 2019; IBR approved for § 431.264.
(2) [Reserved]
(b)
(ii) Perform calculations in accordance with Section 11.3.1 (Calculation and Report) of ASTM F2324. Record the water temperature (°F) and dynamic water pressure (psi) once at the start for each run of the test. Record the time (min), the normalized weight of water in the carboy (lb) and the resulting flow rate (gpm) once at the end of each run of the test. Record flow rate measurements of time (min) and weight (lb) at the resolutions of the test instrumentation. Perform three runs on each unit, as specified in Section 10.2.5 of ASTM F2324, but disregard any references to Annex A1. Then, for each unit, calculate the mean of the three flow rate values determined from each run. Round the final value for flow rate to two decimal places and record that value.
(2)
(d)
Federal Aviation Administration, Department of Transportation (DOT).
Issuance of accepted means of compliance.
This document announces ASTM International (ASTM) consensus standards for use as a means of compliance to the applicable airworthiness standards for normal category airplanes. The FAA accepts ASTM Designation F3264-21 as a means of compliance for applicable airworthiness standards for normal category airplanes, with the changes identified in Table 1 of this document. For ease of use, Table 2 provides a side-by-side view, linking applicable regulations to the associated ASTM sections.
The FAA accepts the means of compliance effective March 11, 2022.
Hieu Nguyen, Federal Aviation Administration, Policy and Innovation Division, Small Airplane Strategic Policy Section, AIR-615, 901 Locust Street, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone (316) 946-4123; facsimile: (316) 946-4107; email:
Under the provisions of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995
Consistent with the Small Airplane Revitalization Act of 2013,
In part 23, amendment 23-64
Additionally, the FAA published Advisory Circular (AC) 23.2010-1,
The means of compliance accepted by this document is one means, but not the only means of complying with part 23 regulatory requirements.
The FAA reviewed the published ASTM consensus standards developed by ASTM Committee F44 as the basis for means of compliance to 65 sections of part 23, amendment 23-64.
In some cases, the Administrator found sections of the ASTM Standard Designation F3264-21, titled “Standard Specification for Normal Category Aeroplanes Certification,” without changes, accepted as means of compliance with the airworthiness requirements of amendment 23-64, and within the scope and applicability of the consensus standards.
In other cases, the means of compliance, while based on ASTM consensus standards, include additional FAA provisions necessary to comply with the airworthiness requirements of amendment 23-64.
Applicants who desire to use means of compliance reflected by other revisions to ASTM standards not previously accepted, may seek guidance and possible acceptance from the FAA for the use of those means of compliance on a case-by-case basis. Applicants may also propose alternative means of compliance for FAA review and possible acceptance.
Part 23, amendment 23-64, established airworthiness requirements based on the safety requirements outlined in amendment 23-63, except in areas that address loss of control and icing, where the FAA increased the safety level. Depending on the details of a design, the applicant may require use of a different means of compliance beyond those accepted by this document. For example, novel airplane designs, such as unmanned airplanes or vertical takeoff and landing airplanes, may be outside the scope of this document, and applicants may need to propose alternative means of compliance applicable to their designs accepted under § 23.2010.
This document accepts only the revisions of the standards referenced in ASTM International Standard Designation (ASTM) F3264-21, “Standard Specification for Normal Category Aeroplanes Certification.”
ASTM policy is that a consensus standard should be reviewed in its entirety by the responsible subcommittee and must be balloted for reapproval, revision, or withdrawal, within five years of its last approval date. When an ASTM standard is reapproved, that reapproval is denoted by the year in parentheses (
This date indicates the completion of a review cycle with no technical changes made to the standard. ASTM issues editorial changes denoted by a superscript epsilon in the standard designation (
ASTM revises a standard to make changes to its technical content. Revisions to consensus standards serving as the basis for means of compliance accepted by this document, will not be automatically accepted, and will require further FAA acceptance in order for the revisions to be an accepted means of compliance.
ASTM International Standard Designation F3264-21, “Standard Specification for Normal Category Aeroplanes Certification,” is available for online reading at
The FAA maintains a list of accepted means of compliance on the FAA website at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2019-03-01 and AD 2021-05-51 for certain Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 model turbofan engines. AD 2019-03-01 required performing initial and repetitive thermal acoustic image (TAI) inspections for cracks in certain 1st-stage low-pressure compressor (LPC) blades and removal of those blades that fail inspection. AD 2021-05-51 required performing a one-time TAI inspection for cracks in certain 1st-stage LPC blades and removal of those blades that fail inspection. This AD was prompted by three in-flight failures of a 1st-stage LPC blade, with one failure resulting in an engine fire during flight, and subsequent manufacturer publication of service information specifying improved inspections for three critical locations on the 1st-stage LPC blade. This AD requires initial and repetitive ultrasonic (UT) inspections and TAI inspections for cracks in certain 1st-stage LPC blades and removal of those blades that fail inspection. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 15, 2022.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 15, 2022.
For service information identified in this final rule, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: (860) 565-0140; email:
You may examine the AD docket at
Carol Nguyen, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7655; fax: (781) 238-7199; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2019-03-01, Amendment 39-19553 (84 FR 4320, February 15, 2019) (AD 2019-03-01), and AD 2021-05-51, Amendment 39-21470 (86 FR 13445, March 9, 2021) (AD 2021-05-51). AD 2019-03-01 and AD 2021-05-51 applied to certain PW PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 model turbofan engines. The NPRM published in the
The FAA received comments from five commenters. The commenters were Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), All Nippon Airways (ANA), The Boeing Company (Boeing), Japan Airlines (JAL), and United Airlines (UAL). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
UAL requested that the FAA revise Note 2 to paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of the NPRM [Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD] to “The FAA-approved TAI inspection method and the vendors that can perform the FAA-approved TAI inspection are specified in the Accomplishment Instructions section and Vendor Services section of PW4G-112-A72-361, respectively.” UAL also requested that the FAA add the same note to paragraph (g)(2)(iii) of this AD.
The FAA agrees and revised Note 1 to paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD and added Note 2 to paragraph (g)(2)(iii) to this AD, as requested by UAL.
ANA requested that the FAA change the Required Actions, paragraph (g)(1) Initial 1st-stage LPC Blade Inspections, from “before further flight after the effective of this AD” to “before the next revenue flight” to clarify the ferry flight requirement.
Similarly, JAL requested the FAA change the Required Actions, paragraph (g)(1) Initial 1st-stage LPC Blade Inspections, from “before further flight after the effective of this AD” to “before the next revenue flight” or “before further flight except the ferry flight without passenger and cargos.”
The FAA disagrees with changing the initial compliance in paragraph (g) of this AD as requested by ANA and JAL. The FAA has determined it is necessary to require certain actions prior to any flight, except as permitted in paragraph (i), Special Flight Permit, of this AD.
ANA and UAL requested that paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD (paragraph (i)(2) of this AD) include Task 29-11-00-710-806 of the Boeing 777-200/300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual as an acceptable method for accomplishing the functional check of the left and right hydraulic pump shutoff valves.
The FAA agrees and has added Task 29-11-00-710-806 of the Boeing 777-200/300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual to Note 3 to paragraph (i)(2) of this AD as guidance for accomplishing the actions in paragraph (i)(2), Special Flight Permit, of this AD.
JAL requested that the FAA revise the AD to include certain exceptions for ferry flights. JAL stated it is planning to ferry affected airplanes to a storage point in the United States. JAL commented that although the local authority in Japan provides regulatory requirements for special flight permissions which are similar to 14 CFR 21.197, Special flight permits, the Japanese regulatory requirements do not include “to a point of storage” language for the purpose of the flights. JAL proposed to add the following wording to paragraphs (c) and (g), Applicability and Required Actions, respectively, of this AD, “except for ferry flights, without passenger and cargo, of the airplanes on which the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (h)(2) of this AD [paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this AD] have been done.”
The FAA disagrees with revising paragraph (c) Applicability or paragraph (g) Required Actions of this AD in response to JAL's comment. Paragraph (i), Special Flight Permit, provides that special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are permitted provided that the actions in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this AD have first been accomplished. 14 CFR 21.197(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that a special flight permit may be issued for flying the aircraft to a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance are to be performed, or to a point of storage. The requested change is already permitted by this AD. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.
JAL and UAL requested that the FAA provide a threshold in paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD [paragraph (i)(1) of this AD] for the flow path UT inspection of the 1st-stage LPC blades for cracking prior to obtaining a special flight permit. JAL suggested a threshold of 275 flight cycles (FCs) since the last flow path UT inspection for 1st-stage LPC blades that have zero cycles since new (CSN) and also for 1st-stage LPC blades that have accumulated any number of CSN greater than zero.
UAL stated that omitting a compliance time in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD for the special flight permits creates ambiguity regarding when and how often the flow path UT inspection is required for special flight permits. UAL suggested a threshold of 275 FCs since the last flow path UT inspection.
The FAA agrees to add a threshold of 275 FCs to paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. This allows airplanes with 1st-stage LPC blades that have accumulated 275 CSN or fewer to be eligible for a special flight permit.
JAL requested that the FAA define the 1st-stage LPC blade eligible for installation.
The FAA agrees and added paragraph (h) to this AD to define a part eligible for installation.
JAL requested clarification for the use of revised NDIPs for the flow path UT inspection of the 1st-stage LPC blades specified in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), and (h)(1) of the proposed AD (paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), and (i)(1) of this AD). JAL commented that Pratt & Whitney ASB PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021, references the UT inspection procedures in NDIP 1238, NDIP-1240, and NDIP-1241, which are currently at the original version. JAL asked if the submission of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) request is necessary if the NDIPs are later revised to meet the requirements in paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), and (h)(1) of the proposed AD (paragraph (g)(1), (g)(2), and (i)(1) of this AD).
Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021, requires the latest FAA-approved revision of NDIP-1238, NDIP-1240, and NDIP-1241 at the time the initial inspection is accomplished. Furthermore, the FAA has provided credit for accomplishment of the flow path and mid span UT inspection identified in paragraph (g)(1), and (i)(1) of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (j) of this AD.
ALPA and Boeing expressed support for the AD as written.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting the AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products. Except for minor editorial changes and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed Pratt & Whitney ASB PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021. This ASB specifies procedures for performing the TAI and UT inspections of 1st-stage LPC blades. 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 FAA reviewed “Engine-Driven Pump (EDP) Shutoff Valve Check” (Subtasks 26-21-00-200-018, 26-21-00-200-019, 26-21-00-840-022, and Task 29-11-00-710-806) of Boeing 777-200/300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, dated September 5, 2021. The service information specifies procedures for performing the engine-driven pump shutoff valve functional check.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 108 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any necessary replacement that would be required based on the results of the inspection. The agency has no way of determining the number of aircraft that might need this replacement:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701, General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA has determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective April 15, 2022.
This AD replaces AD 2019-03-01, Amendment 39-19553 (84 FR 4320, February 15, 2019), and AD 2021-05-51, Amendment 39-21470 (86 FR 13445, March 9, 2021).
This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Division (PW) PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 model turbofan engines, with a 1st-stage low-pressure compressor (LPC) blade, with part number 52A241, 55A801, 55A801-001, 55A901, 55A901-001, 56A201, 56A201-001, or 56A221, installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7230, Turbine Engine Compressor Section.
This AD was prompted by three in-flight failures of a 1st-stage LPC blade, with one failure resulting in an engine fire during flight, and subsequent manufacturer publication of service information specifying improved inspections for three critical locations on the 1st-stage LPC blade. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the 1st-stage LPC blades. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in 1st-stage LPC blade release, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(i) For 1st-stage LPC blades that have accumulated any number of cycles since new (CSN) greater than zero, before further flight after the effective date of this AD, perform a flow path and a mid span ultrasonic testing (UT) inspection of the 1st-stage LPC blades in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Part A—Initial Inspection of All LPC Fan Blades Prior to Their Return to Service, paragraph 1.A. through C., of Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin (ASB) PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021 (PW4G-112-A72-361). New 1st-stage LPC
(ii) Within the following compliance times after the effective date of this AD, perform a thermal acoustic image (TAI) inspection of the 1st-stage LPC blades for cracks using a method approved by the FAA:
(A) For 1st-stage LPC blades with 1,000 CSN or more, with no prior TAI inspection, inspect before further flight.
(B) For 1st-stage LPC blades with 1,000 flight cycles (FCs) or more since the last TAI inspection, inspect before further flight.
(C) For 1st-stage LPC blades with fewer than 1,000 CSN, with no prior TAI inspection, inspect before accumulating 1,000 CSN.
(D) For 1st-stage LPC blades with fewer than 1,000 FCs since the last TAI inspection, inspect before accumulating 1,000 FCs since the last TAI inspection.
(i) Before exceeding 275 FCs since the last flow path UT inspection, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 275 FCs since the last flow path UT inspection, perform a flow path UT inspection of the 1st-stage LPC blades in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Part B—Repetitive Inspection of All LPC Fan Blades After Their Return to Service, paragraph 1.A., of PW4G-112-A72-361.
(ii) Before exceeding 550 FCs since the last mid span UT inspection, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 550 FCs since the last mid span UT inspection, perform a mid span UT inspection of the 1st-stage LPC blades in accordance with the Accomplishment Instructions, Part B—Repetitive Inspection of All LPC Fan Blades After Their Return to Service, paragraphs 1.B. and C., of PW4G-112-A72-361.
(iii) Before exceeding 1,000 FCs since the last TAI inspection, and thereafter at intervals not exceeding 1,000 FCs since the last TAI inspection, perform repetitive TAI inspections of the 1st-stage LPC blades using a method approved by the FAA.
If any 1st-stage LPC blade fails any inspection required by paragraphs (g)(1) or (2) of this AD, before further flight, remove the 1st-stage LPC blade from service and replace with a part eligible for installation.
For the purpose of this AD, a “part eligible for installation” is a new, zero CSN 1st-stage LPC blade or a 1st-stage LPC blade that has passed the inspections required by paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD, as applicable.
Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are permitted provided that the actions in paragraphs (i)(1) and (2) of this AD have first been accomplished.
(1) A flow path UT inspection of the 1st-stage LPC blades for cracking has been done within the last 275 FCs, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions, Part A—Initial Inspection of All LPC Fan Blades Prior to their Return to Service, paragraph 1.A., of PW4G-112-A72-361, and the 1st-stage LPC blades have been found serviceable. This inspection is not required for 1st-stage LPC blades with 275 CSN or fewer.
(2) A functional check of the left and right hydraulic pump shutoff valves to ensure they close in response to the corresponding engine fire handle input and all applicable corrective actions (
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) and (i)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (j)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD.
(1) Paragraph 2. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction No. 85F21, dated May 12, 2021, for a flow path UT inspection.
(2) Paragraph 1.a) through c) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction No. 130F-21, dated July 1, 2021, for a flow path and a mid span UT inspection.
(3) Paragraph 2.a) through c) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction No. 130F-21, Revision A, dated July 28, 2021, for a flow path and a mid span UT inspection.
(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 (l) 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 of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Carol Nguyen, Aviation Safety Engineer, ECO Branch, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (781) 238-7655; fax: (781) 238-7199; 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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Pratt & Whitney Division, 400 Main Street, East Hartford, CT 06118; phone: (860) 565-0140; email:
(4) You may view this service information FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) 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 certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200
This AD is effective April 15, 2022.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 15, 2022.
For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket at
Luis Cortez-Muniz, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: (206) 231-3958; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The FAA received comments from The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), and two Anonymous commenters who supported the NPRM without change.
The FAA received additional comments from five commenters, including an Anonymous commenter, All Nippon Airways (ANA), Boeing, Japan Airlines (JAL), and United Airlines (UAL). The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing requested that the “Background” paragraph in the NPRM be revised to clarify that the failed hydraulic pump shutoff valve was not the direct cause of the uncontained engine fire. Boeing stated that flight data indicates that while the hydraulic pump shutoff valve failed to close, no hydraulic fluid was leaked from the system until well after the engine fire initiated.
Boeing proposed that two sentences in the “Background” paragraph of the NPRM be revised to, “Several flammable fluid lines, the engine accessory gearbox, and T/R structure were fractured
The FAA agrees with the commenter's clarification and did not intend to imply that the failed hydraulic pump shutoff valve was the direct cause of the uncontained engine fire. However, the detailed background information, which includes the sentences that the commenter proposed for the “Background” paragraph, are not carried over into the final rule. The FAA has not changed this final rule in this regard.
ANA, an Anonymous commenter, Boeing, and UAL requested the use of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-71A0085 and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-71A0093, for doing the actions in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD. Boeing stated that the description of the modification in the proposed AD is vague.
The FAA disagrees with allowing the use of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-71A0085 and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-71A0093 for the actions specified in paragraph (g) of this AD. The service bulletins are not yet FAA-approved. However, under the provisions of paragraph (j) of this AD, the FAA will consider requests for approval of the use of the service bulletins if sufficient data are submitted to substantiate that the service bulletins would provide an acceptable level of safety.
JAL requested that the FAA revise the AD to include certain exceptions for ferry flights. JAL stated it is planning to ferry affected airplanes to a storage point in the United States. JAL commented that although the local
The FAA disagrees with revising paragraph (c) Applicability or paragraph (g) Modification of this AD in response to JAL's comment. Paragraph (i), Special Flight Permit, provides that special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are permitted provided that the actions in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD have first been accomplished. 14 CFR 21.197(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that a special flight permit may be issued for flying the aircraft to a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance are to be performed, or to a point of storage. The requested change is already permitted by this AD. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.
ANA requested that in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, the FAA update the initial compliance time of “before further flight after the effective date of this AD” to “before the next revenue flight” to clarify the ferry flight requirement.
Similarly, JAL requested that in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, the FAA update the initial compliance time of “before further flight after the effective of this AD” to “before the next revenue flight” or “before further flight except the ferry flight without passenger and cargos.”
The FAA disagrees with revising the initial compliance time in paragraph (g) of this AD as requested by ANA and JAL. The FAA has determined it is necessary to require certain actions prior to any flight, except as permitted in paragraph (h), Special Flight Permit, of this AD.
UAL requested that the FAA provide a threshold in paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD for the flow path UT inspection. UAL stated that omitting a compliance time in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD for the special flight permits creates ambiguity regarding when and how often the flow path UT inspection is required for special flight permits. UAL suggested a threshold of 275 flight cycles since the last flow path UT inspection.
The FAA agrees to add a threshold of 275 cycles to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, which is specified in Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021. This allows airplanes with 1st-stage LPC blades that have accumulated 275 cycles since new or fewer to be eligible for a special flight permit.
UAL requested that the FAA revise paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD to add NPRM AD-2021-00830-E (86 FR 73699, December 28, 2021), as a method of compliance for the flow path ultrasonic testing (UT) inspection of the 1st-stage LPC blades.
The FAA disagrees with the commenter's request. The method of compliance in Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021, is the same as paragraph (i)(1) of NPRM AD-2021-00830-E (86 FR 73699, December 28, 2021) and paragraph (h)(1) of this AD. If the actions in the service information are accomplished, the requirements in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD will have been met, and therefore, no change to this AD has been made.
ANA and UAL requested that paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD include Task 29-11-00-710-806 of the Boeing 777-200/300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual as an acceptable method for accomplishing the functional check of the left and right hydraulic pump shutoff valves.
The FAA agrees with the commenter's request and has added Task 29-11-00-710-806 of Boeing 777-200/300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual to the “Other Related Service Information” paragraph and to Note (1) to paragraph (h)(2) of this AD as guidance for accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD.
UAL requested that if Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-71A0085 and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-71A0093 become an FAA-approved method of compliance, the FAA should delegate The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) authority to approve structural related AMOCs when deviations to the service documents are required.
The FAA acknowledges UAL's request, however as stated previously, the Boeing service bulletins are not yet FAA-approved, and therefore ODA authority is not granted at this time. In the future, should the service bulletins be approved as a method of compliance to this AD, the FAA may consider ODA authority delegation for approval of structural-related AMOCs for deviations to the approved method of compliance.
In the process of preparing this final rule, the FAA noticed that the unsafe condition statement could be improved regarding the initial effects of the fan blade failure and the airplane level unsafe outcomes that could result from each of those initial effects. Therefore, the FAA has updated the unsafe condition statement in this AD to clarify the specific causes and hazardous effects.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA reviewed Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for performing thermal acoustic image and ultrasonic testing inspections of 1st-stage LPC blades. 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 FAA reviewed Subtasks 26-21-00-200-018, 26-21-00-200-019, and 26-21-00-840-022, and Task 29-11-00-710-806, of Boeing 777-200/300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, dated September 5, 2021. The service information specifies procedures for performing a functional check of the engine-driven pump shutoff valve.
The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing other actions that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once these actions
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 54 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs that are part of the modification specified in 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 responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective April 15, 2022.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in any category, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD.
(1) Model 777-200 series airplanes equipped with Pratt & Whitney PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 model turbofan engines.
(2) Model 777-300 series airplanes equipped with Pratt & Whitney PW4090 and PW4098 model turbofan engines.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/pylons.
This AD was prompted by reports of three incidents involving in-flight fan blade failures on certain Pratt & Whitney engines. The FAA is issuing this AD to address engine fan blade failure, which could result in engine in-flight shutdown, and could result in separation of the inlet, the fan cowl doors, or the thrust reverser (T/R) cowl, or result in uncontrolled engine fire. Separation of the inlet, the fan cowl doors, or the T/R cowl could result in impact damage to the empennage and loss of control of the airplane, or to the fuselage or windows with potential injury to passengers; or it could result in significantly increased aerodynamic drag causing fuel exhaustion or the inability to maintain altitude above terrain during extended operations (ETOPS) flights, either of which could result in a forced off-airport landing and injury to passengers. Uncontrolled engine fire could result in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before further flight after the effective date of this AD, modify the engine inlet to withstand fan blade failure event loads, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA.
Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are permitted provided that the actions in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD have first been accomplished.
(1) A flow path ultrasonic testing (UT) inspection of the 1st-stage low-pressure compressor (LPC) blades for cracking has been done within the last 275 cycles, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions, Part A—Initial Inspection of All LPC Fan Blades Prior to their Return to Service, paragraph 1.A., of Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021, and the 1st-stage LPC blades have been found serviceable. This inspection is not required for 1st-stage LPC blades with 275 cycles since new or fewer.
(2) A functional check of the left and right hydraulic pump shutoff valves to ensure they close in response to the corresponding engine fire handle input and all applicable corrective actions (
Guidance for accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (h)(2) of this AD can be found in the “Engine-Driven Pump (EDP) Shutoff Valve Check” (Subtasks 26-21-00-200-018, 26-21-00-200-019, and 26-21-00-840-022, or Task 29-11-00-710-806) of Boeing 777-200/300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual.
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (i)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD.
(1) Paragraph 2. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction No. 85F-21, dated May 12, 2021, for a flow path UT inspection.
(2) Paragraph 1.a) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction No. 130F-21, dated July 1, 2021, for a flow path UT inspection.
(3) Paragraph 2.a) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction No. 130F-21, Revision A, dated July 28, 2021, for a flow path UT inspection.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards 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 (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Luis Cortez-Muniz, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: (206) 231-3958; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (4) of this AD.
(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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
(4) 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.
(5) 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,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. This AD was prompted by reports of three incidents involving in-flight fan blade failures on certain Pratt & Whitney engines (“fan blades” are also known as “1st-stage low-pressure compressor (LPC) blades”—these terms are used interchangeably in this AD). This AD requires installation of debris shields on the thrust reverser (T/R) inner wall at the left and right sides of the lower bifurcation, inspection of the fan cowl doors for moisture ingression, repetitive functional checks of the hydraulic pump shutoff valves to ensure they close in response to the fire handle input, and corrective actions if necessary. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 15, 2022.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this AD as of April 15, 2022.
For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket at
James Laubaugh, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3622; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain The Boeing Company Model 777-200 and -300 series airplanes. The NPRM published in the
The FAA received comments from The Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA) who supported the NPRM without change.
The FAA received additional comments from five commenters, including All Nippon Airways (ANA), Boeing, Japan Airlines (JAL), United Airlines (UAL), and an individual. The following presents the comments received on the NPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Boeing requested that the “Background” paragraph in the NPRM be revised to clarify that the failed hydraulic pump shutoff valve was not the direct cause of the uncontained engine fire. Boeing stated that flight data indicates that while the hydraulic pump shutoff valve failed to close, no hydraulic fluid was leaked from the system until well after the engine fire initiated.
Boeing proposed that two sentences in the “Background” paragraph of the NPRM be revised to, “Several flammable fluid lines, the engine accessory gearbox, and T/R structure were fractured
The FAA agrees with the commenter's clarification and did not intend to imply that the failed hydraulic pump shutoff valve was the direct cause of the uncontained engine fire. However, the detailed background information, which includes the sentences that the commenter proposed for the “Background” paragraph, are not carried over into the final rule. The FAA has not changed this final rule in this regard.
ANA requested clarification on whether Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-71A0092, dated January 13, 2022, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0103 will be allowed as an alternative method of compliance for the requirements in the proposed AD.
In addition, for the actions in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, Boeing and UAL requested the use of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0103 for installing debris shields on the T/R inner wall at the left and right sides of the lower bifurcation. Boeing and UAL also proposed the use of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-71A0092, dated January 13, 2022, for inspecting the fan cowl doors for moisture ingression. Boeing stated that the description of the modification in the proposed AD is vague.
The FAA agrees to allow the use of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-71A0092 RB, dated January 13, 2022, for the inspection of the fan cowl doors for moisture ingression. The FAA has revised the “Related Service Information under 1 CFR part 51” paragraph and paragraph (g)(2) of this AD accordingly. The FAA disagrees with allowing the use of Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0103 for the actions specified in paragraph (g)(1) of this AD because the service bulletin is not yet an FAA-approved service bulletin.
JAL requested that the FAA revise the AD to include certain exceptions for ferry flights. JAL stated it is planning to ferry affected airplanes to a storage point in the United States. JAL commented that although the local authority in Japan provides regulatory requirements for special flight permissions which are similar to 14 CFR 21.197, Special flight permits, the Japanese regulatory requirements do not include “to a point of storage” language for the purpose of the flights. JAL proposes to add the following wording to paragraphs (c) and (g) of the proposed AD, “except for ferry flights, without passenger and cargo, of the airplanes on which the actions specified in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD have been done.”
The FAA disagrees with revising paragraph (c) Applicability or paragraph (g) Required Actions of this AD in response to JAL's comment. Paragraph (i), Special Flight Permit, provides that special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are permitted provided that the actions in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD have first been accomplished. 14 CFR 21.197(a)(1) provides, in relevant part, that a special flight permit may be issued for flying the aircraft to a base where repairs, alterations, or maintenance are to be performed, or to a point of storage. The requested change is already permitted by this AD. The FAA did not change this AD as a result of this comment.
ANA requested that in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, the FAA update the initial compliance time of “before further flight after the effective of this AD” to “before the next revenue flight” to clarify the ferry flight requirement.
Similarly, JAL requested that in paragraph (g) of the proposed AD, the FAA update the initial compliance time of “before further flight after the effective of this AD” to “before the next revenue flight” or “before further flight except the ferry flight without passenger and cargos.”
The FAA disagrees with revising the initial compliance in paragraph (g) of this AD as requested by ANA and JAL. The FAA has determined it is necessary to require certain actions prior to any flight, except as permitted in paragraph (h), Special Flight Permit, of this AD.
JAL requested that the FAA add a note to paragraph (g)(3) of the proposed AD to clarify that the repetitive functional checks are not applicable to airplanes under storage or heavy check.
The FAA partially agrees with the commenter. The FAA did not intend for the repetitive functional checks of the left and right hydraulic pump shutoff valves to be performed every 10 days when the airplane is not flown. The FAA has revised the compliance time in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD to specify that the repetitive functional check is only required within 10 days prior to each flight. The FAA disagrees that a
JAL requested clarification for the use of revised NDIP documents for the flow path ultrasonic (UT) inspection of the 1st-stage LPC blades specified in paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD. JAL commented that Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021, references the UT inspection procedures in NDIP-1238, NDIP-1240, and NDIP-1241, which are currently at the original version. JAL asked if the submission of an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) request is necessary if the NDIPs are later revised to meet the requirements in paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD.
The FAA acknowledges that Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021, requires the latest FAA-approved revision of NDIP-1238, NDIP-1240, and NDIP-1241 at the time the inspection is accomplished. Furthermore, the FAA has provided credit for accomplishment of the flow path UT inspection identified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
JAL and UAL requested that the FAA provide a threshold in paragraph (h)(1) of the proposed AD for the last flow path UT inspection. JAL suggested a threshold of 275 flight cycles since the last flow path UT inspection for 1st-stage LPC blades that have zero cycles since new and also for 1st-stage LPC that have accumulated any number of cycles since new greater than zero.
UAL stated that omitting a compliance time in paragraph (h) of the proposed AD for the special flight permits creates ambiguity regarding when and how often the flow path UT inspection is required for special flight permits. UAL suggested a threshold of 275 flight cycles since the last flow path UT inspection.
The FAA agrees to add a threshold of 275 cycles to paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, which is specified in Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021. This allows airplanes with 1st-stage LPC blades that have accumulated 275 cycles since new or fewer to be eligible for a special flight permit.
ANA, JAL, and UAL requested that paragraph (h)(2) of the proposed AD include Task 29-11-00-710-806 of the Boeing 777-200/300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual as an acceptable method for accomplishing the functional check of the left and right hydraulic pump shutoff valves.
The FAA agrees with the commenter's request and has added Task 29-11-00-710-806 of Boeing 777-200/300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual to the “Other Related Service Information” paragraph and to Note (1) to paragraph (g)(3) of this AD as guidance for accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g)(3) and (h)(2) of this AD.
ANA requested that the FAA provide clarification of why affected operators will have to conduct required periodic testing [repetitive functional checks of the left and right hydraulic pump shutoff valves] even though Boeing recommends similar testing to be performed as a one-time check before return-to-service per Boeing MOM-MOM-21-0398-01B. ANA also requested clarification whether the repetitive 10 day interval continues until a terminating action has been found.
The FAA infers that ANA considers the low average failure rate per flight hour of the hydraulic pump shutoff valve in service to justify the performance of the one-time check of the hydraulic pump shutoff valve described in the Boeing MOM-MOM-21-0398-01B, combined with the existing maintenance program recommendation to check the function of the hydraulic pump shutoff valve at 18,000 flight hour intervals, as providing an acceptable level of safety. The FAA does not agree. Investigation of the February 2021 incident, as specified in the proposed AD, revealed that the hydraulic pump shutoff valve, which is remotely controlled by electrical switches, does not have an indication to the flightcrew to indicate when the hydraulic pump shutoff valve has failed to move to the commanded position. The hydraulic pump shutoff valve failed to close when commanded via the engine fire handle in that incident. Failure of this hydraulic pump shutoff valve to close in response to commands in the event of an engine fire could lead to flammable fluid continuing to be supplied to an engine fire for a prolonged period, potentially resulting in an uncontained fire that jeopardizes flight safety. The FAA has determined that this issue is an unsafe condition requiring corrective action.
For transport airplanes, the determination that an unsafe condition exists is based on several criteria, and the failure to meet one or more of the criteria could lead the FAA to determine that corrective action is warranted.
For each identified potential safety issue on a transport airplane, the FAA examines the risk on the worst reasonably anticipated flights (flights actually predicted to occur) to ensure that each flight provides an acceptable level of safety (identified as “individual flight risk” in FAA risk analysis policy). That acceptable level of safety consists of three basic expectations:
• That each flight begins in a fail-safe state (including consideration of latent failure conditions and allowed dispatch states under the minimum equipment list (MEL)), meaning that a foreseeable single failure on any anticipated flight should not have a significant likelihood of causing a catastrophic event.
• That each flight does not have a numerical risk of a catastrophic event due to the issue being examined that is excessively (an order of magnitude or more) greater than the risk of a catastrophic event on an average transport airplane.
• That safety features that were prescriptively required due to lessons learned from past incidents and accidents are not excessively reduced in their effectiveness or availability.
Failure to meet any of these three criteria can lead to a determination that an unsafe condition exists and AD action is necessary, because the level of safety on the affected flights does not meet the FAA's thresholds for an acceptable level of safety on individual flights.
For each identified potential safety issue, the FAA also assesses the total cumulative risk of an event occurring at any time in the remaining life of the fleet of affected airplanes (identified as “total fleet risk” in FAA risk analysis policy). The FAA may determine that corrective action is needed to limit total fleet risk even when the assessed individual flight risk does not violate any of the three individual flight risk criteria discussed above. Total fleet risk is typically assessed by multiplying the average probabilities of each of the failures or other factors that contribute to the occurrence of an event, the total number of airplanes affected, the average utilization of those airplanes, and the average remaining life for those airplanes. The FAA also considers the number of occupants of an aircraft in assessing fleet risk, and applies total
Either excessive individual flight risk or excessive total fleet risk, or both, can lead the FAA to determine that an unsafe condition exists that requires corrective action. The FAA does not use or accept calculations of acceptable total fleet risk, or acceptable average per-flight-hour risk, as a justification for taking no action on issues where an excessive individual flight risk is determined to exist on flights that are anticipated to occur.
In this case, the FAA determined that corrective action is necessary under the individual flight risk guideline above to minimize the occurrence of flights that are not fail safe for an engine fire due to latent failure of the hydraulic pump shutoff valve. The repetitive functional check will minimize the number of flights that occur with a latent failure of the hydraulic pump shutoff valve. The FAA determined that the 10-day interval for the inspections required by paragraph (g) of this AD is practical and provides an acceptable level of safety.
Additionally, regarding the commenter's request as to whether the repetitive 10-day interval continues until a terminating action has been found, the FAA has determined that the repetitive functional check of the left and right hydraulic pump shutoff valves is required until an alternative corrective action is approved.
UAL requested that Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-71A0092, dated January 13, 2022, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0103 be added to paragraph (i) of the proposed AD as credit for actions that were previously accomplished in paragraph (g)(1) and (2) of the proposed AD. UAL also requested that credit be given in paragraphs (i)(2) and (3) of the proposed AD for doing a mid span UT inspection, in addition to providing credit for doing a flow path UT inspection.
The FAA partially agrees with the commenter's requests. The FAA has not yet approved a method of compliance for paragraph (g)(1) of this AD using a specific service bulletin, and therefore, credit cannot be provided. As previously mentioned the FAA has revised paragraph (g)(2) of this AD allowing for accomplishment of the inspection using Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-71A0092 RB, dated January 13, 2022 (original revision), and therefore, credit is not necessary. Although Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction No. 130F-21, dated July 1, 2021, and Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction No. 130F-21, Revision A, dated July 28, 2021, include instructions for a mid span UT inspection, the special flight permit paragraph in this AD does not include a requirement for the mid span UT inspection, and therefore, credit is not necessary. However, the FAA has retained the credit specified in paragraph (i) of this AD for doing the flow path UT inspection.
UAL requested that if Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-71A0092, dated January 13, 2022, and Boeing Alert Service Bulletin 777-78A0103 become a FAA-approved method of compliance, the FAA should delegate The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) authority to approve structural related AMOCs when deviations to the service documents are required.
The FAA partially agrees with the commenter. For Boeing service bulletins that are not yet FAA-approved, the ODA authority is not granted at this time. However, for Boeing service bulletins that are FAA-approved, the FAA has added a provision in paragraph (j)(3) of this AD for delegation to The Boeing Company ODA for approval of certain AMOCs. This provision allows Boeing to propose to the FAA the types of AMOCs that may be approved by The Boeing Company ODA.
An individual commenter stated that there are only 54 airplanes flying in the United States that need inspections and believes that someone who is involved in the professional side of the NPRM should be required to be present while the airplane is being inspected to ensure it is being done correctly. The commenter believes this will allow the airplane to be inspected the same across the board rather than each operator inspecting it differently. The commenter also believes that the NPRM has been needed since the first account of the fan blade failure.
The FAA infers that the commenter is suggesting additional FAA oversight is necessary for the fan cowl door moisture ingression inspections required by this AD. The FAA has reviewed the service information for the fan cowl door moisture ingression inspections and has determined that the FAA's existing oversight activity for operators performing such inspections provide an acceptable level of safety. The FAA has not changed this final rule in this regard.
In the process of preparing this final rule, the FAA noticed that the unsafe condition statement could be improved regarding the initial effects of the fan blade failure and the airplane level unsafe outcomes that could result from each of those initial effects. Therefore, the FAA has updated the unsafe condition statement in this AD to clarify the specific causes and hazardous effects.
The FAA reviewed the relevant data, considered any comments received, and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Except for minor editorial changes, and any other changes described previously, this AD is adopted as proposed in the NPRM. None of the changes will increase the economic burden on any operator.
The FAA has reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-71A0092 RB, dated January 13, 2022. This service information specifies procedures for inspecting the fan cowl doors for moisture ingression. The FAA also reviewed Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for performing thermal acoustic image and ultrasonic testing inspections of 1st-stage LPC blades. 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 FAA also reviewed Subtasks 26-21-00-200-018, 26-21-00-200-019, and 26-21-00-840-022, and Task 29-11-00-710-806, of Boeing 777-200/300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual, dated September 5, 2021. The service information specifies procedures for performing a functional check of the engine-driven pump shutoff valve.
The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. The manufacturer is currently developing other actions that will address the unsafe condition identified in this AD. Once these actions are developed, approved, and available, the FAA might consider additional rulemaking.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 54 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition corrective actions (
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed 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 April 15, 2022.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company airplanes, certificated in any category, as specified in paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this AD.
(1) Model 777-200 series airplanes equipped with Pratt & Whitney PW4074, PW4074D, PW4077, PW4077D, PW4084D, PW4090, and PW4090-3 model turbofan engines.
(2) Model 777-300 series airplanes equipped with Pratt & Whitney PW4090 and PW4098 model turbofan engines.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 71, Powerplant.
This AD was prompted by reports of three incidents involving in-flight fan blade failures on certain Pratt & Whitney engines. The FAA is issuing this AD to address engine fan blade failure, which could result in engine in-flight shutdown, and could result in separation of the inlet, the fan cowl doors, or the thrust reverser (T/R) cowl, or result in uncontrolled engine fire. Separation of the inlet, the fan cowl doors, or the T/R cowl could result in impact damage to the empennage and loss of control of the airplane, or to the fuselage or windows with potential injury to passengers; or it could result in significantly increased aerodynamic drag causing fuel exhaustion or the inability to maintain altitude above terrain during extended operations (ETOPS) flights, either of which could result in a forced off-airport landing and injury to passengers. Uncontrolled engine fire could result in loss of control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Before further flight after the effective date of this AD, do the actions specified in paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of this AD. Repeat the functional check specified in paragraph (g)(3) of this AD within 10 days prior to each flight.
(1) Install debris shields on the T/R inner wall at the left and right sides of the lower bifurcation, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA.
(2) Inspect the fan cowl doors for moisture ingression in accordance with paragraphs (g)(2)(i) or (ii) of this AD, as applicable.
(i) Do the inspection in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA. If any moisture ingression is found, repair before further flight, in accordance with a method approved by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA.
(ii) Do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-71A0092 RB, dated January 13, 2022, except where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-71A0092 RB, dated January 13, 2022, specifies to report inspection findings, this AD does not require any report, and where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-71A0092 RB, dated January 13, 2022, specifies to contact
(3) Do a functional check of the left and right hydraulic pump shutoff valves to ensure they close in response to the corresponding engine fire handle input. If any hydraulic pump shutoff valve does not close, before further flight perform corrective actions until it closes in response to the corresponding engine fire handle input.
Guidance for accomplishing the actions required by paragraphs (g)(3) and (h)(2) of this AD can be found in the “Engine-Driven Pump (EDP) Shutoff Valve Check” (Subtasks 26-21-00-200-018, 26-21-00-200-019, and 26-21-00-840-022; or Task 29-11-00-710-806) of Boeing 777-200/300 Aircraft Maintenance Manual.
Special flight permits, as described in 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, are permitted provided that the actions in paragraphs (h)(1) and (2) of this AD have first been accomplished.
(1) A flow path ultrasonic testing (UT) inspection of the 1st-stage low-pressure compressor (LPC) blades for cracking has been done within the last 275 cycles, as specified in the Accomplishment Instructions, Part A—Initial Inspection of All LPC Fan Blades Prior to their Return to Service, paragraph 1.A., of Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021, and the 1st-stage LPC blades have been found serviceable. This inspection is not required for 1st-stage LPC blades with 275 cycles since new or fewer.
(2) A functional check of the left and right hydraulic pump shutoff valves to ensure they close in response to the corresponding engine fire handle input and all applicable corrective actions (
This paragraph provides credit for the actions specified in paragraph (h)(1) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using the service information specified in paragraph (i)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD.
(1) Paragraph 2. of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction No. 85F-21, dated May 12, 2021, for a flow path UT inspection.
(2) Paragraph 1.a) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction No. 130F-21, dated July 1, 2021, for a flow path UT inspection.
(3) Paragraph 2.a) of the Accomplishment Instructions of Pratt & Whitney Special Instruction No. 130F-21, Revision A, dated July 28, 2021, for a flow path UT inspection.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards 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 (k)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact James Laubaugh, Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3622; email:
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (l)(3) and (4) of this AD.
(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 the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 777-71A0092 RB, dated January 13, 2022.
(ii) Pratt & Whitney Alert Service Bulletin PW4G-112-A72-361, dated October 15, 2021.
(3) For Boeing service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
(4) 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.
(5) 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,
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Correction to a correction of a Treasury Decision.
This document corrects a correction to a final regulations (Treasury Decision 9960) published in the
These corrections are effective on March 11, 2022, and applicable on or after February 22, 2022.
Edward J. Tracy at (202) 317-6934 (not a toll-free number).
The final regulations (TD 9960) subject to this correction are issued under section 958 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published on February 22, 2022 (87 FR 9445), the final regulations (TD 9960) contain errors that need to be corrected.
Accordingly, the publication of the correction to a final regulation (TD 9960), which was the subject of FR Doc. 2022-03611, published on February 22, 2022 (87 FR 9445), is corrected to read as follows:
1. On page 9445, first column, under the caption RIN, the language “1545-BO59” is corrected to read “1545-BP79”.
2. On page 9445, first column, the subject heading, the language
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of Connecticut. This revision approves into the Connecticut SIP state regulations that apply restrictions on emissions of criteria pollutants for which EPA has established National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Separately, we are also approving Connecticut regulations that apply restrictions on emissions of hazardous air pollutants (HAPs). The Connecticut regulations impose legally and practicably enforceable emissions limitations restricting eligible sources' actual and potential emissions below major stationary source thresholds, if a source chooses to be covered by the regulations. Such restrictions generally allow eligible sources to avoid having to comply with reasonably available control technology (RACT) that would otherwise apply to major stationary sources, title V operating permit requirements, or other requirements that apply only to major stationary sources. This action is being taken under the Clean Air Act.
This rule is effective on April 11, 2022. The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of April 11, 2022.
EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket Identification No. EPA-R01-OAR-2020-0719. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Susan Lancey, Air Permits, Toxics and Indoor Programs Branch, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Region 1, 5 Post Office Square—Suite 100, (Mail code 05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912, telephone 617-918-1656, email
Throughout this document whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On February 8, 2021 (86 FR 8574), EPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for the State of Connecticut.
The NPRM proposed approval of a SIP revision consisting of Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies (RCSA) section 22a-174-33a, Limit on Premises-wide Actual Emissions Below 50% of Title V Thresholds, effective September 24, 2020, and RCSA section 22a-174-33b, Limit on Premises-wide Actual Emissions Below 80% of Title V Thresholds, effective September 24, 2020, as the regulations relate to criteria pollutants. The Connecticut regulations impose legally and practicably enforceable emissions limitations restricting eligible sources' actual and potential emissions below major stationary source thresholds, if a source chooses to be covered by the regulations. The NPRM separately proposed approval of RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b under section 112(l) of the CAA, as the regulations relate to HAPs. As noted earlier, RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b are designed to limit air pollutant emissions from major stationary sources to below major stationary source thresholds by including legally and practicably enforceable restrictions on potential and actual emissions.
The formal SIP revision was submitted by Connecticut on October 26, 2020, supplemented on January 12, 2022. In the January 12, 2022 letter, Connecticut requested to withdraw provision RCSA 22a-174-33b(d)(6) from consideration as part of the SIP, clarified its interpretation of several provisions, and provided additional information concerning implementation of the regulations.
Connecticut submitted a December 21, 2020 letter requesting approval of RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b under section 112(l) of the CAA.
The rationale for EPA's proposed approval of the SIP revision and CAA 112(l) submittal is explained in the NPRM and will not be restated here.
We received three comments that supported this action. One commenter stated that they support approval of the rule. One commenter stated it is important that air quality plans are passed and that clean air quality is crucial for anyone in any state. One commenter supports approval of the rule and believes that a limit on emissions should occur because of concerns that an increase of pollution affects air quality; the commenter also made additional statements not germane to this action. The following provides our responses to adverse comments received.
The commenter was concerned that Section (d)(4)(B) suffers from similar flaws as discussed above but much worse. For example, the commenter asserted that stack tests are not performed during startups or shutdowns. The commenter stated that by using stack test data to calculate “actual” emissions on an annual basis, Section (d)(4)(B) ignores an important part of the problem, that is actual emissions during periods of startup, shutdown, process malfunctions, control equipment malfunctions or operations at different parameters that are not startup and shutdown. The commenter stated that the problem isn't limited to startup or shutdown. The commenter stated that the fact that a source emitted at a certain rate during a stack test does not prove that a source emits at that same rate every other hour that it operates. The commenter stated that this flaw is further compounded by the lack of a requirement for the frequency of stack testing, because a stack test performed 20 years ago, for example, provides no reliable data on current emissions.
The commenter was concerned that Section (d)(4)(C) of Connecticut's regulation suffers from the same problems discussed above but noted that it also ignores a host of other considerations. The commenter questioned whether, for example, the source that is going to use this rule is defective in some way or not properly installed. The commenter stated that if that is the case, the manufacturers' testing doesn't provide reliable data on emissions from the source in question. The commenter pointed to the introduction section of AP-42, Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors, which states “Average emissions differ significantly from source to source and, therefore, emission factors frequently may not provide adequate estimates of the average emissions for a specific source. The extent of between-source variability that exists, even among similar individual sources, can be large depending on process, control system, and pollutant. Although the causes of this variability are considered in emission factor development, this type of information is seldom included in emission test reports used to develop AP-42 factors.” As a result, some emission factors are derived from tests that may vary by an order of magnitude or more. Similarly, the commenter was concerned whether the conditions of the source in any way match the conditions of the manufacturer's test. The commenter stated that if the manufacturer did its testing in a high-altitude desert, that could create radically different conditions from sea level winter conditions than a source in Connecticut faces. The commenter stated that this difference in altitude and weather can result in very different combustion and evaporation conditions which change emissions.
The commenter was concerned that Sections (d)(4)(D) and (E) are much worse than prior sections of Connecticut's regulation and use calculations which are in no way rationally related to actual emissions. The commenter believes that these sections allow the use of absolutely no actual emissions data to determine “actual” emissions and that they suffer from most of the same faults discussed above. Furthermore, the commenter questioned how a pertinent material balance would account for thermal NO
Therefore, the commenter believes EPA must disapprove this SIP submittal.
The commenter submitted the same comments in relation to Connecticut's regulation at RCSA 22a-174-33b.
Connecticut's RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and 22a-174-33b require the owner or operator committing to operate pursuant to the applicable regulations to submit a notification to the State and to keep records that include, among other things, calculation of a source's actual emissions on a monthly and 12-month rolling basis for regulated air pollutants and a detailed description of the methodology used to calculate those actual emissions. The methodology used by an eligible source to calculate emissions must be selected from a preferential hierarchy of methodologies explicitly identified in the regulations.
The commenter cites generally to
Connecticut's approach was developed in accordance with an EPA guidance document titled “Options for Limiting Potential to Emit of a Stationary Source under Section 112 and Title V of the Clean Air Act,” issued by John Seitz, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS) to EPA Air Division Directors, dated January 25, 1995
To make a PAL enforceable as a practical matter, the EPA regulations require a source to conduct monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting of the actual emissions of a PAL pollutant on a 12-month rolling total basis. A PAL monitoring system must employ one or more of four general approaches meeting minimum requirements specified in the regulations. These include mass balance calculations for activities using coatings or solvents, CEMS, continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) or predictive emissions monitoring systems (PEMS), and emission factors. 40 CFR 52.21(aa)(12)(i)(
As stated above, EPA's January 25, OAQPS PTE memorandum and EPA's 2002 final rule provide specific criteria for practical enforceability to be achieved. Connecticut's rules include requirements that meet these criteria. Specifically, 33a(d) and 33b(d) specify technically-accurate emission limitations that apply premises-wide on a 12-month rolling annual basis. Sections 33a(d) and 33b(d) specify a preferential hierarchy for determining compliance with the emission limitations, as well as monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping. In addition, Sections 33a(g) and 33b(h) require a notification to the permitting
In addition to providing practical enforceability criteria, the January 25, 1995 OAQPS PTE memo indicates that one approach to establishing appropriately enforceable limitations is by general rules creating enforceable restrictions at one time for many sources. The memo discusses a California model rule developed in consultation with EPA as an example of such an approach. The California model rule is designed to place smaller sources under annual emissions limits which restrict their “potential to emit” and thus their exposure to “major source” requirements of the Clean Air Act. The California model rule ensures compliance with the annual limit through a series of recordkeeping and reporting requirements. These requirements are tapered to reduce burdens as source size (as it relates to emissions) decreases. The California model rule provides a hierarchy of data for sources to calculate actual emissions for every consecutive 12-month period.
Connecticut's RCSA Sections 33a and 33b are consistent with the approach taken in the California model rule, cited approvingly as an example by EPA. The California model rule and Connecticut's rules require a detailed hierarchy for sources to calculate emissions. Specifically, Connecticut's Section 22a-174-33a(d)(4) requires:
(A) If data are available from CEM equipment, such data shall be used to determine the rate of emissions. Only CEM installed, operated, and certified in accordance with a permit or order, regulation issued or administered by the Commissioner or the Administrator, or a Commissioner approved voluntarily installed CEM may be used to satisfy the requirements of this subdivision;
(B) If the data in subparagraph (A) of this subdivision are unavailable but stack testing data are available, such stack testing data shall be used to determine the rate of emissions, provided such testing was conducted in accordance with protocols approved in writing by the Commissioner or the Administrator in advance of testing and a representative of the Commissioner or the Administrator was provided the opportunity to witness such testing;
(C) If the data in subparagraphs (A) and (B) of this subdivision are unavailable, the rate of emissions shall be calculated using data supplied by the manufacturer of the subject emission unit or units, which data were derived from EPA approved emissions testing of such unit performed by or for the manufacturer;
(D) If the data in subparagraphs (A), (B) and (C) of this subdivision are unavailable, the rate of emissions shall be calculated using data derived from an analysis of pertinent material balances;
(E) If the data in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C) and (D) of this subdivision are unavailable, the rate of emissions shall be calculated using the data or emissions estimation technique from the following EPA publications that results in the
(i) Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors (AP-42),
(ii) AIRS Facility Subsystem Emission Factors, or
(iii) The Emission Inventory Improvement Program; and
(F) If the data in subparagraphs (A), (B), (C), (D) and (E) of this subdivision are not available, the emission rate shall be calculated using another source of emissions data that is approved by the Commissioner and the Administrator. Such approval shall be obtained prior to operating in accordance with this section.
Connecticut's rules include a preferential hierarchy to use the best data to calculate actual emissions when available. Actual emissions are required to be calculated for the premises for each and every consecutive 12-month period. Connecticut set the emissions limitation in Section 33a at 50% of the major source threshold to create a sufficient buffer to account for variability that may exist in calculating emissions using the methods allowed in the preferential hierarchy. Section 33b sets the premises wide limit to below 80% of the major source threshold for certain source categories and requires additional monitoring and recordkeeping for these source categories.
In addition to the preferential hierarchy, Connecticut's RCSA Sections 33a and 33b also require detailed records and emissions calculations including a log of:
(i) The total amount of fuels, solvents, coatings, raw materials, or other such material, used by each emission unit during each month,
(ii) An identification of such fuels, solvents, coatings, raw materials, or other such material used, by each emission unit during each month,
(iii) The actual operating hours of each emission unit during each month, as necessary to calculate emissions,
(iv) Any other documentation the Commissioner deems necessary to reliably calculate the emission of air pollutants regulated under this section, and
(v) All purchase orders, invoices, Material Safety Data Sheets, test results, certifications or other documents necessary to verify information and calculations in the monthly log.
In addition, Connecticut's RCSA 33a and 33b require sources to maintain a log of annual actual emissions of each regulated air pollutant emitted from the premises, including a detailed description of the methodology the owner or operator used to calculate such emissions and the basis thereof.
Connecticut's 33a and 33b also require the facility to submit annual compliance certifications. Section 33b, which limits sources to up to, but not more than, 80% of the major title v operating source threshold, requires sources with actual emissions >50% of the major source threshold to report emissions for each and every 12-month period. Sections 33a and 33b further allow DEEP to request any additional information in writing to verify actual emissions. (See RCSA 22a-174-33a(f) and 33b(g)) Connecticut's rules also require sources to maintain records of any other documentation the Commissioner deems necessary to reliably calculate the emission of air pollutants regulated. (See RCSA 22a-174-33a(e)(1)(B)(iv) and 33b(f)(1)(B)(iv))
In addition to this regulatory oversight of sources by the State, in a letter dated January 12, 2022, Connecticut provided that:
DEEP has a robust federally enforceable minor source new source review (NSR) permit program that governs operations of individual pieces of equipment. Section 22a-174-33a and Section 22a-174-33b do not shield pieces of equipment from Connecticut's minor source NSR program. Consequently, pieces of equipment subject to minor source NSR at facilities operating under RCSA Section 22a-174-33a or Section 22a-174-33b would be subject to Best Achievable Control Technology, ambient air quality impact analysis, monitoring, record keeping and reporting to assure compliance with individual pollutant limits contained in the permits. Permits for many pieces of equipment require periodic emissions testing and/or continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) to assure compliance with permit limits. The permits contain limits on allowable materials, material composition and material throughput and include monitoring, record keeping and reporting to assure that sources are operating as expected. Where applicable, many permits limit startup and shutdown emissions and require
Finally, concerning DEEP's compliance oversight of sources operating under RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and -33b, DEEP offers the following information. . . . DEEP's five-year inspection frequency for RCSA section 22a-174-33b sources is consistent with the frequency stipulated in EPA's CAA CMS policy for synthetic minor 80 percent (SM-80) sources. Note that under EPA's CAA CMS, an SM-80 source is one with a premises-wide potential to emit (including any federally or legally and practicably enforceable physical or operational limitations on such source's capacity) greater than or equal to 80% and less than 100% of the major source thresholds, whereas an RCSA section 22a-174-33b source is limited to premises-wide emissions less than 80% of the major source thresholds. See EPA's CAA Stationary Source CMS, October 2016, section IV [available in the docket for this rulemaking]. Since EPA's CMS does not establish a minimum inspection frequency for true minor sources or synthetic minor sources that do not qualify as SM-80s, the five-year FCE [full compliance evaluation] frequency to which DEEP has committed for the RCSA section 22a-174-33b source universe is more stringent than required by EPA's CMS.
Sources operating under RCSA section 22a-174-33a are subject to inspection at DEEP's discretion. Such inspections may take the form of an on-site FCE or an off-site partial compliance evaluation (
In inspecting synthetic minor sources operating under RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and -33b, DEEP ensures proper calculation of facility-wide emissions, including the appropriateness of the selected emission factors, pursuant to the hierarchy of emission calculation methodologies established in subsection (d)(4) of either regulation. This approach is consistent with DEEP's handling of sources previously registered under DEEP's General Permit to Limit the Potential to Emit (GPLPE). In inspecting sources that calculate emissions using CEMS data, DEEP ensures that such CEMS meet applicable performance specifications, quality assurance (QA) requirements, and operational requirements by (i) reviewing relative accuracy test audit (RATA) protocols and results and auditing such test programs as resources allow; (ii) reviewing quarterly excess emission and downtime reports; (iii) verifying that the required QA activities are completed and passed; and (iv) during on-site FCEs, conducting a physical inspection of the CEMS. In inspecting sources that calculate emissions using stack test data, DEEP ensures the validity of stack testing—including the utilization of appropriate test methods, conformance with such methods, and the proper reduction and accuracy of the test results—by reviewing all stack test protocols and results and auditing such test programs as resources allow. Furthermore, DEEP verifies that testing is conducted under the most challenging representative operating conditions.
Furthermore, consistent with its handling of GPLPE reports, DEEP reviews all reports submitted in accordance with RCSA sections 22a-174-33a and -33b upon their submission, including annual compliance certifications; emission exceedance reports; and, for sources operating under RCSA section 22a-174-33b, annual emission reports. In reviewing emission reports, DEEP ensures proper calculation of facility-wide emissions, including the appropriateness of the selected emission factors, pursuant to the hierarchy of emission calculation methodologies established in the regulations.
In summary, Connecticut's regulatory scheme includes significant oversight; emission limitations containing a sufficient buffer below the major source thresholds to account for variability that may exist in calculating emissions; the requirement to use methods to calculate emissions from a preferential hierarchy; and requirements for monitoring, reporting and recordkeeping. The overall regulatory scheme is based on a model rule contained in EPA guidance, California's model rule, and establishes a program that EPA finds legally and practicably enforceable to limit a sources potential to emit.
While EPA provides a general response to the adverse comment above, for purposes of clarity, below we have broken down the comment into its specific parts and provide additional responses for specific issues raised within the comment.
EPA acknowledges that in the AP-42 Introduction document we state that use of these factors as source-specific permit limits and/or as emission regulation compliance determinations is not recommended by EPA. However, we also state that emission factors are frequently the best or only method available for estimating emissions, despite their limitations. And we further provide that if representative source-specific data cannot be obtained, emissions information from equipment vendors, particularly emission performance guarantees or actual test data from similar equipment, is a better source of information for permitting decisions than an AP-42 emission factor. When such information is not available, use of AP-42 emission factors may be necessary as a last resort. Sources that reach this level of the data hierarchy in Connecticut's rules would typically be the smallest sources of emissions and it would be unreasonably costly to require such small sources to install a CEMS or conduct a stack test to calculate emissions for purposes of demonstrating emissions remain below the major source thresholds.
In addition, Connecticut's rule is written to provide a sufficient buffer below the major source threshold by setting the premises wide limit in Connecticut's 33a to below 50% of the major source threshold, or alternatively, setting the premises wide limit in Connecticut's 33b to below 80% of the major source threshold for certain source categories with additional required monitoring and recordkeeping. In light of all the material provisions of Connecticut's regulatory scheme including the buffer below the major source thresholds, the possibility of the use of AP-42 emissions factors when other data in the hierarchy are not available does not render the PTE limits practicably unenforceable.
EPA is approving Connecticut's RCSA section 22a-174-33a, Limit on Premises-wide Actual Emissions Below 50% of Title V Thresholds, effective September 24, 2020, and RCSA section 22a-174-33b, Limit on Premises-wide Actual Emissions Below 80% of Title V Thresholds, effective September 24, 2020 (excluding the following provision: RCSA 22a-174-33b(d)(6)) as a revision to the Connecticut SIP with respect to criteria pollutants and is separately approving the regulations under section 112(l) of the Act with respect to HAPs. EPA is approving Connecticut's request in accordance with the requirements of sections 110 and 112 of the CAA.
In this rule, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Connecticut Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth below. The EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents generally available through
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by May 10, 2022. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2))
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Part 52 of chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(c) * * *
(127) Revisions to the State Implementation Plan submitted by the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection on October 26, 2020, supplemented on January 12, 2022.
(i)
(B) Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies section 22a-174-33b, Limit on Premises-wide Actual Emissions Below 80% of Title V Thresholds, effective September 24, 2020, excluding section (d)(6).
(ii)
(B) Letter from the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection dated January 12, 2022, withdrawing Regulations of Connecticut State Agencies section 22a-174-33b(d)(6) from its SIP submittal.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of calcium sulfate when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils, limited to 100 parts per million (ppm) in the final formulation. Exponent, Inc. on behalf of Tygrus, LLC, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of calcium sulfate when used in accordance with this exemption.
This regulation is effective March 11, 2022. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 10, 2022, and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0642, is available at
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is open to visitors by appointment only. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and access, visit
Marietta Echeverria, Registration Division (7505P), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; 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).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0642 in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 10, 2022. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0642, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .”
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for calcium sulfate including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with calcium sulfate follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by calcium sulfate as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies can be found at
Acute oral toxicity, primary dermal and eye irritation, acute inhalation toxicity and dermal sensitization studies are available for calcium sulfate. The acute oral toxicity of calcium sulfate is low. The acute oral LD50 (lethal dose) in rats is greater than 2,000 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg). Acute inhalation toxicity is also low; the LC
Based on the toxicity database for calcium sulfate, no toxicity is observed in a combined repeated dose toxicity study with the reproduction/developmental screening test in rats at the limit dose of 1,000 mg/kg/day. No mutagenicity is seen in the Ames or in the mammalian erythrocyte micronucleus tests.
Neurotoxicity and immunotoxicity toxicity studies for calcium sulfate are not available for review. However, no evidence of neurotoxicity or immunotoxicity is seen in the available studies.
The available toxicity studies indicate that calcium sulfate has a very low overall toxicity. No toxicity was observed in any of the available studies. Since no endpoint of concern was identified for the acute and chronic dietary exposure assessment and short and intermediate dermal and inhalation exposure, a quantitative risk assessment for calcium sulfate is not necessary.
1.
Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to calcium sulfate may occur following ingestion of foods with residues from use in accordance with this exemption (
2.
Calcium sulfate may be used in pesticide products and non-pesticide products that may be used in and around the home (
3.
Based on the lack of toxicity in the available data, calcium sulfate and its
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database unless EPA concludes that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. Based on the lack of threshold effects, EPA has not identified any toxicological endpoints of concern and is conducting a qualitative assessment of calcium sulfate. The qualitative assessment does not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children. Based on an assessment of calcium sulfate, EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children.
Taking into consideration all available information on calcium sulfate, EPA has determined that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children, from aggregate exposure to calcium sulfate residues. Therefore, the establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance under 40 CFR 180.940(a) for residues of calcium sulfate when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils limited to 100 ppm in the final formulation, is safe under FFDCA section 408.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is not establishing a numerical tolerance for residues of calcium sulfate in or on any food commodities. EPA is establishing a limitation on the amount of calcium sulfate that may be used in antimicrobial pesticide formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils. This limitation will be enforced through the pesticide registration process under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. 136
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established under 40 CFR 180. 940(a) for calcium sulfate when used as an inert ingredient in antimicrobial formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils limited to 100 ppm in the final formulation.
This action establishes a tolerance exemption under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the tolerance exemption in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) and Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000) do not apply to this action. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable duty or contain any unfunded mandate as described under Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1501
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Correcting amendment.
This document corrects an error in the regulatory text of a
Effective March 11, 2022.
Jesse Jachman, Wireline Competition Bureau, (202) 418-7400.
This summary contains a correction to the regulatory text of a
Communications common carriers, Health facilities, Infants and children, internet, Libraries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Telecommunications, Telephone.
Accordingly, 47 CFR part 54 is corrected by making the following correcting amendment:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 155, 201, 205, 214, 219, 220, 229, 254, 303(r), 403, 1004, 1302, and 1601-1609, unless otherwise noted.
(b) * * *
(7) Recipients of Uniendo a Puerto Rico Fund Stage 2 fixed and Connect USVI Fund fixed Stage 2 fixed support shall provide: On an annual basis by the last business day of the second calendar month following each service milestone in § 54.1506, a certification that by the end of the prior support year, it was offering broadband meeting the requisite public interest obligations specified in § 54.1507 to the required percentage of its supported locations in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands as set forth in § 54.1506. The annual certification shall quantify the carrier's progress toward or, as applicable, completion of deployment in accordance with the resilience and redundancy commitments in its application and in accordance with the detailed network plan it submitted to the Wireline Competition Bureau.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service or we) is issuing this final rule, in accordance with the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Inflation Adjustment Act) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, to adjust for inflation the statutory civil monetary penalties that may be assessed for violations of Service-administered statutes and their implementing regulations. We are required to adjust civil monetary penalties annually for inflation according to a formula specified in the Inflation Adjustment Act. This rule replaces the previously issued amounts with the updated amounts after using the 2022 inflation adjustment multiplier provided in the OMB guidance.
This rule is March 11, 2022.
This rule may be found on the internet at
Victoria Owens, Special Agent in Charge, Branch of Investigations, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Law Enforcement, (703) 358-1949. Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
The regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR part 11 provide uniform rules and procedures for the assessment of civil penalties resulting from violations of certain laws and regulations enforced by the Service.
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (Inflation Adjustment Act) required Federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch up” adjustment through rulemaking and then make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to further the policy goals of the underlying statutes.
Under section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Inflation Adjustment Act, each Federal agency is required to issue regulations adjusting for inflation the statutory civil monetary penalties (civil penalties) that can be imposed under the laws administered by that agency. The Inflation Adjustment Act provided that the initial “catch up adjustment” take effect no later than August 1, 2016, followed by subsequent adjustments to be made no later than January 15 every year thereafter. This final rule adjusts the civil penalty amounts that may be imposed pursuant to each statutory provision beginning on the date specified above in
On June 28, 2016, the Service published in the
• 82 FR 6307, January 19, 2017;
• 83 FR 5950, February 12, 2018;
• 84 FR 15525, April 16, 2019;
• 85 FR 10310, February 24, 2020; and
• 86 FR 15427, March 23, 2021.
This final rule adjusts the civil monetary penalty amounts that were listed in the 2021 final rule and subsequently codified at 50 CFR 11.33 by using the 2022 inflation multiplier provided to all Federal agencies by OMB (see below).
OMB issued a memorandum, M-22-07, entitled “Implementation of Penalty Inflation Adjustments for 2022, Pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015,” which provides the cost-of-living adjustment multiplier for 2022: 1.06222. Therefore, we multiplied each penalty in the table in 50 CFR 11.33 by 1.06222 to obtain the 2022 annual adjustment. The new amounts are reflected in the table in the rule portion of this document and replace the current amounts in 50 CFR 11.33.
In addition, in this final rule, we affirm the required determinations we made in the June 28, 2016, interim rule (81 FR 41862); for descriptions of our actions to ensure compliance with the following statutes and Executive Orders, see that rule:
• National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
• Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2));
• Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
• Executive Orders 12630, 12866, 12988, 13132, 13175, 13211, and 13563.
As stated above, under section 4 of the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, as amended by the Inflation Adjustment Act, Public Law 114-74, 129 Stat. 584 (2015), each Federal agency is required to issue regulations adjusting for inflation the statutory civil monetary penalties that can be imposed under the laws administered by that agency. The Inflation Adjustment Act provided for an initial “catch up adjustment” to take effect no later than August 1, 2016, followed by subsequent adjustments to be made no later than January 15 every year thereafter. This final rule adjusts the civil penalty amounts that may be imposed pursuant to each statutory provision beginning on the effective date of this rule. To comply with the Inflation Adjustment Act, we are issuing these regulations as a final rule.
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 551
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Imports, Penalties, Plants, Transportation, Wildlife.
For the reasons described above, we amend part 11, subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.
16 U.S.C. 470aa-470mm, 470aaa-470aaa--11, 668-668d, 1361-1384, 1401-1407, 1531-1544, 3371-3378, 4201-4245, 4901-4916, 5201-5207, 5301-5306; 18 U.S.C. 42-43; 25 U.S.C. 3001-3013; and Sec. 107, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, unless otherwise noted.
Federal Trade Commission.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) is considering proposing a rule to address deceptive or unfair marketing using earnings claims. The Commission is soliciting written comment, data, and arguments concerning the need for such a rulemaking. In addition, the Commission solicits comment on how the Commission can ensure the broadest participation by affected interests in the rulemaking process.
Comments must be received on or before May 10, 2022.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Comment Submissions part of the
Melissa Dickey (202-326-2662),
The Commission is publishing this notice pursuant to section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC Act), 15 U.S.C. 57a, and the provisions of part 1, subpart B of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 1.7 through 1.20. The FTC Act authorizes the Commission to promulgate, modify, and repeal trade regulation rules that define with specificity acts or practices that are unfair or deceptive in or affecting commerce within the meaning of section 5(a)(1) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1).
Misleading earnings claims have long been a significant problem for consumers.
The Commission has extensive law enforcement experience challenging misleading earnings claims under section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45,
The cases establish, among other things: (a) Earnings claims are material;
Despite the Commission's aggressive enforcement program,
The Commission anticipates that a rule prohibiting the use of misleading earnings claims would enhance deterrence and help the Commission move quickly to stop illegal conduct. Such a rule also may further clarify for businesses what constitutes a deceptive earnings claim and what it means to have substantiation for an earnings claim.
In addition, a rule would enable the Commission to seek monetary relief for consumers harmed by deceptive earnings claims, as well as civil penalties against those who make the deceptive claims. Specifically, section 19 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57b, authorizes the Commission to seek “rescission or reformation of contracts, the refund of money or return of property, [and] the payment of damages,” among other things, to redress harm caused by violations of FTC rules, such as one prohibiting deceptive earnings claims. And section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(m), allows the Commission to “recover civil penalties” against those who violate such a rule.
The Commission has previously promulgated rules regulating the use of earnings claims in certain industry settings: The Franchise Rule,
The Commission believes that initiating a rulemaking to address the use of earnings claims could benefit consumers and could provide useful guidance without burdening businesses. The rule would be designed to deter the use of misleading earnings claims, inform market participants of their legal obligations by spelling out prohibitions plainly, and ensure the Commission can seek monetary relief for consumers deceived by misleading earnings claims.
The Commission requests input on whether and how it can most effectively use its authority under section 18 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 57a, to address certain deceptive or unfair acts or practices involving the use of false, unsubstantiated, or otherwise misleading earnings claims.
The Commission is aware that such claims are used by numerous companies and individuals to entice prospective purchasers, job-seekers, investors, or other participants in widely varying contexts. For example, the Commission and other government agencies have alleged that misleading earnings claims have been used to tout offers as diverse as coaching or mentoring,
The Commission also is interested in exploring disclaimers: Specifically, whether a disclaimer can be sufficient to correct a misleading impression from an atypical earnings claim,
The Commission also wishes to explore in this rulemaking whether some or all entities and individuals making earnings claims should be required to give recipients specific earnings information. The Franchise and Business Opportunity Rules require companies that make earnings claims to furnish prospective members with a disclosure document that includes information about earnings.
Relatedly, the Commission is interested in exploring whether a rule should address the use of real or purported earnings data or statistics from an industry or professional field in the promotion of money-making opportunities.
The Commission also seeks comment on whether and how a rule can most effectively provide clarity on the substantiation a company must possess before making an earnings claim, and whether those who make earnings claims should be required to keep records to demonstrate how they have substantiated the claims. In the Commission's experience, numerous companies have taken positions that appear to misunderstand the substantiation obligation. For example, the Commission is aware that, historically, some multi-level marketing companies have made earnings claims to potential distributors without knowing what expenses their distributors incur. But earnings claims that reflect gross income and omit material expenses are misleading.
Additionally, the Commission seeks comments on whether, if at all, lifestyle claims should be addressed by a rule. Lifestyle claims are claims that participating in a money-making opportunity will lead to a material change in lifestyle—such as getting to go on expensive vacations, quitting your job, or buying a luxury car. These claims are being used frequently on online advertisements and social media. And the Commission has initiated several enforcement actions that involved deceptive lifestyle claims.
Finally, the Commission seeks comment on, among other things, the costs and benefits of a rule that would address the above practices, and on alternatives to such a rulemaking, such as the publication of additional consumer and business education. In their replies, commenters should provide any available evidence and data that supports their position, such as empirical data, consumer perception studies, and consumer complaints.
Members of the public are invited to comment on any issues or concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's consideration of potential rulemaking in this area. The Commission requests that commenters also submit any relevant factual data
1. How widespread is the use of false, unsubstantiated, or otherwise misleading earnings claims by entities or individuals in connection with the offer or sale of a good or service, participation in a job or other work opportunity, or in a business, investment, or other money-making opportunity? Is the practice prevalent among those who make earnings claims? Are there certain business contexts or industries in which the practice is prevalent, or certain business contexts or industries in which it is not? For example, are deceptive earnings claims prevalent among all businesses that offer work or employment, or just among those in certain industries?
2. Are there circumstances in which the practices described in Question 1, above, would not be deceptive or unfair? If so, what are those circumstances? Should the Commission exclude such circumstances from the scope of any rulemaking? Why or why not? Provide all evidence that supports your answer.
3. Do the practices described in Question 1, above, cause injury to consumers, and if so, how much? Do such practices cause injury to other businesses by unfairly disadvantaging them? Provide any evidence that quantifies or estimates these injuries if possible, including the size of the discrepancy between misleading earnings claims and actual earnings. Provide all evidence that supports your answer.
4. Do the practices described in Question 1, above, disproportionately target or affect certain groups, including communities of color or other historically underserved communities? If so, why and how? Provide all evidence that supports your answer.
5. Please provide any evidence concerning consumer perception of, or experience with, earnings claims that is relevant to the practices described in Question 1, above.
6. Is there a need for new regulatory provisions to prevent the practices described in Question 1, above? If yes, why? If no, why not? What evidence supports your answer?
7. How should a rule addressing the practices described in Question 1, above, be crafted to maximize the benefits to consumers while minimizing the costs to businesses? Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers, and the costs to businesses.
8. Should the Commission consider additional consumer, employee, independent contractor, and business education to reduce harm to consumers associated with the practices described in Question 1, above? If so, what should such education materials include, and how should the Commission communicate that information to consumers and businesses?
9. What alternatives to regulations should the Commission consider to address the practices described in Question 1, above? Would those alternatives obviate the need for regulation? If so, why? If not, why not? What evidence supports your answer?
10. Should a rule addressing the practices described in Question 1, above, define or describe the substantiation required to make an earnings claim? Why or why not? If so, how should it do so? Should a rule adopt the Business Opportunity Rule's language of “a reasonable basis” for a claim at the time the claim is made, or should it use some other definition? If the latter, what? What are the benefits to consumers, and costs to businesses, and in particular small businesses, from such a rule? Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers, and the costs to businesses, and in particular small businesses.
11. Should a rule addressing the practices described in Question 1, above, require the preservation or documentation of substantiation? Why or why not? If so, what types of recordkeeping requirements should be required? What are the benefits to consumers, and costs to businesses, and in particular small businesses, from such a rule? Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers, and the costs to businesses, and in particular small businesses.
12. What requirements, if any, should a rule impose to address earnings claims made by agents or others interacting with prospective purchasers, employees, independent contractors, or participants on a company's behalf, to address the potential use of misleading claims? How can the Commission ensure that companies effectively monitor the actions of such agents or other persons? Should a rule addressing the practices described in Question 1, above, impose affirmative requirements on companies regarding earnings claims made by their agents or others acting with them or on their behalf? Why or why not? If so, how? What are the benefits to consumers, and costs to businesses from such a rule? Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers, and the costs to businesses.
13. Are there circumstances in which disclaimers or disclosures can effectively dispel a misleading impression regarding earnings or profits, or prevent such an impression? If so, describe such circumstances in detail, including all necessary aspects of such disclaimer or disclosure, such as language, format, or the context in which it is presented. Provide all evidence that supports your answer, or that otherwise addresses the effectiveness of disclaimers or disclosures.
14. In the cases the Commission has brought, we have repeatedly seen circumstances where earnings claims convey the impression that the represented earnings are typical. Are there circumstances where they do not? If so, describe such circumstances in detail. Provide all evidence that supports your answer.
15. How should the rule address disclaimers? Are there any circumstances in which a rule should require a disclaimer, such as with atypical earnings claims? Why or why not? If so, describe such circumstances in detail. How should a rule define or describe such disclaimer? Should the rule address conduct that may minimize the effectiveness of any disclaimer, and if so, how? What are the benefits to consumers, and costs to businesses from such a rule? Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers, and the costs to businesses.
16. Based on the Commission's enforcement experience, representations of an expensive or otherwise desirable lifestyle—such as images of or references to mansions, yachts, luxury
17. Should a rule addressing the practices described in Question 1, above, address the use of “lifestyle” claims of the type described in Question 15? Why or why not? If so, how? What are the benefits to consumers, and costs to businesses from such a rule? Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers, and the costs to businesses.
18. Should a rule addressing the practices described in Question 1, above, exempt from its coverage businesses or individuals that are subject to the Business Opportunity Rule, the Franchise Rule, or the Telemarketing Sales Rule? Why or why not? If so, how and to what extent? What are the benefits to consumers, and costs to businesses from such a rule? Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers, and the costs to businesses.
19. If a rule addressing the practices described in Question 1, above, is adopted, should the Business Opportunity Rule, the Franchise Rule, or the Telemarketing Sales Rule be amended? Why or why not? If so, how and to what extent?
20. Should a rule addressing the practices described in Question 1, above, exempt from its coverage any other businesses or individuals? Why or why not? If so, how and to what extent? What are the benefits to consumers, and costs to businesses from such a rule? Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers, and the costs to businesses.
21. Should a rule addressing the practices described in Question 1, above, include an example earnings disclosure statement that would not be mandatory, but would provide guidance for companies on how to make a lawful earnings claim? Why or why not? If so, what should be contained in the example statement? What are the benefits to consumers, and costs to businesses from such a rule? Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers, and the costs to businesses.
22. Should a rule addressing the practices described in Question 1, above, require that an earnings claim disclosure document be provided to consumers prior to purchase, prior to accepting an offer for work, or at any other time? Why or why not? If so, how should the rule define or describe the required disclosure, the time(s) at which it must be provided, the manner in which it must be provided (so it cannot be hidden or obscured by other paperwork), the languages in which it must be provided, and who must provide it? What are the benefits to consumers, and costs to businesses, and in particular small businesses, from such a rule? Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers, and the costs to businesses, and in particular small businesses.
23. How prevalent is the deceptive or misleading use of real or purported industry earnings data or statistics in the promotion of money-making opportunities? Provide any evidence, such as empirical data, consumer perception studies, or consumer complaints, that demonstrates the extent of such practices. Provide all evidence that supports your answer.
24. Do the practices described in Question 21, above, cause injury to consumers, and if so, how, and how much? Provide any evidence that quantifies or estimates that injury if possible, including any non-financial or indirect injuries to consumers, and including the size of the discrepancy between misleading earnings claims and actual earnings. Provide all evidence that supports your answer.
25. Should a rule addressing the practices described in Question 1, above, include a provision concerning the use of real or purported industry earnings data or statistics? Why or why not? If so, how? Should the coverage of such a provision be limited? If so, how and why? Provide all evidence that supports your answer, including any evidence that quantifies the benefits to consumers, and the costs to businesses.
26. Do existing laws and regulations covering false, unsubstantiated, or otherwise misleading earnings claims affect businesses, particularly small businesses? If so, how? Provide all evidence that supports your answer.
27. Are there other commercial acts or practices involving earnings claims that are deceptive or unfair that should be addressed in the proposed rulemaking? If so, describe the practices. How widespread are the practices? Provide all evidence that supports your answer, and please answer Questions 2-9 with respect to the practices.
28. Do current or impending changes in technology or market practices affect the need for rulemaking? If so, describe the changes and how they affect whether and how a rulemaking should proceed. Provide all evidence that supports your answer.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before May 10, 2022. Write “Earnings Claims ANPR, R111003” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the
Because of the public health emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak and the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you file your comment on paper, write “Earnings Claims Rulemaking, R111003” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20580, or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex B), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the public record, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not contain sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website to read this document and the news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments it receives on or before May 10, 2022. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
By direction of the Commission.
Unfair and deceptive earnings claims underpin some of the worst and most financially ruinous scams Americans face. Pyramid schemes, phony investments, and multi-level-marketing all exploit people's hopes—for financial stability, for a chance to improve their lives—with false promises. These scammers often take advantage of national and financial crises to exploit the newly vulnerable. And unfortunately, we've seen that in the Covid-19 pandemic as well. The extent of these scams is astounding. In a 2020 law enforcement crackdown the FTC pursued over a billion dollars lost to these schemes.
Combating these schemes illuminates something important about the agency's authority and our mission, too. Section 5's requirement that earnings claims are honest and substantiated reflects an underappreciated obligation of the FTC: To protect Americans as workers and not simply as the consumers of products and services. Markets cannot function effectively without honest and transparent pricing. That is just as true for the labor market as it is for consumer goods. False or misleading earnings claims robs people of their investments, their time, and the fair value of their labor. It is also worth remembering: Individuals who put their savings into the stock market—often wealthier individuals—can rely on the SEC to police misrepresentations about earnings claims with respect to those investments. But less wealthy folks who may pour their life savings into promised business opportunities deserve the protection of the federal government as well; that is why we must aggressively police misleading earnings claims.
Two of our recent enforcement actions demonstrate how this kind of exploitation works in practice. Last year the FTC settled with the owners and operators of Moda Latina.
I'm also deeply concerned about the effect of the over-promises of the gig economy on workers and the labor market. Last year, the FTC settled with Amazon over our charges that it robbed its Amazon Flex drivers the full amount of tips it promised to them.
Effective enforcement of Section 5's consumer protection obligations helps make these markets for labor functional, fair, and competitive. That's why I'm eager to begin a rulemaking inquiry on earnings claims. I'm proud of the decades of enforcement actions the agency has undertaken to protect against these unfair and deceptive practices. But case by case enforcement has left gaps unscrupulous actors can exploit.
Starting this inquiry means we can now gather evidence on how best to protect against these scams and begin to think about how a possible trade regulation rule could help level the playing field between workers and those that employ them. Pursuing rule violations would also reopen an avenue to return stolen money to consumers—something we can no longer do under section 13(b) until Congress steps in to fix it.
I want to thank everyone that helped bring this ANPR to the Commission today, in particular Melissa Dickey, Andrew Hudson and Kati Daffan in DMP. I'd also like to thank Elisa Jillson, the CTD for the Bureau, Kenny Wright in the Office of the General Counsel, Jason Adler and Guy Ward from the MWRO, and David Givens, Douglas
Today, the Commission issues an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“ANPRM”) to commence proceedings to address the use of false, unsubstantiated, or otherwise misleading earnings claims. As explained in this
We contemplate this rule against the backdrop of
In the wake of
Second, consumers cannot analyze the costs and benefits of investing significant resources to pursue coaching, training, MLM, or educational opportunities without accurate representations from sellers. But the true value of these opportunities is best assessed by the entities offering them. In other words, we see significant information asymmetries between consumers and the entities that make earnings claims. The monetary value of an opportunity is likely the central, material claim that consumers consider before spending hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of dollars on financial-improvement opportunities. This ANPRM seeks information on how to ensure that when disclosures are made, they are substantiated.
For these reasons, I do not oppose an ANPRM that explores ways to incentivize establishing a reasonable basis for earnings claims.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for the navigable water within a 500-yard radius of several tugs and barges in the Straits of Mackinac. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the potential hazards created by the work, survey, and inspection conducted within the Straits of Mackinac. Entry of vessels or persons into the zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie or their designated representative. Due to the lengthy duration of this safety zone, the Coast Guard is accepting and reviewing public comments until March 31, 2022. While this document is effective beginning April 15, 2022, the Coast Guard reserves the right to modify the safety zone if an issue is raised by the public comments that requires such a modification. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 11, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2022-0085 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at
If you have questions on this rule, call or email LT Deaven S. Palenzuela, Sector Sault Sainte Marie Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard at (906) 635-3223 or email
On February 3, 2022, the Project Manager of Kokosing Industrial notified the Coast Guard that they are contracted by American Transmission Company (ATC) for the pupose of protecting their new 138kV submarine power cables installed in the Straits of Mackinac RNA in 2021. Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.944, Kokosing sent the Coast Guard a letter notifying their 2022 project proposal and request to anchor and work inside the regulated navigation area (RNA) within one nautical mile of submerged pipeline/cable.
The Captain of the Port Sault Sainte Marie (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the work, survey, and inspection of underwater infrastructure within the
In accordance with 33 CFR 165.944(c)(4), vessels are prohibited from anchoring in any charted submerged pipeline or cable areas within the Stratis of Mackinac RNA; except when expressly permitted by the COTP. Kokosing underwent the proper procedures to notify the COTP their project proposal within the Straits of Mackinac RNA by submitting a letter requesting to anchor within one nautical mile of submerged infrastructure.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from April 15, 2022 to December 31, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within 500 yards of the tugs and barges being used to work, survey, and inspect within the Straits of Mackinac Regulated Navigation Area. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the operation is conducted. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and location of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small designated area of the Straits of Mackinac. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. 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 call or email the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this 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. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email 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. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have 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. This proposed rule involves a safety zone that will prohibit entry within 500 yards of tugs and barges used to work, survey, and inspect within the Straits of Mackinac. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L[60(a)] of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
We view 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.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and record keeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intention to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget to collect information related to the new Regional Food Business Centers created by the AMS Transportation and Marketing Program.
Comments on this notice must be received by May 10, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this information collection notice. Comments should be submitted online at
Christina Conell, Marketing Services Division Deputy Director, AMS Transportation and Marketing Program, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Stop 0269, Washington, DC 20250-0264, Telephone: (202) 657-8647 or Email:
The Regional Food Business Centers will be the backbone for local and regional supply chain development and will offer coordination, technical assistance, and capacity building support to small and mid-sized food and farm businesses which will lead to more resilient, diverse, and connected supply chains. This program will provide a way for geographic regions to tailor development and investment to fit their needs, while recognizing that resilient supply chains are built upon strong relationships between individuals, communities, regions, sectors, and institutions. The RFBCs will support coordination in their region, fund technical assistance (TA) providers to offer business technical assistance to food and farm businesses and provide small grants to food businesses looking to expand or start in their region.
Because these programs are voluntary, respondents apply for the specific program, and in doing so, they provide information. AMS is the primary user of the information. The information collected is needed to certify that RFBCs are complying with applicable program regulations, and the data collected is the minimum information necessary to effectively carry out the requirements of the program. The information collection requirements in this request are essential to administer and evaluate the program and to provide the necessary technical assistance to RFBCs and their subrecipients.
The data collection will include the collection of application information, quarterly reports, in addition to biannual interviews and quantitative information related to RFBCs (awardees), the TA providers (sub-awardees) and the businesses they fund.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Comments are required regarding; 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; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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 this information collection received by April 11, 2022 will be considered. 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.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: 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; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; 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 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 this information collection received by April 11, 2022 will be considered. 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.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding; 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; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 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 this information collection received by April 11, 2022 will be considered. 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.
On November 8, 2021, GXO Logistics submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 41, in Kenosha, Wisconsin.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Sunlit Arizona LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Phoenix, Arizona within FTZ 75. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 3, 2022.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the
The proposed finished products include hydrofluoric acid 49%, hydrofluoric acid 25%, buffer oxide etchant, aluminum etchant, poly etchant, cyclopentanone, propylene glycol monomethyl ether acetate, siloxane remover, and silicon etchant (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 6.5%).
The proposed foreign-status materials and components include hydrofluoric acid 60%, ammonium fluoride 40%, nitric acid, acetic acid, phosphoric acid, and sulfuric acid (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 3.1%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable Section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
On November 5, 2021, Avaya, Inc., submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 262, in Olive Branch, Mississippi.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on large diameter welded pipe from Canada to correct ministerial errors. The period of review (POR) is August 27, 2018, through April 30, 2020.
Applicable March 11, 2022.
Irene Gorelik, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6905.
On January 31, 2022, Commerce disclosed its calculations for the
Section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), defines a “ministerial error” as including “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.” With respect to final results of administrative reviews, 19 CFR 351.224(e) provides that Commerce “will analyze any comments received and, if appropriate, correct any ministerial error by amending . . . the final results of review . . .”
We agree with Evraz that Commerce made a ministerial error in the
For a complete discussion of the ministerial error allegation, as well as Commerce's analysis,
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(e), Commerce is amending the
As a result of correcting the ministerial error, Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period August 27, 2018, through April 30, 2020:
We intend to disclose under administrative protective order the calculations performed to parties in this proceeding within five days after publication of these amended final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these amended final results of review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of the amended final results of this review in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), we calculated importer-specific
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Evraz for which the company did not know that the merchandise it sold to the intermediary (
For the companies which were not selected for individual examination, we intend to direct CBP to assess antidumping duties at a rate equal to the weighted-average dumping margin determined for those companies in the amended final results.
The following deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin that is established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during the POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council (TFAC or the Council) will hold a virtual meeting on Tuesday, April 12, 2022. The meeting is open to the public with registration instructions provided below.
Tuesday, April 12, 2022, from approximately 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT). The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5:00 p.m. EDT on Thursday, April 7, 2022. Before March 31, 2022, registration, comments, and any auxiliary aid requests should be submitted via email to
The meeting will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams video conferencing.
Before March 31, 2022, Patrick Zimet, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Finance and Insurance Industries (OFII), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 306-9474; email:
After March 31, 2022, contact Yuki Fujiyama at (202) 617-9599; email:
On Tuesday, April 12, 2022, the TFAC will hold the third meeting of its 2020-2022 charter term. During the meeting, the TFAC will receive an update on the implementation status of previously adopted recommendations, the subcommittees will put forth recommendations for a vote by the full TFAC, and the TFAC will discuss potential future recommendations and its plan for the remainder of the charter term.
Meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting upon request or on the TFAC's website at
Members of the public may submit written comments concerning TFAC affairs at any time before or after a meeting. Comments may be submitted to Patrick Zimet or Yuki Fujiyama at the contact information indicated above. All comments and statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that producers or exporters of passenger vehicle and light truck tires (passenger tires) from the People's Republic of China (China) subject to this review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), August 1, 2019, through July 31, 2020, or did not ship subject merchandise to the United States during the POR.
Applicable March 11, 2022.
Toni Page or Peter Shaw, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1938 or (202) 482-0697, respectively.
On September 7, 2021, we published the
The products covered by this
We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by interested parties in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice as an appendix. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made changes to the valuation of certain inputs and corrected certain ministerial errors in the calculation of mandatory respondent Sumitomo's
In the
In the
In the
The statute and Commerce's regulations do not address what rate to apply to respondents not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for non-selected respondents that are not examined individually in an administrative review. Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act states that the all-others rate should be calculated by averaging the weighted-average dumping margins for individually examined respondents, excluding rates that are zero,
We calculated a 2.06 percent dumping margin for the mandatory respondent, Sumitomo. We assigned the separate rate respondents a dumping margin equal to the dumping margin of Sumitomo, consistent with the guidance in section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act.
We are assigning the following dumping margins to the firms listed below for the period August 1, 2019, through July 1, 2020:
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.224(b), within five days of the publication this
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce will determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess,
Where the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or
For any individually examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above
For respondents not individually examined in this administrative review that qualified for a separate rate, the assessment rate will be the dumping margin assigned to the mandatory respondent in the final results of this review.
For the respondents not eligible for a separate rate and that are part of the China-wide entity, we intend to instruct CBP to apply an
Additionally, if Commerce determined that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under the exporter's case number will be liquidated at the China-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date for the final results of review, as provided for by section 751 (a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of review that is listed for the exporter in the table; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed China and non-China exporters not listed in the table above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all China exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate previously established for the China-wide entity, which is 76.46 percent; and (4) for all non-China exporters of subject merchandise which have not received their own rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate applicable to the China exporter that supplied that non-China exporter. The cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305, which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing these final results of administrative review and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(h) and 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Hangzhou Ailong Metal Products Co., Ltd. (Ailong) made U.S. sales of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) from the People's Republic of China (China) at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) August 1, 2019, through July 31, 2020.
Applicable March 11, 2022.
Thomas Hanna, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0835.
On July 24, 2020, Commerce published the
The scope of the
We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed in this administrative review in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is hereby adopted by this notice. A list of the sections in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
We made no changes to the
No parties commented on our preliminary separate rate findings. Therefore, we have continued to grant Ailong (the mandatory respondent) separate rate status.
We are assigning following dumping margin to the firm listed below for the period August 1, 2019, through July 31, 2020:
Normally, Commerce will disclose to the parties in a proceeding the calculations performed in connection with a final results of review within five days of the date of publication of the notice of final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Where the respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is zero or de minimis, or where an importer- (or customer-) specific
For any individually-examined respondent whose weighted-average dumping margin is above de minimis (
For the respondents not eligible for a separate rate and that are part of the China-wide entity, we intend to instruct CBP to apply an
Additionally, if Commerce determines that an exporter under review had no shipments of the subject merchandise, any suspended entries that entered under that exporter's case number will be liquidated at the China-wide rate.
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of review, as provided for by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) For the exporters listed in the table above, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in the final results of review that is listed for the exporter in the table; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed China and non-China exporters not listed in the table above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) for all China exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate previously established for the China-wide entity, which is 264.64 percent; and (4) for all non-China exporters of subject merchandise which
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant POR entries. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to administrative protective orders (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under an APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain producers/exporters of ripe olives from Spain received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR), January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019.
Applicable March 11, 2022.
Mary Kolberg or Dusten Hom, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1785 and (202) 482-5075, respectively.
Commerce published the
The products covered by the order are ripe olives from Spain. For a complete description of the scope of this order,
All issues raised by the interested parties in their case and rebuttal briefs are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is identified in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and CVD Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on the comments received from interested parties, we revised the calculation of the net countervailable subsidy rates for the respondents: Agro Sevilla Aceitunas S.COOP Andalusia (Agro Sevilla) and Angel Camacho Alimentacion S.L. (Camacho). For a discussion of these issues,
Commerce conducted this review in accordance with section 751(a)(1)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we determine that there is a subsidy,
There are three companies for which a review was requested and not rescinded, and which were not selected as mandatory respondents or found to be cross owned with a mandatory respondent. For these companies, because the rates calculated for the mandatory respondents, Agro Sevilla and Camacho, were above
We determine the following net countervailable subsidy rates for the POR January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019:
We intend
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review. Commerce intends to issue appropriate assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of this publication of the final results of this review in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown above for the above-listed companies with regard to shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results of review. For all non-reviewed firms, CBP will continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the most recent company-specific or all-others rate applicable to the company, as appropriate. These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is sanctionable violation.
These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Department of Commerce.
Request for comments.
On October 27, 2021, President Joseph R. Biden announced that the United States would explore the development of an Indo-Pacific Economic Framework to deepen economic relations in the Indo-Pacific region and coordinate approaches to addressing global economic challenges. The Secretary of Commerce and the United States Trade Representative will co-chair the U.S. team leading the negotiations of the framework. The United States Trade Representative will lead the Framework's pillar on fair and resilient trade, and the Department of Commerce will lead the Framework's pillars on: (1) Supply chain resilience; (2) infrastructure, clean energy, and decarbonization; and (3) tax and anti-corruption. Accordingly, the Department of Commerce is seeking public comments on key areas of interest, including: Digital and emerging technologies; supply chain resilience; infrastructure, decarbonization, and clean energy; and tax and anti-corruption. This notice requests comments and information from the public to assist the Secretary of
Comments and supporting documents must be submitted on or before April 11, 2022.
Address all written comments in response to this notice to “Indo-Pacific Economic Framework” and file through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Please direct general questions or questions concerning written comments to Eric Holloway, Deputy Director for the Office of East Asia, Oceania, and APEC, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce at
1. General negotiating objectives for the IPEF.
2. Digital and emerging technologies-related issues.
3. Supply chain resilience-related issues.
4. Infrastructure-related issues.
5. Clean energy-related issues.
6. Decarbonization-related issues.
7. Tax-related issues.
8. Anti-corruption-related issues.
9. Issues of particular relevance to small and medium-sized businesses that should be addressed in the negotiations.
10. Other issues for consideration.
The Department of Commerce requests that small businesses (generally defined by the U.S. Small Business Administration as firms with fewer than 500 employees) or organizations representing small business members that submit comments to self-identify as such so that we may be aware of issues of particular interest to small businesses.
Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion at the time of submission, file a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed, and provide a non-confidential version of the submission. The non-confidential version of the submission will be placed in the public file on
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that sales of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube from Mexico were made at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) August 1, 2019, through July 31, 2020.
Applicable March 11, 2022.
John Conniff or Kyle Clahane, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1009 or (202) 482-5449, respectively.
On September 7, 2021, Commerce published the preliminary results of this administrative review of the antidumping duty order on light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) from Mexico.
The product covered by the
We addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties, a review of the record, and for the reasons explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, we made certain changes to the
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a weighted-average dumping margin to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a less-than-fair-value (LTFV) investigation, for guidance when calculating the weighted-average dumping margin for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding rates that are zero,
Consistent with section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, we determined the weighted-average dumping margin for each of the non-selected companies based on the weighted-average dumping margins calculated for the mandatory respondents, Perfiles LM, S.A. de C.V. (Perfiles) and Regiomontana de Perfiles y Tubos S. de R.L. de C.V. (Regiopytsa) in this administrative review.
As a result of this review, Commerce determines the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period August 1, 2019, through July 31, 2020.
Commerce intends
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), for Perfiles and Regiopytsa, the mandatory respondents, Commerce calculated importer-specific
Consistent with the reseller policy, for entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by the mandatory respondents for which they did not know their merchandise was destined for the United States, we intend to instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
The assessment rate for antidumping duties for each of the companies not selected for individual examination, will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin identified above in the “Final Results of Review” section.
The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 41 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) The cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this administrative review; (2) for merchandise exported by producers or exporters not covered in this review but covered in a prior completed segment of the proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the relevant company-specific rate published for the most recent period; (3) if the exporter is not a firm covered in this review, a prior review, or the original investigation, but the producer has been covered in a prior complete segment of this proceeding, then the cash deposit rate will be the rate established for the most recently-completed segment for the producer of the merchandise; and (4) the cash deposit rate for all other producers or exporters will continue to be 3.76 percent,
These cash deposit requirements, when imposed, shall remain in effect until further notice.
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties.
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of NAFTA panel decision in the matter of Ammonium Sulphate from the United States of America. (Secretariat File Number: MEX-USA-2015-1904-01).
On February 8, 2022, a NAFTA Binational Panel issued its Decision in the matter of Ammonium Sulphate from the United States of America (Determination on Remand). The Binational Panel remanded the Secretaria de Economia's (Economia) Third Determination on Remand and ordered Economia to issue a redetermination within 90 days.
Vidya Desai, Acting United States
Article 1904 of chapter 19 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel Review, a Binational Panel is composed to provide judicial review of the trade remedy determination being challenged and then issue a binding Panel Decision. The NAFTA Binational Panel Decision is available publicly at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of Renewal incidental harassment authorization (IHA).
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued a Renewal incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Ørsted to incidentally harass marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys offshore from New York to Massachusetts.
This Renewal IHA is valid from the date of issuance through September 24, 2022.
Carter Esch, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8421. Electronic copies of the original application, renewal request, and supporting documents (including NMFS
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (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 here as “mitigation measures”). Monitoring and reporting of such takings are also required. The meaning of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in section 3 of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1362) and the agency's regulations at 50 CFR 216.103.
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods not to exceed one year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial authorization, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a Renewal IHA for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time one-year Renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
(1) A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed Renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the Renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond one year from expiration of the initial IHA).
(2) The request for renewal must include the following:
• An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested Renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
• A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
(3) Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed
On September 25, 2020, NMFS issued an IHA to Ørsted to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization survey activities offshore from New York to Massachusetts in the areas of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0486/0517, OCS-A 0487, and OCS-A 0500) (Lease Areas) and along potential submarine export cable routes (ECRs) to landfall locations from New York to Massachusetts (85 FR 63508, October 8, 2020), effective from September 25, 2020 through September 24, 2021. Work under the initial IHA was completed, and on July 8, 2021, NMFS received an application for the renewal of that initial IHA to cover a second year of identical work. Ørsted later communicated that marine site characterization surveys under the Renewal IHA would not begin until 2022. As described in the application for renewal, the activities for which incidental take is requested are identical to those covered by the initial authorization. As required, the applicant also provided a monitoring report (available at
Ørsted plans to conduct a second year of marine site characterization surveys, using high-resolution geophysical (HRG) equipment, within the Lease Areas—located approximately 14 miles (mi) (22 kilometers (km)) south of Martha's Vineyard, Massachusetts at its closest point—and proposed ECRs from the Lease Areas to potential shore landing locations for submarine cables associated with offshore wind development along the coast from New York to Massachusetts. The purpose of the marine site characterization surveys is to support site assessment, siting, and engineering design of offshore project facilities, including wind turbine generators (WTGs), offshore substation(s), and submarine cables within the Lease and proposed ECR Areas. The activities covered under the initial IHA have been completed. Ørsted requested a renewal of the initial IHA issued by NMFS in September 2020 on the basis that they plan to conduct up to another year of identical activities in the same area as described in the Detailed Description of the Specified Activities section of the
In their 2020 IHA application, Ørsted estimated it would conduct surveys at a rate of 70 kilometers (km) per survey day. Ørsted defined a survey day as a 24-hour activity day, which could be the sum of multiple partial surveys if less than 70 km is surveyed in 24 hours. Based on the planned 24-hour operations, the survey activities for all survey areas would require 1,302 survey days if one vessel were surveying continuously. However, Ørsted proposed to use an estimated five vessels simultaneously from June 1 through December 31, with a maximum of no more than nine vessels. Therefore, Ørsted planned to complete all survey effort in one year, prior to the expiration of the initial IHA on September 24, 2021; all of the work addressed under the initial IHA was completed prior to the initial IHA expiration date. The Renewal IHA will authorize take, by Level B harassment only (in the form of behavioral disturbance), of 15 species/stocks of marine mammals for a second year of identical survey activities to be completed no later than September 24, 2022, in the same area, using survey methods identical to those described in the initial IHA application; therefore, the anticipated effects on marine mammals and the affected stocks also remain the same. The amount of take, by Level B harassment, requested for the Renewal IHA is identical to that authorized in the initial IHA. All active acoustic sources, mitigation, and monitoring measures are exactly as described in the
A detailed description of the marine site characterization survey activities for which incidental take is planned may be found in the
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which take is authorized, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the
The draft 2021 SARs, available online at:
NMFS has determined that neither the updated abundance information presented above nor any other new information affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the Description of the Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activity contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA.
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is authorized may be found in the
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the Notices of the proposed (85 FR 48179; August 10, 2020) and final (85 FR 63508; October 8, 2020) IHAs for the initial authorization. Specifically, the acoustic source types, source levels, and days of operation applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the previously issued initial IHA. Similarly, the methodology for calculating take, and thus stocks taken, methods of take and type of take (
The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue a Renewal IHA to Ørsted was published in the
While there are additional documents submitted with a renewal request, for a qualifying renewal these are limited to documentation that NMFS will make available and use to verify that the activities are identical to those in the initial IHA, are nearly identical such that the changes would have either no effect on impacts to marine mammals or decrease those impacts, or are a subset of activities already analyzed and authorized but not completed under the initial IHA. NMFS will also confirm, among other things, that the activities will occur in the same location; involve the same species and stocks; provide for continuation of the same mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements; and that no new information has been received that would alter the prior analysis. The renewal request must also contain a preliminary monitoring report, but that is to verify that effects from the activities do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed. The additional 15-day public comment period provides the public an opportunity to review these few documents, provide any additional pertinent information, and comment on whether they think the criteria for a renewal have been met. NMFS also will provide direct notice of the proposed renewal to those who commented on the initial IHA, to provide an opportunity to submit any additional comments. Between the initial 30-day comment period on these same activities and the additional 15 days, the total comment period for a renewal is 45 days.
In addition to the IHA Renewal process being consistent with all requirements under section 101(a)(5)(D), it is also consistent with Congress's intent for issuance of IHAs to the extent reflected in statements in the legislative history of the MMPA. Through the provision for renewals in the
In prior responses to comments about IHA Renewals (
NMFS has analyzed the potential for ship strike resulting from Ørsted's activity and has determined that the mitigation measures specific to ship strike avoidance are sufficient to avoid the potential for ship strike. These include, but are not limited to the survey vessel crew members responsible for navigation duties must receive site-specific training on marine mammal sighting/reporting and vessel strike avoidance measures; the vessel operator and crew must maintain a vigilant watch for all large whale species (including the North Atlantic right whale); a requirement that all vessel operators comply with the 10 knot (18.5 km/hour) or less speed restriction while underway in any established Seasonal Management Areas (SMAs), or Dynamic Management Areas (DMAs); a requirement that all vessel operators reduce vessel speed to 10 knots (18.5 km/hour) or less when any large whale, mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of non-delphinid cetaceans are observed within 100 m of an underway vessel; a requirement that all survey vessels maintain a separation distance of at least 500 m from any sighted North Atlantic right whale; a requirement that, if underway, vessels must steer a course away from any sighted North Atlantic right whale at 10 knots (18.5 km/hr) or less until the 500-m minimum separation distance has been established; a requirement that all vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from sperm whales and other baleen whales; and a requirement that all vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible (
Regarding the ENGOs' suggestion that project proponents should coordinate with NMFS to develop an Adaptive Plan for potential modification of vessel speed restrictions for future projects, NMFS will consider specific proposals for the development, quantitative evaluation, and implementation of such a Plan, should that information become available in the future.
The ENGOs suggested that a real-time monitoring system and mitigation protocol for North Atlantic right whales would be useful to dynamically manage the timing of site characterization survey activities, although it is not clear if the suggested system and protocol is based on acoustic or visual monitoring, or both. NMFS is generally supportive of these concepts. A network of near real-time baleen whale monitoring devices are active or have been tested in portions of New England and Canadian waters. These systems employ various digital acoustic monitoring instruments that have been placed on autonomous platforms including slocum gliders, wave gliders, profiling floats and moored buoys. Systems that have proven to be successful will likely see increased use as operational tools for many whale monitoring and mitigation applications. In 2020, NMFS convened a workshop to address objectives related to monitoring North Atlantic right whales. The NMFS publication “Technical Memorandum NMFS‐OPR‐64: North Atlantic Right Whale Monitoring and Surveillance: Report and Recommendations of the National Marine Fisheries Service's Expert Working Group”, available at:
The type of dynamic monitoring system and mitigation protocol suggested by the commenters has not been proposed by any applicant, including Ørsted, when applying for an IHA to conduct the type of work analyzed here. As discussed above, the seasonal restriction (January 1 through May 31) already serves to reduce temporal and spatial overlap between Ørsted's marine site characterization surveys and times during which North Atlantic right whale occurrence is expected to be highest in the project area. In addition, NMFS cannot require project proponents to be part of a monitoring network such as the one described above until such a network of monitoring devices is available. However, NMFS will consider how to best incorporate the use of such systems in the future should such a network be developed.
Restricting surveys in the manner suggested by the commenters may reduce marine mammal exposures by some degree in the short term, but would not result in any significant reduction in either intensity or duration of noise exposure over the course of the surveys. In fact, the restrictions recommended by the commenters could result in the surveys spending increased total time on the water introducing noise into the marine environment, which may result in greater overall exposure to sound for marine mammals; thus, the commenters have not demonstrated that such a requirement would result in a net benefit. Furthermore, restricting the ability of the applicant to begin operations only during daylight hours would have the potential to result in lengthy shutdowns of the survey equipment, which could result in the applicant failing to collect the data they have determined is necessary and, subsequently, the need to conduct additional surveys in the future. This would result in significantly increased costs incurred by the applicant. Thus, the restriction suggested by the commenters would not be practicable for the applicant to implement. In consideration of the likely effects of the activity on marine mammals absent mitigation, potential unintended consequences of the measures as proposed by the commenters, and practicability of the recommended measures for the applicant, NMFS has determined that restricting operations as recommended is not warranted or practicable in this case.
There are several reasons why we do not agree that use of PAM is warranted
Vessels produce low-frequency noise, primarily through propeller cavitation, with the main energy in the 5-300 Hertz (Hz) frequency range. Source levels range from approximately 140 to 195 decibels (dB) re 1 micropascal (µPa) at 1 m (NRC, 2003; Hildebrand, 2009), depending on factors such as ship type, load, and speed, and ship hull and propeller design. Studies of vessel noise show that it appears to increase background noise levels in the 71-224 Hz range by 10-13 dB (Hatch
Even if a right whale could be detected using towed PAM, the area expected to be ensonified above the Level B harassment threshold is relatively small (≤141 m) and, inasmuch as PAM will only detect a portion of any animals exposed within a zone, the overall probability of PAM detecting an animal in the harassment zone is low, supporting the limited value of PAM for use in reducing take with smaller zones. In addition, if a PAM system was deployed from a secondary vessel, that vessel will still have to travel at 4 knots to accompany the survey vessel, leading to the same limitations when using towed PAM. Finally, if a stationary PAM unit were deployed (assuming its location is within relatively close proximity to the starting position of the survey vessel), the unit would have to be equipped to localize North Atlantic right whale calls, for example, to positions within the clearance and exclusion zones (regardless of size) relative to the changing position of a transiting survey vessel. Even if localization is possible, it becomes impracticable once the vessel moves out of the detection and localization range of the stationary unit.
Many of the ENGO recommendations included acoustic monitoring of clearance and exclusion zones. Given that the effects to marine mammals from the types of surveys authorized in this IHA are expected to be limited to a small amount of low-level behavioral harassment, even in the absence of mitigation, the additional benefit anticipated for North Atlantic right whales by adding this detection method would be essentially non-existent. Given the lack of efficacy, the logistical challenges, and the cost of implementing a full-time PAM program, we have determined the current requirements for visual monitoring are sufficient to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat. For the reasons described above, NMFS' responses to additional comments do not include references to acoustic monitoring during site characterization surveys. Please see the ENGOs' full comment letter for information regarding their general recommendations for acoustic monitoring, which can be found here:
The ENGOs suggested that these measures should be implemented during site characterization activities with noise levels that could result in injury or harassment to large whales.
NMFS does agree that monitoring of a clearance zone should begin 30 minutes prior to commencement or resumption of use of HRG survey equipment that may incidentally harass marine mammals following a delay or shutdown. NMFS also agrees that visual detection of a species (including North Atlantic right whales) within its respective clearance zone during the 30-minute clearance period or exclusion zone when acoustic sources are active should trigger a delay or shutdown, respectively, of survey activities. Finally, as suggested by the ENGOs, in order for survey activities to commence or resume, the lead PSO must confirm that no North Atlantic right whale or other baleen whale has been sighted in the clearance zone during the clearance period. Thus, these measures are required by all authorizations for take incidental to site characterization activities.
The monitoring report for the initial IHA, as well as monitoring reports for
The survey activities proposed by Ørsted are identical to those analyzed in the initial IHA, including the planned number of days and location of activity, as are the method of taking and the effects of the action. Therefore, the amount of authorized take is equal to that authorized in the initial IHA. The mitigation measures and monitoring and reporting requirements, as described above, are identical to the initial IHA. The potential effect of Ørsted's activities remains limited to Level B harassment in the form of behavioral disturbance. In analyzing the effects of the activities in the initial IHA, NMFS determined that Ørsted's activities would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stocks and that the authorized take numbers of each species or stock were small relative to the relevant stocks (
NMFS has concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. This includes consideration of Orsted's monitoring report, the estimated abundances of five stocks (North Atlantic right whales, fin whales, minke whales, Risso's dolphins, and harbor seals) decreasing, and the estimated abundances of two stocks (common dolphins and gray seals) increasing (Hayes
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 of the Companion Manual for NAO 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 Renewal IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
The NMFS Office of Protected Resources is authorizing the incidental take of four species of marine mammals that are listed under the ESA: The North Atlantic right, fin, sei and sperm whale. We requested initiation of consultation under Section 7 of the ESA with NMFS GARFO on July 1, 2020, for issuance of the initial IHA. Previously, BOEM consulted with NMFS GARFO under section 7 of the ESA on commercial wind lease issuance and site assessment activities on the Atlantic Outer Continental Shelf in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New York and New Jersey Wind Energy Areas. The NMFS GARFO issued a Biological Opinion in 2013 concluding that these activities may adversely affect but are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the North Atlantic right, fin, sei and sperm whale. Upon request from the NMFS Office of Protected Resources, NMFS GARFO issued a Letter of Concurrence on September 24, 2020 concluding that the initial IHA issuance fell under the scope of the 2013 Biological Opinion and that the initial IHA issuance was not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed marine mammal species. The proposed Renewal IHA provides no new information about the effects of the action, nor does it change the extent of effects of the action, or any other basis to require reinitiation of consultation with NMFS GARFO; therefore, the consultation and determinations for the initial IHA remains valid.
NMFS has issued a Renewal IHA to Ørsted for the take of marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization survey activities offshore from New York to Massachusetts in the areas of the Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS-A 0486/0517, OCS-A 0487, and OCS-A 0500) (Lease Areas) and along potential submarine ECRs to landfall locations from New York to Massachusetts, effective from the date of issuance through September 24, 2022.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for letter of authorization; request for comments and information.
NMFS has received a request from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), on behalf of the Interagency Ecological Program (IEP), for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to conducting fisheries and ecosystem monitoring and research activities within the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary, CA, over the course of five years. Pursuant to regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing receipt of CDFW's request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals. NMFS invites the public to provide information, suggestions, and comments on CDFW's application and request.
Comments and information must be received no later than April 11, 2022.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and should be sent to
Ben Laws, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Electronic copies of CDFW's application and separate monitoring plan may be obtained online at:
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 impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 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.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
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 February 11, 2022, NMFS received an adequate and complete application from CDFW requesting authorization for take of marine mammals incidental to IEP monitoring and research activities in the San Francisco Bay-Delta Estuary, California. The requested regulations would be valid for 5 years. The proposed action includes the use of fishing research gear (
The IEP consists of multiple State and Federal agencies operating in the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. The IEP has been conducting cooperative ecological investigations since the 1970s. IEP agencies partner with non-governmental organizations that work together to develop a better understanding of the Bay-Delta estuary's fish and wildlife, water quality, hydrodynamics and impacts of human activities on ecology. IEP's key studies specifically address the effects of the State Water Project and Federal Central Valley Project water project operations on the Delta and San Francisco Estuary. Many of the surveys monitor abundance and distribution of fish so to reduce entrainment risk at the water project export facilities in the south Delta.
IEP fish monitoring studies include use of various gears including midwater, otter, and Kodiak trawls (trawls), gill and trammel nets, purse seines and Lampara nets (nets), setlines and longlines (setlines), and hoop and fyke traps (fykes) that could result in incidental take via entanglement by net mesh, entrapment by fyke, or hooking by setlines. IEP studies also use a variety of other gears, such as backpack or boat mounted electrofishers, larval fish trawl nets, zooplankton nets, water samplers and instrumentation (acoustic receivers, water quality sondes, etc.) that are not expected to result in take of marine mammals.
Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning CDFW's request (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. The Exempted Fishing Permit would allow commercial fishing vessels to fish outside fishery regulations in support of research conducted by the applicant. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed Exempted Fishing Permits.
Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2022.
You may submit written comments by the following method:
•
Laura Deighan, Fishery Management Specialist,
The Atlantic Offshore Lobstermen's Association submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict to pilot test a single early benthic-phase (EBP) lobster trap, which targets lobsters between 15- and 50-millimeter carapace length, to determine its feasibility for broader use in lobster surveys. This EFP would exempt the participating vessel from the Federal regulations described in Table 1.
This project would use one federally permitted lobster vessel to pilot test the use of an EBP lobster trap in Lobster Management Area 3 (Statistical Areas 561, 562, and 522) between May 1, 2022, and November 1, 2022. The EBP trap is an 80-centimeter square trap based on a modified crawfish trap. It has four square openings, measuring less than two inches, which lead to ramps that drop the lobsters into a baited kitchen. Inside the trap, there are additional ramps that lead the lobsters to four cylindrical parlors with vertical openings. The trap is attached to cement runners that provide weight and maintain proper orientation.
The participants would place the EBP trap on one of their existing trawls and haul it every 7-14 days during the course of the vessel's normal fishing activity. At each haul, the participants would record and immediately release all bycatch and measure, sex, and release all lobsters from the EBP trap. The project would include no more than 26 experimental hauls. In addition to the EBP trap, the vessel would fish with its full allotted number of standard traps, but the total number of traps would remain less than the Area 3 trap cap. Participants would land and sell the legal catch from the standard traps.
The goal of this project is to test the selectivity of the EBP trap (versus ventless traps that often catch eel and crab) and the scalability of its use. If successful, EBP traps could be used in lobster surveys to provide information about larval settlement patterns and juvenile nursery grounds.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of permits.
Notice is hereby given that permits have been issued to the following entities under the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) and the Endangered Species Act (ESA), as applicable.
The permits and related documents are available for review upon written request via email to
Erin Markin (Permit No. 25870) and Amy Hapeman (Permit No. 26024); at (301) 427-8401.
Notices were published in the
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by the ESA, as applicable, issuance of these permit was based on a finding that such permits: (1) Were applied for in good faith; (2) will not operate to the disadvantage of such endangered species; and (3) are consistent with the purposes and
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
This action adds service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and deletes product(s) from the Procurement List previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or email
On 7/9/2021 and 12/17/2021, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product(s) and service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service(s) are added to the Procurement List:
The Committee finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date normally required by the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This addition to the Committee's Procurement List is effectuated because of the expiration of the U.S. Coast Guard Surface Forces Logistics Center Integrated Logistics Support Services contract. The Federal customer contacted and has worked diligently with the AbilityOne Program to fulfill this service need under the AbilityOne Program. To avoid performance disruption, and the possibility that the U.S. Coast Guard Surface Forces Logistics Center will refer its business elsewhere, this addition must be effective on March 27, 2022, ensuring timely execution for a March 28, 2022, start date while still allowing 16 days for comment. Pursuant to its own regulation 41 CFR 51-2.4, the Committee has been in contact with one of the affected parties, the incumbent of the expiring contract, since June 2021 and determined that no severe adverse impact exists. The Committee also published a notice of proposed Procurement List addition in the
The Committee finds good cause to dispense with the 30-day delay in the effective date normally required by the Administrative Procedure Act. See 5 U.S.C. 553(d). This addition to the Committee's Procurement List is effectuated because of the need for the Department of Homeland Security to award a contract. The Federal customer contacted and has worked diligently with the AbilityOne Program to fulfill this service need under the AbilityOne Program. To avoid performance disruption, and the possibility that the Department of Homeland Security will refer its business elsewhere, this addition must be effective on March 27, 2022, ensuring timely execution for a March 31, start date while still allowing 16 days for comment. The Committee also published a notice of proposed Procurement List addition in the
On 9/17/2021, 10/1/2021, and 10/8/20212 (83 FR), the Committee for
After consideration of the relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are no longer suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product(s) and service(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete product(s) from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Comments must be received on or before: April 10, 2022.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia, 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
The following product(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Wednesday, March 9, 2022; 10:00 a.m.
This meeting will be conducted by remote means.
Commission Meeting—Closed to the Public.
Briefing Matter.
Alberta E. Mills, Secretary, Division of the Secretariat, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East-West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 (cell). The Commission unanimously determined by recorded vote to close the meeting and that agency business requires calling the meeting without seven calendar days advance public notice.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2022 for the Undergraduate International Studies and Foreign Language (UISFL) program, Assistance Listing Number 84.016A. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1840-0796.
New potential grantees who are unfamiliar with grantmaking at the Department may read additional information about the discretionary grant process and funding basics resources at
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
Tanyelle H. Richardson, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 258-14, Washington, DC 20222. Telephone: (202) 453-6391. 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.
These priorities are:
Applications from Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) (as defined in this notice) or community colleges (as defined in this notice), whether as individual applicants or as part of a consortium of institutions of higher education (IHEs) (consortium) or a partnership between nonprofit educational organizations and IHEs (partnership).
An application from a consortium or partnership that has an MSI or a community college as the lead applicant will receive more points under this priority than applications in which the MSI or community college is a member of a consortium or partnership but not the lead applicant.
A consortium or partnership must undertake activities designed to incorporate foreign languages into the curriculum of the MSI or community college and to improve foreign language and international or area studies instruction on the MSI or community college campus.
Applications from IHEs or consortia of these institutions that require entering students to have successfully completed at least two years of secondary school foreign language instruction or that require each graduating student to earn two years of postsecondary credit in a foreign language (or have demonstrated equivalent proficiency in the foreign language); or, in the case of a two-year degree granting institution, offer two years of postsecondary credit in a foreign language.
This priority is:
Applications that propose programs or activities focused on language training or the development of area or international studies programs focused on contemporary topics or themes in conjunction with training in any modern foreign languages, except French, German, or Spanish.
(1) Evidence that the applicant has conducted extensive planning prior to submitting the application;
(2) An assurance that the faculty and administrators of all relevant departments and programs served by the applicant are involved in ongoing collaboration with regard to achieving the stated objectives of the application;
(3) An assurance that students at the applicant institutions, as appropriate, will have equal access to, and derive benefits from, the UISFL program;
(4) An assurance that each applicant, consortium, or partnership will use the Federal assistance provided under the UISFL program to supplement and not supplant non-Federal funds the institution expends for programs to improve undergraduate instruction in international studies and foreign languages;
(5) A description of how the applicant will provide information to students regarding federally funded scholarship programs in related areas;
(6) An explanation of how the activities funded by the grant will reflect diverse perspectives and a wide range of views, and generate debate on world regions and international affairs, where applicable; and
(7) A description of how the applicant will encourage service in areas of national need, as identified by the Secretary.
The Administration has requested $2,185,593 for new awards for this program for FY 2022. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process before the end of the current fiscal year if Congress appropriates funds for this program.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2023 from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
For single applicant grants: Up to 24 months.
For consortia or partnership grants: Up to 36 months.
1.
2. a.
b.
c.
d.
3.
1.
2.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative,
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
•
The recommended page limit does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurance and certifications; or the abstract, the resumes, the biography, or letters of support. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
1.
(a)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) High quality in the design of the project;
(ii) An effective plan of management that ensures proper and efficient administration of the project;
(iii) A clear description of how the objectives of the project relate to the purpose of the program;
(iv) The way the applicant plans to use its resources and personnel to achieve each objective; and
(v) A clear description of how the applicant will provide equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as—
(A) Members of racial or ethnic minority groups;
(B) Women; and
(C) Handicapped persons.
(b)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The qualifications of the project director (if one is to be used);
(ii) The qualifications of each of the other key personnel to be used in the project. In the case of faculty, the qualifications of the faculty and the degree to which that faculty is directly involved in the actual teaching and supervision of students;
(iii) The time that each person referred to in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section plans to commit to the project; and
(iv) The extent to which the applicant, as part of its nondiscriminatory employment practices, encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have been traditionally underrepresented, such as members of racial or ethnic minority groups, women, handicapped persons, and the elderly.
(3) To determine the qualifications of a person, the Secretary considers evidence of past experience and training, in fields related to the objectives of the project, as well as other information that the applicant provides.
(c)
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows that the project has an adequate budget and is cost effective.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The budget for the project is adequate to support the project activities; and
(ii) Costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives of the project.
(d)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows methods of
(e)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) Other than library, facilities that the applicant plans to use are adequate (language laboratory, museums, etc.); and
(ii) The equipment and supplies that the applicant plans to use are adequate.
(f)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The institution's current strength as measured by the number of international studies courses offered;
(ii) The extent to which planning for the implementation of the proposed program has involved the applicant's faculty, as well as administrators;
(iii) The institutional commitment to the establishment, operation, and continuation of the program as demonstrated by optimal use of available personnel and other resources; and
(iv) The institutional commitment to the program as demonstrated by the use of institutional funds in support of the program's objectives.
(g)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The extent to which the proposed activities will contribute to the implementation of a program in international studies and foreign languages at the applicant institution;
(ii) The interdisciplinary aspects of the program;
(iii) The number of new and revised courses with an international perspective that will be added to the institution's programs; and
(iv) The applicant's plans to improve or expand language instruction.
(h)
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The extent to which the proposed activities are needed at the applicant institution;
(ii) The extent to which the proposed use of Federal funds will result in the implementation of a program in international studies and foreign languages at the applicant institution;
(iii) The likelihood that the activities initiated with Federal funds will be continued after Federal assistance is terminated; and
(iv) The adequacy of the provisions for sharing the materials and results of the program with other IHEs.
(1) The Secretary reviews each application for information that shows the need for and potential impact of the applicant's proposed projects in improving international studies and the study of modern foreign language at the undergraduate level.
(2) The Secretary looks for information that shows—
(i) The extent to which the applicant's proposed apportionment of Federal funds among the various budget categories for the proposed project will contribute to achieving results;
(ii) The international nature and contemporary relevance of the proposed project;
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project will make an especially significant contribution to the improvement of the teaching of international studies or modern foreign languages at the undergraduate level; and
(iv) The adequacy of the applicant's provisions for sharing the materials and results of the proposed project with the higher education community.
Additional information regarding these criteria is in the application package for this program. The total number of points available under these selection criteria, combined with the competitive preference priorities, is as follows:
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
Separate rank order slates for applications from (1) IHEs, consortia, and partnerships; and (2) public and private nonprofit agencies and organizations will be developed and used to make funding recommendations. Each slate will include the peer reviewers' scores from the highest score to the lowest score. In cases where two or more applications have the same final score in the rank order listing, but there are insufficient funds to support all of the equally ranked applications, the applicant who has not received a UISFL award within the last five years will be recommended to receive the award.
In cases where the scores for two or more applications remain tied after using the above tie breaker, program staff will use the scores assigned for Criterion 8,
The Secretary, to the extent practicable and consistent with the criterion of excellence, seeks to encourage diversity by ensuring that a variety of types of projects and institutions receive funding.
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
Performance reports for the UISFL program must be submitted electronically into the office of International and Foreign Language Education web-based reporting system, International Resource Information System (IRIS). For information about IRIS and to view the reporting instructions, please go to
5.
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Institute of Educational Science (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a reinstatement with change of a previously approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 10, 2022.
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 Carrie Clarady, 202-245-6347.
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.
TALIS 2024 is focused on teachers' professional environment, teaching conditions, and their impact on school and teacher effectiveness. TALIS 2024 will address teacher training and professional development, teacher appraisal, school climate, school leadership, instructional approaches, pedagogical practices, and teaching experience with and support for teaching diverse populations.
OECD has scheduled the main study to occur in the Northern hemisphere from February through March 2024 and in the Southern hemisphere from June through August 2024. To prepare for the main study, several TALIS countries will conduct pilot studies in February 2022; the U.S. will not participate. Countries will also conduct a field test in the first quarter of 2023, primarily to evaluate newly developed questionnaire items and school recruitment materials; the U.S. will participate in the field test. To meet the international data collection schedule for the field test, U.S. recruitment activities need to begin by August 2022 and U.S. questionnaires must be finalized by December 2022.
TALIS 2024 includes the core TALIS teacher and principal surveys that are required for each participating country, as well as an optional Teacher Knowledge Survey (TKS). The TKS is intended to better understand the teacher pedagogical knowledge base at the national level. The US is including the TKS in the upcoming TALIS 2024 field test and will evaluate these results to determine the feasibility of including TKS as part of the US Main Study.
This submission requests approval for: Recruitment and pre-survey activities for the 2023 field test sample; administration of the field test; and school recruitment and pre-survey activities for the 2024 main study sample. The materials that will be used in the 2024 main study will be based upon the field test materials included in this submission. Additionally, this submission is designed to adequately justify the need for and overall practical utility of the full study and to present the overarching plan for all phases of the data collection, providing as much detail about the measures to be used as is available at the time of this submission. As part of this submission, NCES is publishing a notice in the
Department of Energy.
Notice and request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before May 10, 2022. If you anticipate any difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in the
Written comments may be sent to Rashida Jackson-McIlwain, Office of Talent Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-1615, by email to
Rashida Jackson-McIlwain, Office of Talent Management, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-1615; 202-586-1542;
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 7, 2022, by Erin Moore, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of the Chief Human Capital Officer, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Department of Energy.
Notice of meetings.
The Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will meet on March 14, 16-17, 2022, through a webinar, in connection with a joint meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Market (SOM) which is scheduled at the same time.
March 14, 16-17, 2022.
The location details of the SEQ and SOM webinar meeting are under the control of the IEA Secretariat, located at 9 rue de la Fédération, 75015 Paris, France.
Mr. Thomas Reilly, Assistant General Counsel for International and National Security Programs, Department of Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-5000.
In accordance with section 252(c)(1)(A)(i) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(i)) (EPCA), the following notice of meetings is provided:
A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held as a webinar, commencing at 12 noon, Central European Time (CET), on March 16, 2022. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at a meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ), which is scheduled to be held via webinar at the same time. The IAB will also hold a preparatory meeting via webinar among company representatives at 14:00 CET on March 14, 2022. The agenda for this preparatory webinar meeting is to review the agenda for the SEQ meeting. The location details of the SEQ webinar meeting are under the control of the IEA Secretariat, located at 9 rue de la Fédération, 75015 Paris, France. The agenda of the SEQ meeting is under the control of the SEQ. It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following agenda:
A meeting of the Industry Advisory Board (IAB) to the International Energy Agency (IEA) will be held as a webinar, commencing at 12 noon, Central European Time (CET), on March 17, 2022. The purpose of this notice is to permit attendance by representatives of U.S. company members of the IAB at a joint meeting of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions (SEQ) and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Market (SOM), which is scheduled to be held via webinar at the same time.
The location details of the SEQ webinar meeting are under the control of the IEA Secretariat, located at 9 rue de la Fédération, 75015 Paris, France. The agenda of the meeting is under the control of the SEQ. It is expected that the SEQ will adopt the following agenda:
As provided in section 252(c)(1)(A)(ii) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6272(c)(1)(A)(ii)), the meetings of the IAB are open to representatives of members of the IAB and their counsel; representatives of members of the IEA's Standing Group on Emergency Questions and the IEA's Standing Group on the Oil Markets; representatives of the Departments of Energy, Justice, and State, the Federal Trade Commission, the General Accounting Office, Committees of Congress, the IEA, and the European Commission; and invitees of the IAB, the SEQ, the SOM, or the IEA.
On February 22, 2022 the staff of the Office of Energy Projects issued
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) will prepare an environmental document that will discuss the environmental impacts of the Virginia Reliability Project and Commonwealth Energy Connector Project involving construction and operation of facilities by Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia) and Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Company, LLC (Transco), respectively. Columbia's project would be located in Greensville, Prince George, Sussex, Surry, Southampton, and Isle of Wight Counties, Virginia and in the cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake, Virginia. Transco's project would be located in Mecklenburg, Brunswick, and Greensville Counties, Virginia. Because of planned operational connections between the Virginia Reliability Project and the Commonwealth Energy Connector Project, the Commission will prepare a single environmental document as part of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process. The Commission will use this environmental document in its decision-making process to determine whether the projects are in the public convenience and necessity.
This notice announces the extension of the scoping process the Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested agencies regarding the projects. As part of the NEPA review process, the Commission takes into account concerns the public may have about proposals and the environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity. This gathering of public input is referred to as “scoping.” The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the analysis in the environmental document on the important environmental issues. Additional information about the Commission's NEPA process is described below in the
By this notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of issues to address in the environmental document. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 6, 2022. Comments may be submitted in written or oral form. Further details on how to submit comments are provided in the
Your comments should focus on the potential environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the environmental document. Commission staff will consider all written or oral comments during the preparation of the environmental document.
If you submitted comments on either of these projects to the Commission before the opening of the dockets on December 1, 2021, you will need to file those comments in Docket Nos. PF22-3-000 (Virginia Reliability Project) or PF22-4-000 (Commonwealth Energy Connector Project) to ensure they are considered.
This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental mailing list for these projects. State and local government representatives should notify their constituents of these planned projects and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a representative from Columbia or Transco may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to construct, operate, and maintain the planned facilities. The company would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission approves the project, the Natural Gas Act conveys the right of eminent domain to the company. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an easement agreement, the pipeline company could
A fact sheet prepared by the FERC entitled “An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do I Need To Know?” addresses typically asked questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate in the Commission's proceedings. This fact sheet along with other landowner topics of interest are available for viewing on the FERC website (
There are four methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. Please carefully follow these instructions so that your comments are properly recorded. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the project docket number (PF22-3-000 for Virginia Reliability Project or PF22-4-000 for Commonwealth Energy Connector Project) on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
(4) In lieu of sending written comments, the Commission invites you to attend a virtual public scoping session. As previously mentioned, on February 22, we issued a scoping notice titled
Although there will not be a formal presentation, Commission staff will be available to answer questions you may have about the environmental review process. The primary goal of these scoping sessions are to have you identify the specific environmental issues and concerns that should be considered in the environmental document. Individual oral comments will be taken on a one-on-one basis with a court reporter present on the line. This format is designed to receive the maximum amount of oral comments, in a convenient way during the timeframe allotted, and is in response to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.
The scoping sessions are scheduled from 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. eastern time. You may call at any time after 5:00 p.m. at which time you will be placed on mute and hold. Calls will be answered in the order they are received. Once answered, you will have the opportunity to provide your comment directly to a court reporter with FERC staff or representative present on the line. A time limit of three minutes will be implemented for each commentor. Transcripts of all comments received during the scoping sessions will be publicly available on FERC's eLibrary system (see the last page of this notice for instructions on using eLibrary).
It is important to note that the Commission provides equal consideration to all comments received, whether filed in written form or provided orally at a virtual scoping sessions.
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription, which makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings. Go to
Columbia plans to replace and expand existing facilities associated with its VM-107 and VM-108 pipelines in southeast Virginia. The Virginia Reliability Project would increase the capability of Columbia's existing pipeline facilities to provide incremental firm transportation service of 100,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/d), while increasing the reliability of Columbia's system by replacing 1950s vintage pipeline. According to Columbia, its project would meet the increasing market demand of residential, commercial, and industrial consumers in southeast Virginia.
The Virginia Reliability Project would consist of the following:
• Replacement of approximately 47.7 miles of existing, 1950s vintage 12-inch-diameter VM-107 and VM-108 pipelines with 24-inch-diameter pipeline mostly within Columbia's existing right-of-way, in the Counties of Sussex, Surry, Southampton, and Isle of Wight, as well as the cities of Suffolk and Chesapeake, Virginia;
• installation of one new 5,500 horsepower (HP) electric-drive compressor unit at the existing Emporia Compressor Station in Greensville County, Virginia;
• a facility upgrade involving additional gas cooling and an increase of 2,700 HP at the existing Petersburg Compressor Station in Prince George County, Virginia;
• expansion of the Emporia Point of Receipt in Greensville County, Virginia; RS-7423 Regulator Station in Prince George County, Virginia; and the MS-831010 Point of Delivery in the City of Chesapeake, Virginia; and
• eight mainline valve replacements, five new launcher/receiver installations, and other minor appurtenant facilities.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
Transco plans to expand its existing natural gas transmission system to provide 105,000 Dth/d of incremental firm transportation capacity from its Compressor Station 165 in Pittsylvania County, Virginia to the existing Emporia delivery point in Greensville County, Virginia on the existing South Virginia Lateral B-Line Pipeline.
The Commonwealth Energy Connector Project would consist of the following:
• Construction of a 6.35-mile-long, 24-inch-diameter pipeline loop
• installation of a 30,500 HP electric motor-drive compressor unit at the existing Compressor Station 168 in Mecklenburg County, Virginia; and
• expansion of the existing Emporia Metering and Regulator Station in Greensville County, Virginia.
The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix 1.
As a preliminary estimate, construction of the planned facilities for the Virginia Reliability Project would disturb about 814 acres of land for the aboveground facilities and the pipeline. Following construction, Columbia would maintain about 195 acres for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage would be restored. These acreages are subject to change pending further pipeline route refinement. The pipeline route, as currently planned, parallels Columbia's existing VM-107 and VM-108 pipelines.
Construction of the planned facilities for the Commonwealth Energy Connector would disturb about 168 acres of land for the compressor station modifications and the pipeline. An additional amount, as yet to be quantified, would be disturbed for aboveground facilities. Following construction, Transco would maintain about 2.8 acres of new pipeline right-of-way for permanent operation of the project's facilities; the remaining acreage is either part of its existing permanent right-of-way or would be restored. The acreage that would be permanently affected by aboveground facilities outside of Transco's existing facilities has yet to be quantified. The pipeline route, as currently planned, parallels Transco's existing South Virginia Lateral A-Line.
Any environmental document issued by Commission staff will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the construction and operation of the planned projects under the relevant general resource areas:
• Geology and soils;
• water resources and wetlands;
• vegetation and wildlife;
• threatened and endangered species;
• cultural resources;
• socioeconomics and environmental justice;
• land use;
• air quality and noise;
• climate change; and
• reliability and safety.
Commission staff have already identified several issues that deserve attention based on a preliminary review of the planned facilities and the environmental information provided by Columbia and Transco for their respective projects. This preliminary list of issues may change based on your comments and our analysis:
• Lands administered by the Great Dismal Swamp National Wildlife Refuge and alternative alignments to reduce or avoid impacts;
• the Sunray Historic District in the city of Chesapeake, Virginia;
• residential, commercial, and industrial areas;
• agricultural lands;
• wetlands and waterbodies; and
• forested areas.
Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the planned projects or portions of the projects and make recommendations on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas. Your comments will help Commission staff identify and focus on the issues that might have an effect on the human environment and potentially eliminate others from further study and discussion in the environmental document.
Although no formal application has been filed for either project, Commission staff have already initiated a NEPA review under the Commission's pre-filing process. The purpose of the pre-filing process is to encourage early involvement of interested stakeholders and to identify and resolve issues before the Commission receives an application. As part of the pre-filing review, Commission staff will contact federal and state agencies to discuss their involvement in the scoping process and the preparation of the environmental document.
If formal applications are filed, Commission staff will then determine whether to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The EA or the EIS will present Commission staff's independent analysis of the environmental issues. If Commission staff prepares an EA, a
With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the environmental issues related to these projects to formally cooperate in the preparation of the environmental document.
In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate consultation with the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, and to solicit its views and those of other government agencies, interested Indian tribes, and the public on the projects' potential effects on historic properties.
The environmental mailing list includes federal, state, and local government representatives and agencies; elected officials; environmental and public interest groups; Native American Tribes; and other interested parties. This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors, whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone who submits comments on the projects and includes a mailing address with their comments. Commission staff will update the environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/or potentially affected by the planned projects.
If you need to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove your name from the mailing list, please complete one of the following steps:
(1) Send an email to
(2) Return the attached “Mailing List Update Form” (appendix 2).
Once Columbia and Transco file their applications with the Commission, you may want to become an “intervenor” which is an official party to the Commission's proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to seek rehearing of the Commission's decision and be heard by the courts if they choose to appeal the Commission's final ruling. An intervenor formally participates in the proceeding by filing a request to intervene pursuant to Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures (18 CFR 385.214). Motions to intervene are more fully described at
Additional information about the projects is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's calendar located at
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
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.
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 the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the 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. Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, protests, and recommendations is 30 days from the issuance date of this notice by the Commission. The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene, protests, comments, or recommendations using the Commission's eFiling system at
k.
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.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notification for a public meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) hereby provides notice that the White House Environmental Justice Advisory Council (WHEJAC) will meet on the dates and times described below. The meeting is open to the public. Members of the public are encouraged to provide comments relevant to the beta version of the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool that was developed by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and comments relevant to federal government agencies' implementation of the Justice40 Initiative. For additional information about registering to attend the meetings or to provide public comment, please see “
The WHEJAC will hold a virtual public meeting on Wednesday, March 30, 2022, and Thursday, March 31, 2022, from approximately 3:00 p.m.-7:00 p.m., Eastern Time each day. A public comment period relevant to the beta version of the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool and federal government agencies' implementation of the Justice40 Initiative will be considered by the WHEJAC during the meeting on March 30, 2022. (see
Karen L. Martin, WHEJAC Designated Federal Officer, U.S. EPA; email:
The meeting discussion will focus on the beta version of the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool developed by the CEQ and WHEJAC draft recommendations on the implementation of the Justice40 Initiative. These two charges were established through Executive Order 14008, “Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad.”
The Charter of the WHEJAC states that the advisory committee will provide independent advice and recommendations to the Chair of the CEQ and to the White House Environmental Justice Interagency Council (IAC). The WHEJAC will provide advice and recommendations about broad cross-cutting issues, related but not limited to, issues of environmental justice and pollution reduction, energy, climate change mitigation and resiliency, environmental health, and racial inequity. The WHEJAC's efforts will include a broad range of strategic, scientific, technological, regulatory, community engagement, and economic issues related to environmental justice.
The WHEJAC is interested in receiving public comments relevant to the beta version of the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool that was developed by the CEQ and federal government agencies' implementation of the Justice40 Initiative. Every effort will be made to hear from as many registered public commenters during the time specified on the agenda. Individuals or groups providing remarks during the public comment period will be limited to three (3) minutes. Please be prepared to briefly describe your comments and recommendations on what you want the WHEJAC to advise CEQ and IAC to do regarding the beta version of the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool and federal government agencies' implementation of the Justice40 Initiative. Submitting written comments for the record are strongly encouraged. You can submit your written comments in three different ways, 1. by creating comments in the Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OA-2022-0050 at
For information about access or services for individuals requiring assistance, please contact Karen L. Martin, via email at
Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.
EIS No. 20220029, Draft, FERC, PA, Regional Energy Access Expansion Project, Comment Period Ends: 04/25/2022, Contact: Office of External Affairs 866-208-3372.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of final decision on no migration petition reissuance.
Notice is hereby given that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has approved the reissuance of an existing no migration petition (petition) by Occidental Chemical Corporation (OxyChem) under the 1984 Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act. OxyChem has adequately demonstrated to the satisfaction of EPA by the petition reissuance application and supporting documentation that, to a reasonable degree of certainty, there will be no migration of hazardous constituents from the injection zone for as long as the waste remains hazardous.
Ben Meissner, Lead Petition Reviewer, Water Division—Groundwater and Drinking Water Branch, Environmental Protection Agency, 11201 Renner Boulevard, Lenexa, Kansas 66219; telephone number: 913-551-7992; fax number: 913-551-9992; email address:
The existing petition allows for the subsurface disposal by OxyChem of specific restricted wastes via Class I hazardous waste injection wells at OxyChem's Wichita, Kansas facility and was approved by EPA with an effective date of October 24, 2008. In its renewal application, OxyChem requested that the petition reissuance include six Class I wells which would cover the five existing Class I injection wells in addition to a Class I well yet to be drilled. This action results in no change to the total volume of fluids to be injected. This final decision allows the underground injection by OxyChem of the specific wastes identified in the petition reissuance into injection wells Number 3, 8, 9 10, 11 and proposed number 14 at the Wichita, Kansas facility through January 2, 2040, unless EPA moves to terminate this exemption pursuant to 40 CFR 148.24. Included in this approval is the stipulation that OxyChem acquires and continues to maintain an approved permit from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment for all Class I injection wells. A public notice concerning the Agency's proposed action was issued on October 15, 2021, and the public comment period closed on December 3, 2021. In addition to soliciting written comments regarding the Agency's proposed approval, EPA conducted a virtual public availability session and a virtual formal public hearing on November 18, 2021. No comments were received during the comment period. This decision constitutes a final Agency action. There is no further administrative process to appeal this decision. This decision may be reviewed/appealed in compliance with the Administrative Procedure Act.
You may access this
Tuesday, March 29th, 2022 from 2:00-4:30 p.m. ET.
The meeting will be held virtually.
Public Participation: The meeting will be open to public participation and time will be allotted for questions or comments submitted online. Members of the public may also file written statements before or after the meeting to
Discussion of EXIM policies and programs to provide competitive financing to expand United States exports and comments for inclusion in EXIM's Report to the U.S. Congress on Global Export Credit Competition.
For further information, contact India Walker, External Enagagement Specialist, at 202-480-0062 or at
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 May 10, 2022. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
On November 22, 2019, the Commission adopted the
On March 12, 2020, the President signed into law the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Act of 2019 (Secure Networks Act), Public Law 116-124, 133 Stat. 158 (2020) (codified as amended at 47 U.S.C. 1601-1609), which among other measures, directs the FCC to establish the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (Reimbursement Program). This program is intended to provide funding to providers of advanced communications service for the removal, replacement and disposal of certain communications equipment and services that poses an unacceptable national security risk (
On December 10, 2020, the Commission adopted the
On December 27, 2020, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA), appropriating $1.9 billion to “carry out” the Reimbursement Program and amending the Reimbursement Program eligibility requirements to expand eligibility to include providers of advanced communications service with 10 million or fewer subscribers and making clear that schools, libraries, and health care providers are eligible to receive Reimbursement Program support to the extent they qualify as
Separate from the Reimbursement Program, the Secure Networks Act requires all providers of advanced communications service to annually report, with exception, on whether they have purchased, rented, leased or otherwise obtained covered communications equipment or service on or after certain dates. 47 U.S.C. 1603(d)(2)(B). The
The Commission therefore propose to revise this information collection, as well as Form 5460, to reflect this new requirement contained in the
Federal Communications Commission.
Request for comments.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) seeks comment on vulnerabilities threatening the security and integrity of the Border Gateway Protocol (BGP), which is central to the Internet's global routing system, its impact on the transmission of data from email, e-commerce, and bank transactions to interconnected Voice-over Internet Protocol (VoIP) and 9-1-1 calls, and how best to address them.
Comments are due on or before April 11, 2022; and reply comments are due on or before May 10, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by PS Docket No. 22-90, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on this proceeding, see the
For additional information on this proceeding, contact James Wiley of the Cybersecurity and Communications Reliability Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, at
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Inquiry, FCC 22-18, released February 28, 2022. The full text of this document is available at
•
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
1. The Commission plays an important role in protecting the security of America's communications networks and critical infrastructure. The Commission, in tandem with its federal partners, has urged the communications sector to defend against cyber threats, while also taking measures to reinforce our Nation's readiness and to strengthen the cybersecurity of vital communications services and infrastructure, especially in light of Russia's escalating actions inside of Ukraine. Today, the Commission builds on those efforts. With this
2. BGP is the routing protocol used to exchange reachability information amongst independently managed networks on the internet. These independently managed networks (also termed “domains”) loosely map to one or more “Autonomous Systems” (so termed because the administration of the network is the sole responsibility of a single, independent entity). BGP's initial design, which remains widely deployed today, does not include security features to ensure trust in the information that it is used to exchange. BGP was designed at a time when the number of independently managed networks on the internet was low and the trust among them was high. As a result, a bad network actor may deliberately falsify BGP reachability information to redirect traffic to itself or through a specific third-party network, and prevent that traffic from reaching its intended recipient. When a bad actor directs traffic to be dropped in this way, it is commonly referred to as a “blackhole.” These “BGP hijacks” expose U.S. citizens' personally identifiable information, enable theft, extortion, and state-level espionage, and disrupt otherwise-secure transactions. The Commission uses the term “BGP hijacking” to refer to any deliberate injection of routing information away from the optimal (or most secure) route, including both false route origination and path interception attacks.
3. Congress created the Commission, among other reasons, “for the purpose of the national defense [and] for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property through the use of wire and radio communications.” To obtain “maximum effectiveness from the use of radio and wire communications in connection with the safety of life and property,” the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, directs the Commission to “investigate and study all phases of the problem and the best methods of obtaining the cooperation and coordination” of such systems.”
4. The Commission has taken targeted steps to protect the nation's communications infrastructure from potential security threats. Most recently, the Commission encouraged communications companies to review cybersecurity practices to defend against threats to critical infrastructure, sought comment on how the Commission can leverage its equipment authorization program to encourage device manufacturers to consider cybersecurity standards and guidelines, and acted in the public interest to deny and revoke the section 214 authority of certain carriers to provide telecommunications service in the United States.
5. Independently managed networks are essential to the daily functioning of critical infrastructure such as transportation, gas and electric power, water, and financial markets. These networks can be vulnerable to attack if they deploy a version of BGP at their borders that cannot verify the integrity or authenticity of routing information. These vulnerabilities have two main causes: (1) Validating a route's origin; and (2) securing and validating the correct BGP path to a given destination. BGP's vulnerabilities allow a network operator to accidentally or maliciously misconfigure its BGP routers to falsely advertise that its network contains the intended destination for certain internet traffic, or is on the path to that destination. By advertising incorrect routing information, a bad actor could spread incorrect information to other networks and cause traffic intended for the advertised destination to be misrouted to, or through, the bad actor's network. Causing internet traffic to depart from its most efficient path is termed “BGP hijacking.” Although BGP hijacking can occur anywhere on the global internet, the Commission has an interest in minimizing or eliminating opportunities for it within its jurisdiction because it can potentially harm U.S. citizens, commerce, and public safety operations.
6. Russian network operators have been suspected of exploiting BGP's
7. Over the past two decades, internet stakeholders have developed new standards, specifications, and best practice recommendations intended to address the security risk that BGP poses. The Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the principal authority responsible for internet standards, has finalized several standards to reduce BGP vulnerabilities, including BGPsec, an extension to BGP that provides security for the path through which reachability information passes. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has released a practice guide proposing a method of validating routes' origins and recommendations for resilient exchange between independently managed networks. In 2017, the Internet Society launched Mutually Agreed Norms for Routing Security (MANRS), an organizational initiative with membership including over 700 network operators, Internet Service Providers, and enterprises, which aims to reduce or prevent route hijacking and denial of service attacks by requiring network operators to implement available tools and applicable IETF Best Common Practice standards. MANRS focuses on improving routing security by filtering routing advertisements to include only those likely to be relevant to the customer BGP router; enabling source IP address validation for customer networks; coordinating and sharing contact information for network operations center contacts through regional internet registries, and enabling routing information to be validated on a global scale. MANRS offers a tool called “MANRS Observatory” that aggregates data from trusted sources into a dashboard to help network operators improve the security of their networks. Similarly, the Commission's Communications Security, Reliability, and Interoperability Council (CSRIC) has reported on best practices and recommendations to improve the security of BGP. The roman numerals following the name of federal advisory committee, “CSRIC,” enumerate the successive years during which the Commission has chartered CSRIC to provide recommendations on selected topics. CSRIC III recommended that network operators ensure that BGP routers' internet routing registries are accurate, complete, and up-to-date, and that network operators use a standards-based approach for providing cryptographically secure registries of internet resources and routing authorizations, a Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI). In this connection, the FCC sought comment on the implementation and effectiveness of the CSRIC III recommendations and/or alternatives that stakeholders have developed since the time of the CSRIC's original work to address these challenges. CSRIC VI recommended that network operators support MANRS and IETF Best Common Practice standards. Notwithstanding this work, available information suggests that the voluntary adoption and deployment of such measures has been such that many of the independently managed networks that comprise the internet remain vulnerable because they have not taken advantage of these measures.
8.
9.
10.
11. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which RPKI, as implemented by other regional internet registries, effectively prevents BGP hijacking. To what extent do network operators take advantage of the RPKI services that regional internet registries offer by implementing RPKI in their networks? To what extent, if any, do network operators' service level agreements affect the ability of network operators to drop traffic that RPKI deems invalid? How do regional internet registries maintain the certificate authority for the RPKIs in a way that mitigates the risk of a single point of failure vulnerable to distributed denial of service attacks? How do regional internet registries prevent conflicts among distributed RPKI trust anchors?
12. The Commission seeks comment on whether and to what extent network operators anticipate integrating BGPsec-capable routers into their networks. The specification for the BGPsec extension to BGP became available in 2017, but it appears that BGPsec has not been widely deployed despite BGP's known vulnerabilities. Why have network operators not taken more aggressive steps to adopt BGPsec? What particular obstacles or concerns about BGPsec have slowed their adoption? To what extent does the introduction of BGPsec routers potentially introduce compatibility issues among managed networks or introduce delays?
13. For network operators that currently participate in MANRS and comply with its requirements, including support for IETF Best Common Practice standards, the Commission seeks comment on the efficacy of such measures for preventing BGP hijacking. To what extent do the network operators that participate in MANRS support both its required and recommended routing security actions, as well as applicable IETF Best Common Practice standards on which those actions are based? To what extent do network operators participate in MANRS' various programs, including its equipment vendor program, launched in 2021, which aims to enable routing security features on network equipment and provide support and training guidance to use them, or take advantage of the MANRS Observatory.
14.
15. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which other nations' telecommunications regulators and multistakeholder organizations have issued rules, guidance, or otherwise encouraged network operators, network security organizations, and equipment vendors to implement BGP security measures and on any lessons learned from those endeavors. The Commission seeks comment on the extent to which the effectiveness of BGP security measures may be related to international participation and coordination.
16.
17. The Commission seeks comment on whether the Commission should encourage industry to prioritize the deployment of BGP security measures within the networks on which critical infrastructure and emergency services rely, as a means of helping industry to control costs otherwise associated with a network-wide deployment. Would this or another phased or gradual implementation of BGP security measures be effective and help network operators to plan for and control implementation costs?
18. The Commission also seeks comment on the national security, economic, and public safety benefits of more secure internet routing, both within the U.S. and globally. What entities are particularly affected by threats to BGP security? To what extent would the security measures discussed herein be effective in mitigating BGP hijacking? What is the potential impact of mitigating BGP hijacking on U.S. national security and the U.S. economy? Have stakeholders attempted to quantify the benefits that secure internet routing could convey by protecting critical infrastructure, sensitive communications, and personally identifiable information? Have stakeholders attempted to quantify the benefits of secure internet routing in terms of the potential loss of Intellectual Property, communications delays, or disruptions that BGP's unmitigated vulnerability represents? Have stakeholders attempted to measure or quantify the extent to which BGP hijacking poses a threat to life and property by disrupting 9-1-1 calls carried by providers of interconnected VoIP service? What other benefits could potentially accrue from this inquiry?
19.
20. Authority for this Notice of Inquiry may be found in sections 1, 4(i)-(j), 4(n), 7, and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i)-(j), 154(n), 157 and Section 1.430 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.430.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice.
As required by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel has appointed the following executives to the Senior Executive Service (SES) Performance Review Board (PRB):
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 May 10, 2022. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
One such precondition now included on Form A-384, for which the FCC previously received Emergency approval, is the requirement that students comply with regulations and policies pertaining to COVID-19 vaccination requirements for Federal workers. On September 9, 2021, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14043, “Requiring Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination for Federal Employees,” requiring all Federal employees, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 2105, to be vaccinated against COVID-19, with exceptions only as required by law. Although the vaccination requirement is currently the subject of a nationwide injunction, the FCC will continue to develop and implement health and safety protocols to ensure and maintain the safety of all occupants during standard operations and public health emergencies or similar health and safety incidents, such as a pandemic. As relevant here, this includes requiring unpaid employees to report their vaccination status.
March 16, 2022; 10:00 a.m.
This meeting will be held by video-conference only.
Part of the meeting will be open to the public and available to view, streamed live, accessible from
William Cody, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Request for supplemental evidence and data submissions.
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) is seeking scientific information submissions from the public. Scientific information is being solicited to inform our review on
Jenae Benns, Telephone: 301-427-1496 or Email:
The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has commissioned the Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPC) Program to complete a review of the evidence for
The EPC Program is dedicated to identifying as many studies as possible that are relevant to the questions for each of its reviews. In order to do so, we are supplementing the usual manual and electronic database searches of the literature by requesting information from the public (
This is to notify the public that the EPC Program would find the following information on
A list of completed studies that your organization has sponsored for this indication. In the list, please
Description of whether the above studies constitute
Your contribution is very beneficial to the Program. Materials submitted must be publicly available or able to be made public. Materials that are considered confidential; marketing materials; study types not included in the review; or information on indications not included in the review cannot be used by the EPC Program. This is a voluntary request for information, and all costs for complying
The draft of this review will be posted on AHRQ's EPC Program website and available for public comment for a period of 4 weeks. If you would like to be notified when the draft is posted, please sign up for the email list at:
KQ 1: What healthcare delivery strategies affect postpartum healthcare utilization and improve maternal outcomes within 1 year postpartum?
a. Do the healthcare delivery strategies affect postpartum healthcare utilization and improve maternal outcomes within 3 months postpartum? Does this relationship differ by timing of outcomes, specifically within 6 days postpartum, between 1 to 6 weeks postpartum, and between 6 weeks and 3 months postpartum?
b. Do the healthcare delivery strategies affect postpartum healthcare utilization and improve maternal outcomes between 3 months and 1 year postpartum?
KQ 2: Does extension of health insurance coverage or improvements in access to healthcare affect postpartum healthcare utilization and improve maternal outcomes within 1 year postpartum?
Categories of interventions include components of the ACOG Postpartum Care Plan:
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of delisting.
The Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Final Rule (Patient Safety Rule) authorizes AHRQ, on behalf of the Secretary of HHS, to list as a patient safety organization (PSO) an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” by the Secretary if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety and Quality Improvement Act of 2005 (Patient Safety Act) and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. AHRQ accepted a notification of proposed voluntary relinquishment from the QCMetrix PSO, PSO number P0166, of its status as a PSO, and has delisted the PSO accordingly.
The delisting was effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on February 11, 2022.
The directories for both listed and delisted PSOs are ongoing and reviewed weekly by AHRQ. Both directories can be accessed electronically at the following HHS website:
Cathryn Bach, Center for Quality Improvement and Patient Safety, AHRQ, 5600 Fishers Lane, MS 06N100B, Rockville, MD 20857; Telephone (toll free): (866) 403-3697; Telephone (local): (301) 427-1111; TTY (toll free): (866) 438-7231; TTY (local): (301) 427-1130; Email:
The Patient Safety Act, 42 U.S.C. 299b-21 to 299b-26, and the related Patient Safety Rule, 42 CFR part 3, published in the
The Patient Safety Act authorizes the listing of PSOs, which are entities or component organizations whose mission and primary activity are to conduct activities to improve patient safety and the quality of health care delivery.
HHS issued the Patient Safety Rule to implement the Patient Safety Act. AHRQ administers the provisions of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule relating to the listing and operation of PSOs. The Patient Safety Rule authorizes AHRQ to list as a PSO an entity that attests that it meets the statutory and regulatory requirements for listing. A PSO can be “delisted” if it is found to no longer meet the requirements of the Patient Safety Act and Patient Safety Rule, when a PSO chooses to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO for any reason, or when a PSO's listing expires. Section 3.108(d) of the Patient Safety Rule requires AHRQ to provide public notice when it removes an organization from the list of PSOs.
AHRQ has accepted a notification of proposed voluntary relinquishment from the QCMetrix PSO to voluntarily relinquish its status as a PSO. Accordingly, the QCMetrix PSO, PSO number P0166, was delisted effective at 12:00 Midnight ET (2400) on February 11, 2022.
QCMetrix PSO has patient safety work product (PSWP) in its possession. The PSO will meet the requirements of section 3.108(c)(2)(i) of the Patient Safety Rule regarding notification to providers that have reported to the PSO and of section 3.108(c)(2)(ii) regarding disposition of PSWP consistent with section 3.108(b)(3). According to section 3.108(b)(3) of the Patient Safety Rule, the PSO has 90 days from the effective date of delisting and revocation to complete the disposition of PSWP that is currently in the PSO's possession.
More information on PSOs can be obtained through AHRQ's PSO website at
Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Children's Bureau (CB), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is requesting a 3-year extension of the Plan for Foster Care and Adoption Assistance—Title IV-E, (OMB#: 0970-0433, expiration 11/30/2022). This plan also incorporates the plan requirements for the optional Guardianship Assistance Program, the Title IV-E prevention services plan and the Title IV-E Kinship Navigator program. There are no changes requested to the form.
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
Title IV-E of the Act was amended by Public Law 115-123, which included the Family First Prevention Services Act (FFPSA). FFPSA authorized new optional Title IV-E funding for time-limited (1 year) prevention services for mental health/substance abuse and in-home parent skill-based programs for (1) a child who is a candidate for foster care (as defined in section 475(13) of the Act), (2) pregnant/parenting foster youth, and (3) the parents/kin caregivers of those children and youth (sections 471(e), 474(a)(6), and 475(13) of the Act). Title IV-E prevention services must be rated as promising, supported, or well supported in accordance with HHS criteria and be approved by HHS (section 471(e)(4)(C) of the Act) as part of the Title IV-E Prevention Services Clearinghouse (section 476(d)(2) of the
FFPSA also amended section 474(a)(7) of the Act to reimburse state and tribal Title IV-E agencies for a portion of the costs of operating kinship navigator programs that meet certain criteria. To qualify for funding under the Title IV-E Kinship Navigator Program, the program must meet the requirements of a kinship navigator program described in section 427(a)(1) of the Act. The Kinship Navigator Program must meet practice criteria of promising, supported, or well-supported in accordance with HHS criteria and be approved by HHS (section 471(e)(4)(C) of the Act). To begin participation in the Title IV-E Kinship Navigator Program, a Title IV-E agency must submit an attachment to its Title IV-E plan that specifies the kinship navigator model it has chosen to implement and the date on which the provision of program services began or will begin, and provide an assurance that the model meets the requirements of section 427(a)(1) of the Act, as well as a brief narrative describing how the program will be operated. (Please see Program Instruction ACYF-CB-PI-18-11 for additional information:
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Principal Deputy Administrator of the Administration for Community Living (ACL) seeks nominations for individuals to serve on the Advisory Council to Support Grandparents Raising Grandchildren.
Nominations must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m., Eastern on April 11, 2022 to be considered for appointment.
The Advisory Council to Support Grandparents Raising Grandchildren is authorized by the Supporting Grandparents Raising Grandchildren Act (Pub. L. 115-196) of 2018. The Advisory Council identifies, promotes, coordinates, and disseminates to the public information, resources, and the best practices available to help grandparents and other older relatives both meet the needs of the children in their care; and maintain their own physical and mental health and emotional well-being. The Advisory Council is specifically directed to consider the needs of those affected by the opioid crisis, as well as the needs of members of Native American Tribes.
The Administration for Community Living has been delegated the authority to execute the requirements and responsibilities as outlined in the Act.
The Advisory Council is made up of the following (or their designees): The Administrator of the Administration for Community Living (ACL); the Secretary of Education; the Assistant Secretary for Mental Health and Substance Use; the Assistant Secretary for the Administration for Children and Families; and, as appropriate, the heads of other federal departments or agencies with responsibilities related to current issues affecting grandparents or other older relatives raising children.
The Advisory Council also must include at least one grandparent who is raising a grandchild, and an older relative (kinship) caregiver caring for children. Given the Biden administration's commitment to equity and inclusion, ACL anticipates selecting up to ten (10) non-federal members to serve on the Advisory Council who will be reflective of the diversity of grandparents and older relative/kinship caregivers and the professionals working on their behalf, with particular emphasis placed on individuals representing racially and ethnically diverse communities, tribal communities, and those families impacted by the opioid crisis.
The Advisory Council, or its individual members, may be engaged to author/co-author articles and other materials; engage with print and electronic media; and deliver presentations, workshops, webinars and other forms of educational opportunities designed to highlight the Administration's commitment to supporting kin and grandparent caregivers.
As needed, and where appropriate, this Advisory Council will coordinate its efforts with those of the Family Caregiving Advisory Council. Such coordination might include joint meetings, presentations, and other activities undertaken in fulfillment of the requirements of the RAISE Act.
The Advisory Council will meet virtually (via Zoom or similar platform), up to three times each year, beginning in September/October 2022. Council meetings will generally be held from 12:30 to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time. All meetings of the Council will be open to the public and recorded for posting on the ACL website. Advisory Council members will be expected to participate in at least one subcommittee, which will meet, as needed, between Advisory Council meetings to develop and review materials and conduct other activities related to the Advisory Council's mission and purpose.
The completion of all described activities is dependent upon the continued availability of federal funding for the purposes of carrying out the legislation.
(1) A nomination letter not to exceed one (1) page that provides ALL the following information:
a. The reason(s) for nominating the individual;
b. The constituency being represented:
i. A grandparent raising a grandchild; or
ii. An older relative caregiver of children;
iii. A grandparent or older relative caregiver whose family has been impacted by opioid misuse; or
iv. A grandparent or older relative caregiver who is a member of Native American tribe; or
v. Another expert and/or advocate engaged in programs, services, and supports to kinship families and grandfamilies.
c. The nominee's particular, relevant experience and/or professional expertise;
d. Contact information for the nominee (name, title (if applicable), address, phone, and email address); and
e. The nominee's resume (not to exceed two (2) pages) if the nomination is based on their professional capacity or qualifications. A resume is optional otherwise.
Nominees will be selected for appointment based on their demonstrated knowledge, qualifications, and professional or personal experience related to the purpose and scope of the Advisory Council.
(2) Members will be appointed for a period not to exceed three years. Members appointed to fill subsequent vacancies will serve for the remainder of the current term of the Advisory Council.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Principal Deputy Administrator of the Administration for Community Living (ACL) seeks nominations for individuals to serve on the Family Caregiving Advisory Council.
Nominations must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m., Eastern on April 11, 2022 to be considered for appointment.
The Family Caregiving Advisory Council (the Advisory Council) is authorized under Section 4 of the Recognize, Assist, Include, Support, and Engage Family Caregivers Act of 2017 (Pub. L. 115-119), commonly referred to as the “RAISE Family Caregivers Act.” The Advisory Council studies and prepares findings, conclusions, and makes recommendations to the Administrator of ACL/Assistant Secretary for Aging on matters pertaining to: (a) Evidence-based or promising practices and innovative models for the provision of care by family caregivers or support for family caregivers; and (b) Improving coordination across federal government programs. The Advisory Council advises and provides recommendations to the Administrator on recognizing and supporting family caregivers. The Advisory Council consists of at least three ex officio federal members: The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (or the Administrator's designee); the Administrator of the Administration for Community Living (or the Administrator's designee who has experience with both aging and disability); and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (or the Secretary's designee). Heads of other federal departments or agencies (or their designees) also may be appointed as ex officio members. In addition, the ACL Administrator will appoint a maximum of fifteen non-federal voting members, with at least one from each of the following constituencies: Family caregivers; older adults who need long-term services and supports; individuals with disabilities; health care and social service providers; providers of long-term services and supports; employers; paraprofessional workers; state and local officials; accreditation bodies; veterans; and as appropriate, other experts and advocates engaged in family caregiving.
Additionally, in keeping with the Biden administration's commitment to equity and inclusion, voting members selected to serve on the Advisory Council will reflect the diversity of family caregivers and those persons receiving services and supports. Nominations are sought from individuals representing the aging and disability communities, tribes, racial and ethnically diverse communities, LGBTQ, and other underrepresented or underserved populations.
The Advisory Council will submit an annual report on the development, maintenance, and updating of the National Family Caregiving Strategy. The report will include a description of the implementation of the actions recommended in the initial report, as appropriate. This report will be provided to the Secretary, Congress, and the state agencies responsible for carrying out family caregiver programs.
The Advisory Council, or its individual members, may also be engaged to author/co-author articles and other materials; engage with print and electronic media; and deliver presentations, workshops, webinars and other forms of educational opportunities designed to highlight the Administration's commitment to supporting families and family caregivers.
As needed, and where appropriate, this Advisory Council will coordinate its efforts with those of the Advisory Council to Support Grandparents Raising Grandchildren. Such coordination might include joint meetings, presentations and other activities undertaken in fulfillment of the requirements of the RAISE Act.
The Advisory Council will meet virtually (via Zoom or similar platform), at least three times each year, beginning in September/October 2022. Council meetings will generally be held from 12:30 to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time. All meetings of the Council will be open to the public and recorded for posting on the ACL website. Advisory Council members will be expected to participate in at least one subcommittee, which will meet, as needed, between Advisory Council meetings to develop and review materials and conduct other activities related to the Advisory Council's mission and purpose.
The completion of all described activities is dependent upon the continued availability of federal funding for the purposes of carrying out the legislation.
(1) A nomination letter not to exceed one (1) page that provides ALL of the following information:
a. The reason(s) for nominating the individual;
b. The constituency being represented (from the list above; may be more than one);
c. The nominee's particular, relevant experience and/or professional expertise or lived experience;
d. Contact information for the nominee [name, title (if applicable), address, phone, and email address]; and
e. The nominee's resume (not to exceed two (2) pages) if the nomination is based on their professional capacity or qualifications. A resume is optional otherwise.
Nominees will be selected for appointment based on their demonstrated knowledge, qualifications, and professional or personal experience related to the purpose and scope of the Advisory Council.
(2) Members will be appointed for a period not to exceed three years. Members appointed to fill subsequent vacancies will serve for the remainder of the current term of the Advisory Council.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HRSA is updating income levels used to identify a “low-income family” for the purpose of determining eligibility for programs that provide health professions and nursing training to individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds. These various programs are authorized in Titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service Act. HHS periodically publishes in the
Many health professions and nursing grant and cooperative agreement awardees use the low-income levels to determine whether potential program participants are from economically disadvantaged backgrounds and would be eligible to participate in the program, as well as to determine the amount of funding individuals receive. Awards are generally made to accredited schools of medicine, osteopathic medicine, public health, dentistry, veterinary medicine, optometry, pharmacy, allied health, podiatric medicine, nursing, and chiropractic; public or private nonprofit schools which offer graduate programs in behavioral health and mental health practice; and other public or private nonprofit health or educational entities to assist individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds and disadvantaged students to enter and graduate from health professions and nursing schools. Some programs provide for the repayment of health professions or nursing education loans for students from disadvantaged backgrounds and disadvantaged students.
A “low-income family/household” for programs included in Titles III, VII, and VIII of the Public Health Service Act is defined as having an annual income that does not exceed 200 percent of HHS's poverty guidelines. A family is a group of two or more individuals related by birth, marriage, or adoption who live together.
Most HRSA programs use the income of a student's parent(s) to compute low income status. However, a “household” may potentially be only one person. Other HRSA programs, depending upon the legislative intent of the program, the programmatic purpose related to income level, as well as the age and circumstances of the participant, will apply these low income standards to the individual student to determine eligibility, as long as the individual is not listed as a dependent on the tax form of their parent(s). Each program includes the rationale and methodology for determining low income levels in program funding opportunities or applications.
Low-income levels are adjusted annually based on HHS's poverty guidelines. HHS's poverty guidelines are based on poverty thresholds published by the U.S. Census Bureau, adjusted annually for changes in the Consumer Price Index. The income
Separate poverty guidelines figures for Alaska and Hawaii reflect Office of Economic Opportunity administrative practice beginning in the 1966-1970 period since the U.S. Census Bureau poverty thresholds do not have separate figures for Alaska and Hawaii. The poverty guidelines are not defined for Puerto Rico or other jurisdictions. Puerto Rico and other jurisdictions shall use income guidelines for the 48 Contiguous States and the District of Columbia.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than May 10, 2022.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information collection request title for reference.
Provider and non-provider staff well-being is essential to recruiting and retaining staff, thus supporting access to quality health care and services through the Health Center Program. HRSA has created a nationwide Health Center Workforce Survey to identify and address challenges related to provider and staff well-being. The survey will be administered to all full-time and part-time health center staff in the fall of 2022 to identify conditions and circumstances that affect staff well-being at HRSA-funded health centers, including the scope and nature of workforce well-being, job satisfaction, and burnout. This information can inform efforts to improve workforce well-being and maintain high-quality patient care.
The Health Center Workforce Survey aims to collect and analyze data from no less than 85 percent of health center staff. HRSA will utilize stakeholder engagement strategies to support survey completion targets. The HRSA contractor will request email addresses for all health center staff from health center leadership. Using the email addresses provided, the contractor will administer the online survey to ensure data quality and respondent confidentiality. Participation in the Health Center Workforce Survey is voluntary for all health center staff. The contractor will analyze the responses and provide analytic reports. HRSA will disseminate the summary level data for public use, including preparing preliminary findings and analytic reports.
Administration of the Health Center Workforce Survey will provide a comprehensive baseline assessment of health center workforce well-being and identify opportunities to improve workforce well-being and bolster technical assistance and other strategies. These efforts will further HRSA's goal of providing access to quality health care and supporting a robust primary care workforce.
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.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
HRSA is publishing an updated monetary amount of the average cost of a health insurance policy as it relates to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP).
George Reed Grimes, Director, Division of Injury Compensation Programs, Health Systems Bureau, HRSA, HHS by mail at 5600 Fishers Lane, 08N186B, Rockville, Maryland 20857; call 1-800-338-2382 or email
Section 100.2 of the VICP's implementing regulation (42 CFR part 100) states that the revised amount of an average cost of a health insurance policy, as determined by the Secretary of HHS (the Secretary), is effective upon its delivery by the Secretary to the United States Court of Federal Claims (the Court), and will be published periodically in a notice in the
In 2021, MEPS-IC, available at
Therefore, the revised average cost of a health insurance policy under the VICP is $619.58 per month. In accordance with § 100.2, the revised amount was effective upon its delivery to the Court.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
Findings of research misconduct have been made against Terry Magnuson, Ph.D. (Respondent), Kay M. & Van L. Weatherspoon Eminent Distinguished Professor, Department of Genetics, School of Medicine (SOM), University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (UNC). Respondent engaged in research misconduct in research included in one (1) grant application for U.S. Public Health Service (PHS) funds, specifically National Cancer Institute (NCI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant application R01 CA267946-01A1. The administrative actions, including supervision from February 25, 2022-January 5, 2024, are detailed below.
Wanda K. Jones, Dr.P.H., Acting Director, Office of Research Integrity, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Suite 240, Rockville, MD 20852, (240) 453-8200.
Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) has taken final action in the following case:
ORI found that Respondent engaged in research misconduct by intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly plagiarizing text from the following three (3) online articles and one (1) published paper:
• Comprehensive Guide to Understanding and Using CUT&Tag Assay. November 4, 2020.
• Complete Guide to Understanding and Using ATAC-Seq. February 9, 2021.
• Illumina CATCH-IT.
• Modeling Physiological Events in 2D vs. 3D Cell Culture.
Plagiarized text was included in:
Specifically, ORI found that Respondent knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly plagiarized from:
Dr. Magnuson entered into a Voluntary Settlement Agreement (Agreement) and voluntarily agreed to the following:
(1) Respondent will have his research supervised from February 25, 2022-January 5, 2024 (the “Supervision Period”). Prior to the submission of an application for PHS support for a research project on which Respondent's participation is proposed and prior to Respondent's participation in any capacity in PHS-supported research, Respondent will submit a plan for supervision of Respondent's duties to ORI for approval. The supervision plan must be designed to ensure the integrity of Respondent's research. Respondent will not participate in any PHS-supported research until such a supervision plan is approved by ORI. Respondent will comply with the agreed-upon supervision plan.
(2) The requirements for Respondent's supervision plan are as follows:
i. The respondent will submit his grant applications seeking PHS support to the Vice Dean, UNC SOM, thirty (30) days prior to the grant application submission deadline. The SOM Office of Research (OR) will review Respondent's grant applications to check for plagiarism and ensure compliance with acceptable scientific practice for citation of prior work. SOM OR will not recruit Respondent's supervisor or collaborators to review his grant applications. SOM OR will submit a report to ORI at six (6) month intervals setting forth the committee meeting dates and Respondent's compliance with appropriate research standards and confirming the integrity of Respondent's research.
ii. SOM OR will conduct an advance review of any report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved. The review will include a discussion with Respondent of the primary data represented in those documents and will include a certification to ORI that the data presented and the text in the report, manuscript, or abstract is supported by the research record and not plagiarized.
(3) During the Supervision Period, Respondent will ensure that any institution employing him submits, in conjunction with each application for PHS funds, or report, manuscript, or abstract involving PHS-supported research in which Respondent is involved, a certification to ORI that the data provided by Respondent are based on actual experiments or are otherwise legitimately derived and that the data, procedures, and methodology are accurately reported and not plagiarized in the application, report, manuscript, or abstract.
(4) If no supervision plan is provided to ORI, Respondent will provide certification to ORI at the conclusion of the Supervision Period that his participation was not proposed on a research project for which an application for PHS support was submitted and that he has not participated in any capacity in PHS-supported research.
Office of the Surgeon General, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice; correction.
The Office of the Surgeon General published a document in the
Max Lesko at
In the
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 meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The
Only written comments and/or applications for a license which are received by the National Cancer Institute's Technology Transfer Center on or before March 28, 2022 will be considered.
Requests for copies of the patent applications, inquiries, and comments relating to the contemplated Exclusive Patent License should be directed to: Richard T. Girards, Jr., Esq., MBA, Senior Technology Transfer Manager, National Institutes of Health,
1. United States Provisional Patent Application No. 61/927,904, filed 15 January 2014 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-US-01);
2. United States Patent No. 10,323,083, issued 18 June 2019 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-US-06);
3. United States Patent No. 10,954,291, issued 23 March 2021 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-US-07);
4. United States Patent Application No. 17/177,644, filed 17 February 2021 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-US-12);
5. International Patent Application No. PCT/US2015/011433, filed 14 January 2015 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-PCT-02);
6. Australia Patent No. 2015206515, issued 26 March 2020 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-AU-03);
7. Canada Patent Application No. 2931005, filed 14 January 2015 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-CA-04);
8. European Patent No. 3 094 350 B1, issued 04 March 2020 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-EP-05) and all of its national validations;
9. European Patent Application No. 19219282.1, filed 14 January 2015 (HHS Reference No. E-003-2014-0-EP-11); and
10. any and all other U.S. and ex-U.S. patents and patent applications claiming priority to any one of the foregoing, now or in the future.
The patent and patent application rights in these inventions have been assigned and/or exclusively licensed to the government of the United States of America.
The prospective exclusive license territory may be worldwide and the fields of use may be limited to the following: The manufacture, distribution, sale and use of fusion proteins for the treatment of (a) growth disorders and (b) diseases of cartilage degeneration.
These technologies disclose,
This Notice is made in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404. The prospective exclusive license will be royalty bearing, and the prospective exclusive license may be granted unless within fifteen (15) days from the date of this published Notice, the National Cancer Institute receives written evidence and argument that establishes that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.
In response to this Notice, the public may file comments or objections. Comments and objections, other than those in the form of a license application, will not be treated confidentially, and may be made publicly available.
License applications submitted in response to this Notice will be presumed to contain business confidential information and any release of information from these license applications will be made only as required and upon a request under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of 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 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 contract proposals and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the contract proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0122, Cargo Securing Manuals; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 10, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2022-0155] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical
In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2022-0155], and must be received by May 10, 2022.
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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0117, Towing Vessels; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 10, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2022-0154] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2022-0154], and must be received by May 10, 2022.
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
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0099, Requirements for the Use of Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Compressed Natural Gas as Cooking Fuel on Passenger Vessels; without change. Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before May 10, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2022-0152] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) The practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2022-0152], and must be received by May 10, 2022.
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
Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of
CISA is publishing this notice to announce the following CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee meeting.
The CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee's meeting will be open to the public, per 41 CFR 102-3.150(a0(4), and held via conference call. For access to the conference call bridge, information on services for individuals with disabilities, or to request special assistance, please email
•
•
A public comment period is scheduled to be held during the meeting from 3:40 p.m. to 3:50 p.m. ET. Speakers who wish to participate in the public comment period must email
Megan Tsuyi, 202-594-7374,
The CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee was established under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021, Public Law 116-283. Notice of this meeting is given under FACA, 5 U.S.C. Appendix (Pub. L. 92-463). The CISA Cybersecurity Advisory Committee advises the CISA Director on matters related to the development, refinement, and implementation of policies, programs, planning, and training pertaining to the cybersecurity mission of the Agency.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3507.
Office of Policy Development and Research, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-5534 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Anna P. Guido at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Guido.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility,
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of Information,
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35 and Title 42 U.S.C. 5424 note, Title 13 U.S.C. Section 8(b), and Title 12, U.S.C., Section 1701z-1.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notices of availability; public comment period extensions.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) is extending the public comment periods for three notices, due to temporary website outages that affected the public's access to the documents that the notices are making available for comment. The notices pertained to a combined candidate conservation agreement (CCA)\ candidate conservation agreements with
The comment periods for the following notices of availability of documents are extended. See
•
•
•
•
•
•
➢
➢
➢
Submit written comments by one of the following methods. In your comments, please reference “Texas Kangaroo Rat CCAA.”
➢
➢
➢
We request that you send comments by only one of the above methods.
•
•
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are extending the public comment periods for three recent
All comments we receive become part of the public record associated with the action. Requests for copies of comments will be handled in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Service and Department of the Interior policies and procedures. 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 can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
We issue this notice pursuant to section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered species under the Endangered Species Act. We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we
We must receive your written comments by April 11, 2022.
•
•
Robert Krijgsman, Recovery Permits Coordinator, Ecological Services, 303-236-4347 (phone), or
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite the public to comment on applications for permits under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
Proposed activities in the following permit requests are for the recovery and enhancement of propagation or survival of the species in the wild. The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these permits. Accordingly, we invite local, State, and Federal agencies; Tribes; and the public to submit written data, views, or arguments with respect to these applications. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are those supported by quantitative information or studies.
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record. 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 can request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. All submissions
If we decide to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of proposed extension.
The Secretary of the Interior proposes to extend for an additional 20-year term, subject to valid existing rights, 10 Secretary's Orders (SO), 2 Public Land Orders (PLO), and 1 Bureau of Land Management Order (BLMO), as modified by PLO No. 7262, affecting 145,644.03 acres of Federal lands for the All-American Canal, Boulder Canyon, Colorado River Storage, Senator Wash Pump Storage, and Yuma Reclamation Projects. The lands would remain closed to surface entry and mining but have been and will remain open to mineral leasing. This notice provides a public comment period and announces that the Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will host a public meeting regarding this proposal.
The BLM must receive all comments by June 9, 2022. The BLM and USBR will hold a virtual public meeting in connection with the proposed withdrawal extension on April 25, 2022, at 5 p.m. Pacific Time. The BLM will publish the date and instructions for access to the online public meeting in a local paper newspaper a minimum of 30 days prior to the meeting.
All comments should be sent to the BLM California State Director, 2800 Cottage Way W-1928, Sacramento, CA 95825-1886. Records, maps, and copies of the legal descriptions relating to the application are available through mailed request by contacting the BLM Public Room at: Bureau of Land Management California State Office, Public Room, 2800 Cottage Way W-1928, Sacramento, CA 95825-1886.
Heather Daniels, BLM California State Office, telephone: (916) 978-4674, email:
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services for contacting Ms. Daniels. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
The USBR submitted a petition/application to the Secretary of the Interior that the Secretary extend the withdrawals modified by PLO No. 7262, effective July 7, 1997 (62 FR 30613), as corrected on July 16, 2003 (68 FR 42128), for an additional 20-year term pursuant to Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (90 Stat. 2751, 43 U.S.C. 1714.), subject to valid existing rights. PLO 7262 modified the following 10 SOs, 2 PLOs, and 1 BLMO:
(a) SO dated October 24, 1944 (CACA 7074);
(b) SO dated October 16, 1931 (CACA 7101);
(c) SO dated February 19, 1929 (CACA 7103);
(d) SO dated January 31, 1903 (CACA 7231);
(e) SO dated April 2, 1909 (CACA 7232);
(f) SO dated February 28, 1918 (CACA 7234);
(g) SO dated March 15, 1919 (CACA 7235);
(h) SO dated October 19, 1920 (CACA 7236);
(i) SO dated July 26, 1929 (CACA 7238);
(j) SO dated June 4, 1930 (CACA 7239);
(k) PLO No. 3262 dated October 29, 1963 (CARI 01051);
(l) PLO No. 4690 dated September 15, 1969 (CARI 07752);
(m) BLMO dated July 23, 1947 (CACA 7073).
The Deputy Secretary approved this petition/application; therefore, the request has become a Secretarial proposal for withdrawal extension.
The land description for this application is as follows:
The areas described for Secretary's Order of February 19, 1929, aggregate 1,804.09 acres.
The total areas described for the All-American Canal Project aggregate 1,804.09 acres in Riverside County, California.
The areas described for PLO No. 4690 of September 15, 1969, contain 90.00 acres.
The total areas described for the Boulder Canyon Project contain 90.00 acres in Riverside County, California.
T. 7 S., R. 10 E.,
The areas described for Bureau of Land Management Order of July 23, 1947, contain 80.00 acres.
The areas described for Secretary's Order of October 24, 1944, contain 627.22 acres.
The areas described for Secretary's Order of October 16, 1931, aggregate 1,945.98 acres.
The areas described for Secretary's Order of July 26, 1929, contain 960.00 acres.
The areas described for Secretary's Order of June 4, 1930, aggregate 9,768.21 acres.
The total areas described for the Colorado River Storage Project aggregate 13,381.41 acres in Imperial and Riverside Counties, California.
The areas described for Public Land Order 3262 of October 29, 1963, contain 40.00 acres.
The total areas described for the Senator Wash Pump Storage Project contain 40.00 acres in Imperial County, California.
The areas described for Secretary's Order of January 31, 1903, as modified by Secretary's Orders of April 9, 1909, and April 5, 1910, aggregate 25,784.45 acres.
The areas described for Secretary's Order of April 2, 1909, as modified by Secretary's Orders of April 5, 1910, and February 11, 1920, aggregate 5,540.76 acres.
The areas described for Secretary's Order of February 28, 1918, contain 1,198.92 acres.
The areas described for Secretary's Order of March 15, 1919, contains 12,439.00 acres
The areas described for Secretary's Order of October 19, 1920, aggregate 85,365.40 acres.
The total areas described for Yuma Reclamation Project aggregate 130,328.53 acres in Imperial and Riverside Counties, California.
The use of a rights-of-way or an interagency or cooperative agreement would not adequately constrain non-discretionary uses that may result in disturbance of the lands embraced within the Reclamation project areas.
There are no suitable alternative sites as the described lands contain the resource values to be protected.
No additional water rights will be needed to fulfill the purpose of the requested withdrawal.
For a period until June 9, 2022, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the proposed withdrawal extensions may present their views in writing to the BLM State Director at the address indicated earlier.
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. Individuals who submit written comments may request confidentiality by asking us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review; however, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Notice is hereby given that a virtual (online) public meeting in connection with the proposed withdrawal extensions will be held on April 25, 2022, at 5 p.m. PT. The BLM will publish a notice of the time and online venue in a local newspaper a minimum of 30 days before the scheduled date of the meeting.
The withdrawal proposal will be processed in accordance with the regulation set-forth in 43 CFR part 2300.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the National Park Service (NPS) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 10, 2022.
Please provide a copy of your comments to the NPS Information Collection Clearance Officer (ADIR-ICCO), 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, (MS -242) Reston, VA 20191 (mail); or
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Ryan Jennings, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility.
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
(4) How might the agency 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 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 can 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.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The Nevada State Museum, Carson City has completed an inventory of human remains, in consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes, and has determined that there is no cultural affiliation between the human remains and any present-day Indian Tribes. Representatives of any Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request to the Nevada State Museum, Carson City. If no additional requestors come forward, transfer of control of the human remains to the Indian Tribes stated in this notice may proceed.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to the Nevada State Museum, Carson City at the address in this notice by April 11, 2022.
Anna J. Camp, Nevada State Museum, 600 North Carson Street, Carson City, NV 89701, telephone (775) 687-4810 Ext. 261, email
Notice is here given in accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), 25 U.S.C. 3003, of the completion of an inventory of human remains under the control of the Nevada State Museum, Carson City, NV. The human remains were removed from the shore of the American River near Watt Avenue, in Sacramento, Sacramento County, CA.
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3003(d)(3) and 43 CFR 10.11(d). The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the museum, institution, or Federal agency that has control of the Native American human remains. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice.
A detailed assessment of the human remains was made by the Nevada State Museum professional staff in consultation with representatives of the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and the Wilton Rancheria, California. The Chicken Ranch Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California was invited to consult but did not participate. Hereafter, all the Indian Tribes listed in this section are referred to as “The Consulted and Invited Tribes”.
In 1963, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the banks of the American River near Watt Avenue, in Sacramento, Sacramento County, CA. The human remains include one complete cranium of an approximately 40-year-old Native American male. The cranium is complete, and five of the maxillary teeth are present. The cranium was donated to the Churchill County Museum in 1963. Sometime in the 1990s, it was transferred to the Nevada State Museum. No known individual was identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Officials of the Nevada State Museum have determined that:
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice are Native American based on morphological analyses by a biological anthropologist.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(9), the human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 3001(2), a relationship of shared group identity cannot be reasonably traced between the Native American human remains and any present-day Indian Tribe.
• According to final judgments of the Indian Claims Commission or the Court of Federal Claims, the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of the Buena Vista Rancheria of Me-Wuk Indians of California; Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Shingle Springs Rancheria (Verona Tract), California; United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria of California; and the Wilton Rancheria, California (hereafter referred to as “The Tribes”).
• Treaties, Acts of Congress, or Executive Orders, indicate that the land from which the Native American human remains were removed is the aboriginal land of The Tribes.
• Pursuant to 43 CFR 10.11(c)(1), the disposition of the human remains may be to The Tribes.
Representatives of any Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice that wish to request transfer of control of these human remains should submit a written request with information in support of the request to Anna J. Camp, Nevada
The Nevada State Museum, Carson City is responsible for notifying The Consulted and Invited Tribes that this notice has been published.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of the scheduling of the final phase of antidumping and countervailing duty investigation Nos. 701-TA-670 and 731-TA-1570 (Final) pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (“the Act”) to determine whether an industry in the United States is materially injured or threatened with material injury, or the establishment of an industry in the United States is materially retarded, by reason of imports of freight rail coupler systems and components from China, provided for in subheading 8607.30.10
February 28, 2022.
Stamen Borisson (202) 205-3125), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of this phase of the investigations, hearing procedures, and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A and B (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A and C (19 CFR part 207).
Please note the Secretary's Office will accept only electronic filings during this time. Filings must be made through the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS,
Additional written submissions to the Commission, including requests pursuant to § 201.12 of the Commission's rules, shall not be accepted unless good cause is shown for accepting such submissions, or unless the submission is pursuant to a specific request by a Commissioner or Commission staff.
In accordance with §§ 201.16(c) and 207.3 of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigations must be served on all other parties to the investigations (as identified by either the public or BPI service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
By order of the Commission.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these investigations effective January 27, 2021, following receipt of petitions filed with the Commission and Commerce by Daikin America, Inc., Orangeburg, New York. The final phase of the investigations was scheduled by the Commission following notification of preliminary determinations by Commerce that imports of granular PTFE resin from India and Russia were subsidized within the meaning of section 703(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671b(b)) and sold at LTFV within the meaning of 733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)). Notice of the scheduling of the final phase of the Commission's investigations and of a public hearing to be held in connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to §§ 705(b) and 735(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1671d(b) and 19 U.S.C. 1673d(b)). It completed and filed its determinations in these investigations on March 8, 2022. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5285 (March 2022), entitled
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on February 3, 2022, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of iFIT Inc. (FKA ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. of Logan, Utah). A supplement was filed on February 18, 2022. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain electronic exercise systems, stationary bicycles and components thereof and products including same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,013,960 (“the '960 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute. The complainant requests that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and a cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Jessica Mullan, Office of Docket Services, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-8624.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-5, 7-10, and 12-20 of the '960 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “exercise systems that include stationary bicycles including free weight cradles and provide workouts that alternate between bicycling portions and weightlifting portions”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainant is: iFIT Inc. (FKA ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.); 1500 South 1000 West, Logan, Utah 84321.
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainant of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on February 4, 2022, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Zebra Technologies Corporation of Lincolnshire, Illinois and Symbol Technologies, LLC of Holtsville, New York. A supplement to the complaint was filed on February 25, 2022. The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain barcode scanners, mobile computers with barcode scanning capabilities, scan engines, RFID printers, components thereof, and
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Jessica Mullan, Office of the Secretary, Docket Services Division, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-1802.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-8 and 10-26 of the '942 patent; claims 1-10 of the '177 patent; and claims 1, 4-6, and 11-18 of the '219 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “barcode scan engines and scanners (handheld and stationary scanners), mobile computers with barcode scanning capabilities (handheld, tablet, and wearable computers), RFID printer (printers with RFID encoding capabilities), and components thereof (circuit boards with barcode scanning, RFID encoding or RFID decoding capabilities)”;
(3) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are:
(b) The respondents are the following entities alleged to be in violation of section 337, and are the parties upon which the complaint is to be served:
(4) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
The Office of Unfair Import Investigations is not participating as a party in this investigation.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondents in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainants of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a respondents to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on February 14, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Permian Basin—Phase 2 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 15, 2019, Permian Basin—Phase 2 filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice
The last notification was filed with the Department on January 10, 2020. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 16, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 14, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 4, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Initiate Government Solutions LLC, North Palm Beach, FL; and Perspecta Enterprise Solutions LLC, Herndon, VA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and MTEC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 9, 2014, MTEC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 29, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 4, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UHD Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 2, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 28, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, Bluesalve Partners LLC, Ashburn, VA; Shipshape Solutions Inc, Austin, TX; Octo Telematics SpA, Rome, ITALY; SoftAtHome, Colombes, FRANCE;
Also, Base2 Managed It Pty Ltd, Sydney, AUSTRALIA; HAB Home Intelligence, North Richland Hills, TX; TIM S.p.A. (TELECOM ITALIA), Milano, ITALY; 3MANTECH, South Haven, MS; Automate Asia, Oxley Bizhub 2 Sin, SINGAPORE; Aware Care Network, Plano, TX; Clare Controls LLC, Sarasota, FL; Intermatic Incorporated, Spring Grove, IL; Plexus Solutions Pty Ltd, Brighton, AUSTRALIA; Shenzhen Kaadas Intelligent Technology Co., Ltd, Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Smart Lifestyle Solutions Pty Ltd, Pagewood, AUSTRALIA; and WeBeHome, Bromma, SWEDEN have withdrawn as parties to the venture.
In addition, an existing member, Ningbo Dooya Mechanic & Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., Ningbo, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA, name was spelled incorrectly on the notification filed on December 1, 2020.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and the Joint Venture intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 19, 2020, the Joint Venture filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 6, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 22, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, ADI Technologies, Inc., Chantilly, VA; Assurance Technology Corporation, Carlisle, MA; Aurotech, Inc., Silver Spring, MD; Axon Enterprise, Inc., Scottsdale, GA; Azimuth Corporation, Beavercreek, OH; Belle Artificial Intelligence Corporation, Cambridge, MA; Blue Arc LLC, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD; Canvass Labs, Inc., La Jolla, CA; CDW Government LLC, Vernon Hills, IL; Cintel, Inc., Huntsville, AL; Cirrus LLC, Walla Walla, WA; Cobham Advanced Electronic Solutions, Tampa, FL; CohesionForce, Inc., Huntsville, AL; Converged Security Solutions LLC, Reston, VA; Critical Frequency Design LLC, Melbourne, FL; Cyber COAST, Inc., Arlington, VA; Cypher Analytics, Inc., San Diego, CA; DataDirect Networks Federal LLC, Columbia, MD; Decision Sciences Incorporated, Ft. Walton Beach, FL; DY4, Inc. dba Curtiss-Wright, Ashburn, VA; Dynamic Integrated Services LLC, Pensacola, FL; Enveil, Inc., Fulton, MD; f5 Government Solutions LLC, Reston, VA; FragCity, Inc., Fredericksburg, VA; Frontier Technology, Inc., Beavercreek, OH; Future Tense LLC Calypso AI, Ashburn, VA; GuidePoint Security Government Solutions, Herndon, VA; Hitachi Vantara Federal Corporation, Reston, VA; Immersion CyKor LLC, Annapolis, MD; Infor, Inc., Alpharetta, GA; Ionic Security, Inc., Atlanta, GA; ITT Enidine, Inc., Orchard Park, NY; Jireh Consulting LLC, Suffolk, VA; Juniper Networks, Inc., Sunnyvale, CA; King Technologies, Inc., San Diego, CA; Klas Telecom Government, Herndon, VA; Maga Design Group, Inc., Washington, DC; Mission Solutions Group, Mt. Pleasant, SC; Netizen Corporation, Allentown, PA; Next Tier Concepts, Inc., Vienna, VA; OneGlobe LLC, Ashburn, VA; PDC America, Seneca, SC, Phacil, Inc., Arlington, VA; PortOne Technology Group LLC, Summerville, SC; Presidio Networked Solutions LLC, Fulton, MD; Qlik Technologies, Inc., King of Prussia, PA; QuickFlex, Inc., San Antonio, TX; r4 Technologies, Inc., Ridgefield, CT; SailPoint Technologies, Inc., Austin, TX; Secure Channels, Inc., Irvine, CA; Sev1Tech, Inc., Woodbridge, VA; Shadow-Soft LLC, Sandy Springs, GA; Stardog Union, Arlington, VA; STEALTHbits Technologies, Inc., Hawthorne, NJ; Systematic, Inc., Centreville, VA; Telecommunication Solutions Group, Inc., Raleigh, NC; The Cameron Bell Corporation dba Gov Solutions Group, Charleston, SC; The Design Knowledge Company, Fairborn, OH; ThoughtSpot, Inc., Palo Alto, CA; Totus Ventures LLC dba Totus Imaging, Summerville, SC; Trewon Technologies LLC, Stafford, VA; Trilogic Systems Corporation, Gloucester, MA; Triumph Enterprises, Inc., Vienna, VA; Tygart Technology, Inc., Fairmont, WV; UBERETHER, Inc., Sterling, VA; Unisys Corporation, Reston, VA; Velocity Works LLC, Pittsburgh, PA; Wireless Systems Solutions LLC, Cary, NC; The Regents of the University of Colorado, Boulder, CO; and Vigilant Technologies, Tempe, AZ, have withdrawn from this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and IWRP intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 15, 2018, IWRP filed its original notification pursuant to Section
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 10, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 28, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UBBA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 4, 2021, UBBA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 20, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that on December 14, 2021 pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification with the Department was filed on September 16, 2021. A notice was filed in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 02, 2021, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NSTIC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 8, 2019, NSTIC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 13, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 2, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PERF intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 10, 1986, PERF filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 8, 2020. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 24, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 16, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 7, 2022 pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Open RF Association, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On February 21, 2020, Open RF Association, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on May 25, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 4, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry (CRIEPI), Kanagawa, JAPAN; EN BW Energie Württemberg AG, Karlsruhe, GERMANY; CEZ, a.s., Prague, CZECH REPUBLIC; Tokyo Electric Power Company Holdings, Inc., Tokyo, JAPAN; and ENGIE SA, Courbevoie, FRANCE. The general area of ESEG's planned activity is to have as its major goal testing and modeling specific aspects of performance degradation and fire potential in a generic battery energy storage system.
Notice is hereby given that, on February 8, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PSPD-II intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 15, 2017, PSPD-II filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on March 12, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 1, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and CONFERS intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 10, 2018, CONFERS filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 2, 2021. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 2, 2022, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, ThinkR, Aubervilliers, France, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and R Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 15, 2015, R Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 9, 2021. A notice was published in the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
30-Day notice.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), Department of Justice (DOJ) will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for an additional 30 days until April 11, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
If additional information is required contact: Melody Braswell, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Mail Stop 3.E-405A, Washington, DC 20530.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for MET Laboratories, Inc., as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on March 11, 2022.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of MET Laboratories, Inc. (MET), as a NRTL. MET's expansion covers the addition of one test standard to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified by 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
MET submitted one application dated September 25, 2018 (OSHA-2006-0028-0080), to add one test standard to MET's NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and reviewed other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to the application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing MET's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to MET's application, go to
OSHA staff examined MET's expansion application, the capability to meet the requirements of the test standard, and other pertinent information. Based on the review of this evidence, OSHA finds that MET meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition, subject to the limitation and conditions listed below. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant MET's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of MET's recognition to testing and certification of products for demonstration of conformance to the test standard listed in Table 1.
OSHA's recognition of any NRTL for a particular test standard is limited to equipment or materials for which OSHA standards require third-party testing and certification before using them in the workplace. Consequently, if a test standard also covers any products for which OSHA does not require such testing and certification, a NRTL's scope of recognition does not include these products.
The American National Standards Institute (ANSI) may approve the test standards listed above as American National Standards. However, for convenience, the use of the designation of the standards-developing organization for the standard as opposed to the ANSI designation may occur. Under the NRTL Program's policy (see OSHA Instruction CPL 01-00-004, Chapter 2, Section VIII), only standards determined to be appropriate test standards may be approved for NRTL recognition. Any NRTL recognized for a particular test standard may use either the proprietary version of the test standard or the ANSI version of that standard. Contact ANSI to determine whether a test standard is currently ANSI-approved.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, MET must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. MET must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in their operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. MET must meet all the terms of the NRTL recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. MET must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on MET's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
Pursuant to the authority in 29 CFR 1910.7, OSHA hereby expands the scope of recognition of MET, subject to the limitations and conditions specified above.
James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020)), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
National Endowment for the Arts.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given that a meeting of the National Council on the Arts will be held open to the public by videoconference or teleconference.
See the
The National Endowment for the Arts, Constitution Center, 400 Seventh Street SW, Washington, DC 20560. This meeting will be held by videoconference or teleconference. Please see
Sonia Tower, Office of Public Affairs, National Endowment for the Arts, Washington, DC 20506, at 202/682-5606.
If, in the course of the open session discussion, it becomes necessary for the Council to discuss non-public commercial or financial information of intrinsic value, the Council will go into closed session
Any interested persons may attend, as observers, to Council discussions and reviews that are open to the public. If you need special accommodations due to a disability, please contact Beth Bienvenu, Office of Accessibility, National Endowment for the Arts, at 202/682-5532 or
This meeting will be held by videoconference or teleconference.
There will be opening remarks and voting on recommendations for grant funding and rejection, followed by updates from the NEA Chair.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Order; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an Order prohibiting involvement in NRC-licensed activities to Mr. Joseph Berkich. Mr. Berkich, the former owner of Steel City Gamma, LLC (SCG), engaged in deliberate misconduct that caused SCG to be in violation of NRC requirements.
The Order prohibiting involvement in NRC-licensed activities became effective on March 2, 2022.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0055 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Leelavathi Sreenivas, Office of Enforcement, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-001; telephone: 301-287-9249, email:
The text of the Order is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
At the time of the events discussed below, Joseph Berkich was the owner of Steel City Gamma, LLC (SCG), an industrial radiography company located in Pennsylvania. On May 14, 2019, SCG was issued Commonwealth of Pennsylvania radioactive materials license No. PA-1633, which authorized SCG to possess and utilize byproduct material in up to three (3) devices for the purposes of industrial radiography. During the relevant time periods discussed below, SCG did not possess a specific license issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under 10 CFR part 30, but as an Agreement State licensee, SCG could conduct radiography in NRC jurisdiction under the general NRC license granted pursuant to 10 CFR 150.20.
On April 2, 2020, the NRC was notified by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection (PA DEP) that SCG had been conducting licensed activities (industrial radiography) under the company name A&B Testing Services (ABT) for Mid-Atlantic Fabrication (MAF) at MAF's facility in Pleasant Valley, West Virginia. PA DEP also informed the NRC that on March 10, 2020, PA DEP had issued Administrative Orders to SCG and to Mr. Berkich as an individual. The Administrative Order to SCG amended the company's PA license to authorize possession and storage only. On April 21, 2020, the U.S. Regulatory Commission (NRC), Office of Investigations (OI), Region I field office initiated an investigation to determine whether Steel City Gamma, LLC and/or A & B Testing Services, LLC (ABT) deliberately conducted unauthorized and/or unlicensed radiography activities within NRC jurisdiction.
Based on the evidence gathered during the investigation, the NRC concluded that two apparent violations of NRC requirements occurred. First, on December 18, 2019, and from approximately January 1, 2020, through March 9, 2020, SCG performed radiographic operations in NRC jurisdiction without first filing for reciprocity, in violation of 10 CFR 150.20(a)(1). Second, from March 10, 2020, until April 9, 2020, SCG performed radiographic operations in NRC jurisdiction without a valid NRC or agreement state license, in violation of 10 CFR 30.3(a). The NRC also concluded that Mr. Berkich's actions appeared to
The OI investigation found that ABT is a PA business entity formed in early January 2020 by an associate of Mr. Berkich. During the time period in question, ABT was not licensed by PA DEP or the NRC to perform industrial radiography. Beginning on or about January 1, 2020, and continuing into April 2020, Mr. Berkich represented himself to MAF as an employee of ABT, conducted radiography and directed others to conduct radiography at the MAF site in West Virginia, and provided reports of those radiographic operations, using ABT's company name and information, to MAF. This radiography work was performed using SCG's equipment.
The investigation also revealed that SCG's work at the MAF site in West Virginia from January 2020 until March 10, 2020, using the company name ABT, was performed without first filing for reciprocity with the NRC or paying the appropriate fees. In addition, on December 18, 2019, SCG, using its own company name, performed radiography work for Porter Testing Services (PTS) at the MAF site in West Virginia without filing for reciprocity or paying the appropriate fees. Mr. Berkich was aware of the requirement to file for reciprocity when working in NRC jurisdiction based on his prior work experience with another company, during which he filed several reciprocity requests with the NRC for work in West Virginia.
Finally, the investigation found that SCG's work at the MAF site after March 10, 2020, was performed without SCG possessing a valid NRC or PA license authorizing SCG to conduct radiography. Mr. Berkich was aware of the requirements for licensing based on his work experience and prior interactions with PA DEP. Mr. Berkich was also aware of the terms of the PA DEP March 10, 2020 Administrative Order, which modified SCG's license to possession and storage only. After receiving the Administrative Order during an in-person meeting with PA DEP officials, Mr. Berkich went to the MAF site and conducted radiography later that day, and he continued to conduct radiography at the MAF site on numerous other occasions between March 10 and April 9, 2020.
In a letter dated December 2, 2021, the NRC informed Mr. Berkich that the NRC was considering escalated enforcement action against him for apparent violations of NRC's deliberate misconduct rule, 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1). Specifically, the NRC concluded that Mr. Berkich apparently engaged in deliberate misconduct that caused SCG to be in violation of 10 CFR 150.20(b)(1) when he engaged in, or directed others to engage in, industrial radiography at the MAF facility in West Virginia without first filing for reciprocity. Additionally, the NRC concluded that Mr. Berkich apparently engaged in deliberate misconduct that caused SCG to be in violation of 10 CFR 30.3(a) when he engaged in, or directed others to engage in, industrial radiography at the MAF site in West Virginia knowing that SCG did not possess a specific or general NRC license authorizing such activities. In the letter, the NRC offered Mr. Berkich the opportunity to attend a Predecisional Enforcement Conference (PEC) to present his perspective on the apparent violations. A PEC was conducted on February 3, 2022.
During the PEC, Mr. Berkich stated that he did not dispute the violations. With regard to the work for PTS in December 2019, he stated that he filled out the reciprocity forms and provided them to the owner of PTS to provide dates and payment information. Mr. Berkich also stated that after receiving the Administrative Order from PA DEP he kept working to bring money in because the financial goal was more than the penalty, and he acknowledged knowing at the time that performing radiography under these conditions was not in accordance with the regulations.
Based on the results of the OI investigation, and information provided during the PEC, the NRC concluded that Mr. Berkich engaged in deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1).
Based on the above, the NRC has concluded that Mr. Joseph Berkich engaged in deliberate misconduct in violation of 10 CFR 30.10(a)(1) that caused Steel City Gamma to be in violation of 10 CFR 150.20(b)(1) and 10 CFR 30.3(a). The NRC must be able to rely on companies working within NRC jurisdiction and their employees to comply with NRC requirements. Mr. Berkich's actions have raised serious doubt as to whether he can be relied upon to comply with NRC requirements.
Consequently, the NRC lacks the requisite reasonable assurance that licensed activities can be conducted in compliance with the Commission's requirements, and that the health and safety of the public will be protected if Mr. Berkich were permitted at this time to be involved in NRC-licensed activities. Therefore, the public's health, safety, and interest require that Mr. Berkich be prohibited from any involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of five years from the date of this Order. Additionally, Mr. Berkich is required to notify the NRC of his first involvement in NRC-licensed activities for a period of one year following the expiration of the five-year prohibition period.
Accordingly, pursuant to sections 81, 161b, 161i, 182 and 186 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 2.202, and 10 CFR 30.10,
1. Mr. Joseph Berkich is prohibited for five years from the date of this Order from conducting, supervising, directing, or in any other way engaging in NRC-licensed activities. NRC-licensed activities are those activities that are conducted pursuant to a specific or general license issued by the NRC, including, but not limited to, those activities of Agreement State licensees conducted pursuant to the authority granted by 10 CFR 150.20.
2. If Mr. Joseph Berkich is currently involved in NRC-licensed activities, he must immediately cease those activities; inform the NRC of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or other entity for whom he is conducting NRC-licensed activities; and provide a copy of this Order to the employer or other entity.
3. For a period of one year after the five-year prohibition on engaging in NRC-licensed activities has expired, Mr. Joseph Berkich shall, within 20 days of accepting his first employment offer involving NRC-licensed activities or otherwise first becoming involved in NRC-licensed activities, as defined in Paragraph IV.1 above, provide notice to the Director, Office of Enforcement, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, of the name, address, and telephone number of the employer or other entity for whom he will be participating in or conducting the NRC-licensed activities. In the notification, Mr. Berkich shall include a statement of his commitment to compliance with regulatory requirements and the basis for why the Commission should have confidence that he will now comply with applicable NRC requirements.
The Director, Office of Enforcement, or designee, may, in writing, relax or rescind any of the above conditions upon demonstration by Mr. Joseph Berkich of good cause.
In accordance with 10 CFR 2.202, Mr. Berkich must submit a written answer to this Order under oath or affirmation within 30 days of its publication in the
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as discussed below, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC (
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
If a person other than Mr. Berkich requests a hearing, that person shall set forth with particularity the manner in which his interest is adversely affected by this Order and shall address the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d) and (f).
If a hearing is requested by Mr. Berkich or a person whose interest is adversely affected, the Commission will issue an Order designating the time and place of any hearings. If a hearing is held, the issue to be considered at such hearing shall be whether this Order should be sustained. In the absence of any request for hearing, or written approval of an extension of time in which to request a hearing, the provisions specified in Section IV above shall be final 30 days from the date this Order is published in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated this 2nd day of March 2022.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to amend Section 1)c), Excessive Quoting Fee, to increase in the inbound quote limit.
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 Section 1)c), Excessive Quoting Fee, to increase the inbound quote limit for the Excessive Quoting Fee. The Exchange does not propose to amend the fee amount or how the quotes are counted. The proposed rule change is immediately effective as of February 24, 2022.
On February 22, 2021, the Exchange filed its proposal to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt the Excessive Quoting Fee.
The Exchange now proposes to amend the Excessive Quoting Fee to increase the inbound quote limit before the Exchange will assess the Excessive Quoting Fee. In particular, the Exchange proposes to increase the inbound quote limit from 2.5 billion to 3.5 billion for inbound quotes sent to the Exchange on a particular trading day. In counting the total number of quotes for the purposes of the Excessive Quoting Fee, the Exchange will continue to exclude messages that are generated as a result of sending a mass purge message to the Exchange and the proposed 3.5 billion inbound quote limit will continue to reset each trading day.
The purpose of the proposed change is to continue to ensure that Market Makers do not over utilize the Exchange's System by sending excessive quotes to the Exchange, to the detriment of all other Members of the Exchange, while balancing the interests of Market Makers sending quotes to the System in light of the recent significant increase in market volatility. Market Makers that send an excessive number of quotes to the Exchange on any particular day have the potential residual effect of exhausting System resources, bandwidth, and capacity. In turn, this may create latency and impact other Members' and non-Members' ability to send messages to the Exchange and receive timely executions. The Exchange believes that due to significant increases in market volatility, it is appropriate to increase the inbound quote limit for Market Markers.
The Exchange's high performance network provides unparalleled system throughput and the capacity to handle approximately 38 million messages per second. On an average day, the Exchange handles over approximately 11 billion total messages. These billions of messages per day consume the Exchange's resources, particularly storage capabilities. The combination of (i) Member quoting behavior, (ii) increased volatility in the marketplace, and (iii) increased number of options products quoted on the Exchange has a significant impact on the total number of quotes sent each trading day, resulting in additional storage capacity. The Exchange believes this proposal will continue to reduce the potential for market participants to engage in excessive quoting behavior that would require the Exchange to increase its storage capacity and will encourage quotes to be made in good faith, while balancing the interests of Market Makers facing increased market volatility in recent days.
Recognizing that orders and executions often occur in large numbers, the purpose of this proposal is to continue to focus on activity that is truly disproportionate while fairly allocating costs. The proposal
The Exchange notes that this concept is not new or novel.
The Exchange believes the proposal will continue to protect the integrity of the MIAX Emerald market and benefit all market participants of MIAX Emerald by ensuring that the Exchange's System is not overloaded from excessive quotes being sent to it each day. The Exchange notes that it provides Market Makers with daily reports, free of charge, which detail their quoting activity in order for those firms to be fully aware of the number of quotes they are sending to the Exchange. This allows firms to monitor if their quoting behavior is approaching the proposed 3.5 billion inbound quote limit.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that its proposal is designed to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general to protect investors and the public interest and is not designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers and dealers because it will continue to encourage efficient utilization of the Exchange's highly deterministic and transparent network architecture. The Exchange also believes the proposal will balance the interests of Market Makers sending quotes to the Exchange in light of extreme market volatility. The Exchange believes that unfettered usage of System capacity and network resource consumption can have a detrimental effect on all market participants who are potentially compelled to send quote messages to the Exchange on an unlimited basis, to the detriment of all other market participants who access and use the Exchange. Further, the proposed increase to the inbound quote limit will apply equally to all Market Makers who send quotes to the Exchange in excess of 3.5 billion inbound quotes on any particular trading day.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is not unfairly discriminatory due to the substantial quote limit that the proposal contemplates before the Excessive Quoting Fee is applied, as well as the normal Market Maker quote traffic that the Exchange has experienced since it began operations in March of 2019 and in light of recent extreme market volatility that has resulted in above average number of quotes being sent to the Exchange. The Exchange does not anticipate that any Market Maker will exceed the proposed 3.5 billion inbound quote limit and become subject to the proposed fee.
The Exchange further believes that its proposal is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it is not intended to raise revenue for the Exchange; rather, it is intended to ensure that Market Makers are using their quoting methodologies in the most efficient manner possible in light of the Exchange's highly deterministic and transparent infrastructure and in light of the recent increase in market volatility, resulting in more quotes being sent to the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed increased quote limit is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because this proposal will continue to reduce the potential for market participants to engage in excessive quoting behavior that would require the Exchange to increase its storage capacity and will continue to encourage quotes to be made in good faith. The Exchange notes that other exchanges have implemented similar fees and capacity type-limits in order to deter their firms from over-utilizing their trading systems and exhausting system resources, while encouraging the efficient usage of system resources.
The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed increased inbound quote limit for the Excessive Quoting Fee appropriately reflects the benefits to different firms of being able to send quotes into the Exchange's System and facilitates the Commission's goal of ensuring that critical market infrastructure has “levels of capacity, integrity, resiliency, availability, and security adequate to maintain their operational capability and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.”
The Exchange will continue to review the quoting behavior of all firms on a regular basis to ensure that the inbound quote limit remains significantly higher than the average firm quoting behavior, while taking into account varying market conditions. The Exchange will continue to regularly monitor prevailing market conditions to ensure that the inbound quote limit is sufficiently flexible and could not inadvertently result in higher than anticipated fees being charged to firms that are providing liquidity in volatile, high volume markets. The Exchange does not want to discourage such liquidity provision and believes that it should be able to adjust the inbound quote limit on a monthly basis if need be.
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 Exchange believes that the proposal does not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants because the proposed increased quote limit will apply equally to all Market Makers who send quotes to the Exchange in excess of 3.5 billion inbound quotes on any particular trading day. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change neither favors nor penalizes one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition. Rather, the proposal seeks to benefit all market participants by encouraging the efficient utilization of the Exchange's highly deterministic and transparent network architecture while taking into account increased market volatility that may impact the number of quotes being sent to the Exchange by Market Makers. The Exchange does not anticipate that any Market Maker will exceed the proposed 3.5 billion inbound quote limit and become subject to the proposed fee. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the proposed Excessive Quoting Fee does not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition.
The Exchange believes the proposal does not place an undue burden on competition on other self-regulatory organizations that is not necessary or appropriate because of the availability of numerous substitute options exchanges. There are 15 other options exchanges where market participants can become members and send quotes if they deem the 3.5 billion inbound quote limit to be too restrictive for their quoting behavior. In addition, the Exchange does not believe the proposal will impose any burden on inter-market competition as the proposal does not address any competitive issues; rather, it is intended to protect all market participants of MIAX Emerald by ensuring that the Exchange's System is not overloaded from excessive quotes being sent to it each day.
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.
On November 17, 2021, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.22(f) to provide for a new data product to be known as the Short Volume Report, which will be available for purchase to Members and non-Members.
In support of the proposal, the Exchange states that the proposed product includes substantially similar information as that included in comparable products offered on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) and the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) except that the Exchange proposes to also include buy and sell volume as well as trade counts for buy, sell, sell short, and sell short exempt volume.
The Exchange states that the additional data points will benefit market participants because they will allow market participants to better understand the changing risk environment on a daily basis.
One commenter states that the proposed rule text and the Exchange's description of the content of the proposed Short Volume Report are unclear.
This commenter also states that the data contained in the proposed Short Volume Report is substantially different from the data contained in products offered by other national securities exchanges, despite the Exchange's assertion that the proposed Short Volume Report is similar to those
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the consistency of the proposal with Section 6(b)(5)
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their data, views, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of data, views, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by April 1, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 15, 2022.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, and any other issues raised by the proposed rule change under the Act. In particular, the Commission seeks commenters' views regarding whether the Exchange has adequately described the proposed new data product for the Commission to make a determination under Section 6(b)(5) of 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 November 17, 2021, Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 13.8(h) to provide for a new data product to be known as the Short Volume Report, which will be available for purchase to Members and non-Members.
In support of the proposal, the Exchange states that the proposed product includes substantially similar information as that included in comparable products offered on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) and the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) except that the Exchange proposes to also include buy and sell volume as well as trade counts for buy, sell, sell short, and sell short exempt volume.
The Exchange states that the additional data points will benefit market participants because they will allow market participants to better understand the changing risk environment on a daily basis.
One commenter states that the proposed rule text and the Exchange's description of the content of the proposed Short Volume Report are unclear.
This commenter also states that the data contained in the proposed Short Volume Report is substantially different from the data contained in products offered by other national securities exchanges, despite the Exchange's assertion that the proposed Short Volume Report is similar to those products.
Another commenter states that the proposal is “worded in a way to convince regulators to change the name of the regulation in an attempt to conceal its actual meaning” and that this “further[s] various entities agendas to keep in the moment, pertinent public information hidden.”
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the consistency of the proposal with Section 6(b)(5)
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their data, views, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of data, views, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by April 1, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 15, 2022.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, and any other issues raised by the proposed rule change under the Act. In particular, the Commission seeks commenters' views regarding whether the Exchange has adequately described the proposed new data product for the Commission to make a determination under Section 6(b)(5) of 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 November 17, 2021, Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 13.8(h) to provide for a new data product to be known as the Short Volume Report, which will be available for purchase to Members and non-Members.
In support of the proposal, the Exchange states that the proposed product includes substantially similar information as that included in comparable products offered on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) and the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) except that the Exchange proposes to also include buy and sell volume as well as trade counts for buy, sell, sell short, and sell short exempt volume.
The Exchange states that the additional data points will benefit market participants because they will allow market participants to better understand the changing risk environment on a daily basis.
One commenter states that the proposed rule text and the Exchange's description of the content of the proposed Short Volume Report are unclear.
This commenter also states that the data contained in the proposed Short Volume Report is substantially different from the data contained in products offered by other national securities exchanges, despite the Exchange's assertion that the proposed Short Volume Report is similar to those products.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the consistency of the proposal with Section 6(b)(5)
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their data, views, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of data, views, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4 under the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by April 1, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 15, 2022.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 22, 2021, Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Exchange Rule 11.22(f) to provide for a new data product to be known as the Short Volume Report, which will be available for purchase to Members and non-Members.
In support of the proposal, the Exchange states that the proposed product includes substantially similar information as that included in comparable products offered on the Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq”) and the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”) except that the Exchange proposes to also include buy and sell volume as well as trade counts for buy, sell, sell short, and sell short exempt volume.
The Exchange states that the additional data points will benefit market participants because they will allow market participants to better understand the changing risk environment on a daily basis.
One commenter states that the proposed rule text and the Exchange's description of the content of the proposed Short Volume Report are unclear.
This commenter also states that the data contained in the proposed Short Volume Report is substantially different from the data contained in products offered by other national securities exchanges, despite the Exchange's assertion that the proposed Short Volume Report is similar to those products.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional analysis of, and input from commenters with respect to, the consistency of the proposal with Section 6(b)(5)
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their data, views, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change should be approved or disapproved by April 1, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 15, 2022.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, and any other issues raised by the proposed rule change under the Act. In particular, the Commission seeks commenters' views regarding whether the Exchange has adequately described the proposed new data product for the Commission to make a determination under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend BZX Rule 11.17, Clearly Erroneous Executions. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend BZX Rule 11.17, Clearly Erroneous Executions. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (1) Make the current clearly erroneous pilot program permanent; and (2) limit the circumstances where clearly erroneous review would continue to be available during Regular Trading Hours,
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, changes to BZX Rule 11.17 that, among other things: (i) Provided for uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events involving twenty or more securities; and (ii) reduced the ability of the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set forth in the rule.
When it originally approved the clearly erroneous pilot, the Commission explained that the changes were “being implemented on a pilot basis so that the Commission and the Exchanges can monitor the effects of the pilot on the markets and investors, and consider appropriate adjustments, as necessary.”
The clearly erroneous pilot was implemented following a severe disruption in the U.S. equities markets on May 6, 2010 (“Flash Crash”) to “provide greater transparency and certainty to the process of breaking trades.”
When the Participants to the LULD Plan filed to introduce the Limit Up-Limit Down (“LULD”) mechanism, itself a response to the Flash Crash, a handful of commenters noted the potential discordance between the clearly erroneous rules and the Price Bands used to limit the price at which trades would be permitted to be executed pursuant to the LULD Plan. For example, two commenters requested that the clearly erroneous rules be amended so the presumption would be that trades executed within the Price Bands would not be not subject to review.
The Exchange believes that it is important for there to be some mechanism to ensure that investors' orders are either not executed at clearly erroneous prices, or are subsequently busted as needed to maintain a fair and orderly market. At the same time, the Exchange believes that the LULD Plan, as amended, would provide sufficient protection for trades executed during Regular Trading Hours. Indeed, the LULD mechanism could be considered to offer superior protection as it prevents potentially erroneous trades from being executed in the first instance. After gaining experience with the LULD Plan, the Exchange now believes that it is appropriate to largely eliminate clearly erroneous review during Regular Trading Hours when Price Bands are in effect. Thus, as proposed, trades executed within the Price Bands would stand, barring one of a handful of identified scenarios where such review may still be necessary for the protection of investors. The Exchange believes that this change would be beneficial for the U.S. equities markets as it would ensure that trades executed within the Price Bands are subject to clearly erroneous review in only rare circumstances, resulting in greater certainty for Members and investors.
The current LULD mechanism for addressing extraordinary market volatility is available solely during Regular Trading Hours. Thus, trades
On the other hand, there would be much more limited potential to request that a transaction be reviewed as potentially erroneous during Regular Trading Hours. With the introduction of the LULD mechanism in 2013, clearly erroneous trades are largely prevented by the requirement that trades be executed within the Price Bands. In addition, in 2019, Amendment Eighteen to the LULD Plan eliminated double-wide Price Bands: (1) At the Open, and (2) at the Close for Tier 2 NMS Stocks 2 with a Reference Price above $3.00.
At the same time, the Exchange is cognizant that there may be limited circumstances where clearly erroneous review may continue to be appropriate, even during Regular Trading Hours. Thus, the Exchange proposes to amend its clearly erroneous rules to enumerate the specific circumstances where such review would remain available during the course of Regular Trading Hours, as follows. All transactions that fall outside of these specific enumerated exceptions would be ineligible for clearly erroneous review.
First, pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(1)(A), a transaction executed during Regular Trading Hours would continue to be eligible for clearly erroneous review if the transaction is not subject to the LULD Plan. In such case, the Numerical Guidelines set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 11.17 will be applicable to such NMS Stock. While the majority of securities traded on the Exchange would be subject to the LULD Plan, certain equity securities, such as rights and warrants, are explicitly excluded from the provisions of the LULD Plan and would therefore be eligible for clearly erroneous review instead.
Second, investors would also continue to be able to request review of transactions that resulted from certain systems issues pursuant to proposed paragraphs (c)(1)(B) and (c)(1)(C). In each case, these limited exceptions would help to ensure that trades that should not have been executed would continue to be subject to clearly erroneous review. Specifically, as proposed, transactions executed during Regular Trading Hours would be eligible for clearly erroneous review pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(1)(B) if the transaction involves a disruption or malfunction in the operation of any electronic communications and trading facilities of the Exchange pursuant to BZX Rule 11.17(f). A transaction subject to review pursuant to this paragraph shall be found to be clearly erroneous if the price of the transaction to buy (sell) that is the subject of the complaint is greater than (less than) the Reference Price, described in paragraph (d) below, by an amount that equals or exceeds the applicable Percentage Parameter defined in Appendix A to the LULD Plan (“Percentage Parameters”). Similarly, transactions executed during Regular Trading Hours would remain eligible for clearly erroneous review pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(1)(C) if a transaction is the result of an Exchange technology or systems issue that results in the transaction occurring outside of the applicable Price Bands pursuant to BZX Rule 11.17(h) or if the transaction is executed after the primary listing market for the security declares a regulatory trading halt, suspension, or pause pursuant to BZX Rule 11.17(j). In such case, the Percentage Parameters will be applicable to such transactions.
Third, the Exchange proposes to narrowly allow for the review of transactions during Regular Trading Hours when the Reference Price, described in proposed paragraph (d), is determined to be erroneous by an Officer of the Exchange. Specifically, pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(1)(D), a transaction that involved, in the case of (1) a corporate action or new issue or (2) a security that enters a Trading Pause pursuant to LULD and resumes trading without an auction,
In the context of a corporate action or a new issue, there may be instances where the security's Reference Price is later determined by the Exchange to be erroneous (
The following illustrate the proposed application of the rule in the context of a corporate action or new issue:
In the context of the rare situation in which a security that enters a LULD Trading Pause and resumes trading without an auction (
The following example illustrates the proposed application of the rule in the context of a security that reopens without an auction:
1. ABCD stock is trading at $20, with LULD Bands at $18 × $22.
2. An incoming buy order causes the stock to enter a Limit State pursuant to the LULD Plan and then a Trading Pause at $22.
3. During the Trading Pause, the buy order causing the Trading Pause is cancelled.
4. At the end of the 5 minute halt, there is no crossed interest for an auction to occur, thus trading would resume on a quote.
5. Upon resumption, the quote available is widely set at $10 × $90.
6. The Reference Price upon resumption is $50 (mid-point of BBO).
7. The SIP will use this Reference Price and publish LULD Bands of $45 × $55 (
8. The bands will be calculated correctly, but the $50 Reference Price is subsequently determined to be incorrect as the price clearly deviated from where it previously traded prior to the Trading Pause.
9. The new Reference Price would be $22 (
In all of the foregoing situations, investors would be left with no remedy to request clearly erroneous review without the proposed carveouts in paragraph (c)(1)(D) because the trades occurred within the LULD Price Bands (albeit LULD Price Bands that were calculated from an erroneous Reference Price). The Exchange believes that removing the current ability for the Exchange to review in these narrow circumstances would lessen investor protections.
Today, paragraph (c)(1) defines the Numerical Guidelines that are used to determine if a transaction is deemed clearly erroneous during Regular Trading Hours, or during the Early Trading, Pre-Opening and After Hours Sessions. With respect to Regular Trading Hours, trades are generally deemed clearly erroneous if the execution price differs from the Reference Price (
Given the changes described in this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to amend the way that the Numerical Guidelines are calculated during Regular Trading Hours in the handful of instances where clearly erroneous review would continue to be available. Specifically, the Exchange would base these Numerical Guidelines, as applied to the circumstances described in paragraph (c)(1)(A), on the Percentage Parameters used to calculate Price Bands, as set forth in Appendix A to the LULD Plan. Without this change, a transaction that would otherwise stand if Price Bands were properly applied to the transaction may end up being subject to review and deemed clearly erroneous solely due to the fact that the Price Bands were not available due to a systems or other issue. The Exchange believes that it makes more sense to instead base the Price Bands on the same parameters as would otherwise determine whether the trade would have been allowed to execute within the Price Bands. The Exchange also proposes to modify the Numerical Guidelines applicable to leveraged ETF/ETN securities during Regular Trading Hours. As noted above, the Numerical Guidelines will only be applicable to transactions eligible for review pursuant paragraph (c)(1)(A) (
The Exchange also proposes to move existing paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), and (d) to proposed paragraph (c)(2)(B), (c)(2)(C), and (C)(2)(D), respectively, as Multi-Stock Events, Additional Factors, and Outlier Transactions will only be subject to review if those NMS Stocks are not subject to the LULD Plan or occur during the Early Trading, Pre-Opening and After Hours Sessions. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(B) is substantially similar to existing paragraph (c)(2) except for a change in rule reference to paragraph (c)(1) has been updated to paragraph (c)(1)(A). Further, given the proposal to move existing paragraph (c)(2) to paragraph (c)(2)(B), the Exchange also proposes to amend applicable rule references throughout paragraph (c)(2)(A). Finally, the Exchange proposes to update applicable rule references in paragraph (c)(2)(D) based on the above-described structural changes to the Rule.
As proposed, the Reference Price used would continue to be based on last sale and would be memorialized in proposed paragraph (d). Continuing to use the last sale as the Reference Price is necessary for operational efficiency as it may not be possible to perform a timely clearly erroneous review if doing so required computing the arithmetic mean price of eligible reported transactions over the past five minutes, as contemplated by the LULD Plan. While this means that there would still be some differences between the Price Bands and the clearly erroneous parameters, the Exchange believes that this difference is reasonable in light of the need to ensure timely review if clearly erroneous rules are invoked. The Exchange also proposes to allow for an alternate Reference Price to be used as prescribed in proposed paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (3). Specifically, the Reference Price may be a value other than the consolidated last sale immediately prior to the execution(s) under review (1) in the case of Multi-Stock Events involving twenty or more securities, as described in paragraph (c)(2)(B) above, (2) in the case of an erroneous Reference Price, as described in paragraph (c)(1)(D) above (and in the case of (c)(1)(D)(2), the price of the prior LULD Band that triggered the Trading Pause will be used as the new Reference Price), or (3) in other circumstances, such as, for example, relevant news impacting a security or securities, periods of extreme market volatility, sustained illiquidity, or widespread system issues, where use of a different Reference Price is necessary for the maintenance of a fair and orderly market and the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange proposes to change to Rule 11.17(f) to conform to the structural changes to the Rule described above and to reference the applicability of Percentage Parameters. Specifically, the Exchange proposes eliminate a reference to paragraph (c)(3) based on the structural changes described above. Further, existing rule text provides that in extraordinary circumstances an Officer of the Exchange or other senior level employee designee may use a lower Numerical Guideline if necessary to maintain a fair and order market, protect investors and the public interest. The Exchange proposes to amend this language to provide that an Officer of the Exchange or other senior level employee designee may use a lower Percentage Parameter, in the case of an NMS Stock subject to the LULD Plan, or a Numerical Guideline, in the case of an NMS Stock not subject to the LULD in such case.
Current paragraph (h) of BZX Rule 11.17 provides different procedures for conducting clearly erroneous review in initial public offering (“IPO”) securities that are traded pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) after the initial opening of such IPO securities on the listing market. Specifically, this paragraph provides that a clearly erroneous error may be deemed to have occurred in the opening transaction of the subject security if the execution price of the opening transaction on the Exchange is the lesser of $1.00 or 10% away from the opening price on the listing exchange or association. The Exchange no longer believes that this provision is necessary as opening transactions on the Exchange following an IPO are subject to Price Bands pursuant to the LULD Plan. The Exchange therefore proposes to eliminate this provision in connection with the broader changes to clearly erroneous review during Regular Trading Hours.
The Exchange proposes to renumber paragraph (i) to paragraph (h) based on the proposal to eliminate existing paragraph (h), and to rename the paragraph to provide for transactions occurring outside of LULD Price Bands. Given that proposed paragraph (c)(1) defines the LULD Plan, the Exchange also proposes to eliminate redundant language from proposed paragraph (h). Finally, the Exchange also proposes to update references to the LULD Plan and Price Bands so that they are uniform throughout the Rule and to update rule references throughout the paragraph to conform to the structural changes to the Rule described above.
The Exchange proposes to renumber paragraphs (j) and (k) to paragraphs (i)
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
As explained in the purpose section of this proposed rule change, the current pilot was implemented following the Flash Crash to bring greater transparency to the process for conducting clearly erroneous reviews, and to help assure that the review process is based on clear, objective, and consistent rules across the U.S. equities markets. The Exchange believes that the amended clearly erroneous rules have been successful in that regard, and have thus furthered fair and orderly markets. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the pilot has successfully ensured that such reviews are conducted based on objective and consistent standards across SROs, and has therefore afforded greater certainty to Members and investors. The Exchange therefore believes that making the current pilot a permanent program is appropriate so that equities market participants can continue to reap the benefits of a clear, objective, and transparent process for conducting clearly erroneous reviews. In addition, the Exchange understands that the other U.S. equities exchanges and FINRA will also file largely identical proposals to make their respective clearly erroneous pilots permanent. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule change would promote transparency and uniformity across markets concerning review of transactions as clearly erroneous, and would also help assure consistent results in handling erroneous trades across the U.S. equities markets, thus furthering fair and orderly markets, the protection of investors, and the public interest.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with just and equitable principles of trade to limit the availability of clearly erroneous review during Regular Trading Hours. The Plan was approved by the Commission to operate on a permanent rather than pilot basis. As a number of market participants have noted, the LULD Plan provides protections that ensure that investors' orders are not executed at prices that may be considered clearly erroneous. Further, amendments to the LULD Plan approved in Amendment Eighteen serve to ensure that the Price Bands established by the LULD Plan are “appropriately tailored to prevent trades that are so far from current market prices that they would be viewed as having been executed in error.”
Given the fact that clearly erroneous review would largely be limited to transactions that were not subject to the LULD Plan, the Exchange also believes that it is necessary to change the parameters used to determine whether a trade is clearly erroneous. Specifically, due to the different parameters currently used for clearly erroneous review and for determining Price Bands, it is possible that a trade that would have been permitted to execute within the Price Bands would later be deemed clearly erroneous, if, for example, a systems issue prevented the dissemination of the Price Bands. The Exchange believes that this result is contrary to the principle that trades within the Price Bands should stand, and has the potential to cause investor confusion if trades that are properly executed within the applicable parameters described in the LULD Plan are later deemed erroneous. By using consistent parameters for clearly erroneous reviews conducted during Regular Trading Hours and the calculation of the Price Bands, the Exchange believes that this change would also serve to promote greater certainty with regards to when trades may be deemed erroneous.
The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to remove the current provision of the clearly erroneous rule dealing with UTP securities that are the subject of IPOs. This provision applies specifically to opening transactions on a non-listing market following an IPO on the listing market. As such, review under this paragraph is limited to trades conducted during Regular Trading Hours. As previously addressed, trades executed during Regular Trading Hours would generally not be subject to clearly erroneous review but would instead be protected by the Price Bands. The Exchange therefore no longer believes that this paragraph is necessary, as all trades subject to this provision today would either be subject to the LULD Plan, or, in the event of some systems or other issue, would be subject to the provisions that apply to transactions that are not adequately protected by the LULD Plan.
Finally, the proposed rule changes make organizational updates to the Exchange's Clearly Erroneous Execution Rule as well as minor updates and corrections to the Rule to improve readability and clarity.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal would ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of harmonized clearly erroneous execution rules across
No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such 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.
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
Rules 300-304 of Regulation Crowdfunding enumerate the requirements with which intermediaries must comply to participate in the offer and sale of securities in reliance on Section 4(a)(6) of the Securities Act of 1933 (“Section 4(a)(6)”). Rule 300 requires an intermediary to be registered with the Commission as a broker or as a funding portal and be a member of a registered national securities association.
Rule 301 requires intermediaries to have a reasonable basis for believing that an issuer seeking to offer and sell securities in reliance on Section 4(a)(6) through the intermediary's platform complies with the requirements in Section 4A(b) of the Securities Act and the related requirements in Regulation Crowdfunding. Rule 302 provides that no intermediary or associated person of an intermediary may accept an investment commitment in a transaction involving the offer or sale of securities made in reliance on Section 4(a)(6) until the investor has opened an account with the intermediary and the intermediary has obtained from the investor consent to electronic delivery of materials. Rule 303 requires an intermediary to make publicly available on its platform the information that an issuer of crowdfunding securities is required to provide to potential investors, in a manner that reasonably permits a person accessing the platform to save, download, or otherwise store the information, for a minimum of 21 days before any securities are sold in the offering, during which time the intermediary may accept investment commitments. Rule 303 also requires intermediaries to comply with the requirements related to the maintenance and transmission of funds. An intermediary that is a registered broker is required to comply with the requirements of Rule 15c2-4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) (Transmission or Maintenance of Payments Received in Connection with Underwritings).
The rules also require intermediaries to implement and maintain systems to comply with the information disclosure, communication channels, and investor notification requirements. These requirements include providing disclosure about compensation at account opening (Rule 302), obtaining investor acknowledgements to confirm investor qualifications and review of educational materials (Rule 303), providing investor questionnaires (Rule 303), providing communication channels with third parties and among investors (Rule 303), notifying investors of investment commitments (Rule 303), confirming completed transactions (Rule 303) and confirming or reconfirming offering cancellations (Rule 304).
The Commission staff estimates that there will be 136 intermediaries engaged in crowdfunding activity and therefore subject to Rules 300-304. The Commission staff estimates the annualized industry burden will be 38,317 hours to comply with Rules 300-304. The Commission staff further estimates that the costs associated with complying with Rules 300-304 will be a total amount of $18,750,000.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (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. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing by May 10, 2022.
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.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549, or send an email to:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
Section 13(f)
The information collection requirements apply to institutional investment managers that meet the $100 million reporting threshold. Section 13(f)(6)(A) of the Exchange Act defines an “institutional investment manager” as any person, other than a natural person, investing in or buying and selling securities for its own account, and any person exercising investment discretion with respect to the account of any other person. Rule 13f-1(b) under the Exchange Act defines “investment discretion” for purposes of Form 13F reporting.
The reporting system required by Section 13(f) of the Exchange Act is intended, among other things, to create in the Commission a central repository of historical and current data about the investment activities of institutional investment managers, and to improve the body of factual data available to regulators and the public.
The currently approved burden estimates include a total hour burden of 472,521.6 hours, with an internal cost burden of $31,186,425.60, to comply with Form 13F.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimates of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication by May 10, 2022.
Please direct your written comments to David Bottom, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549; or send an email to:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to modify Equity 4, Section 4120 to add categories of regulatory and operational halts and to reorganize the remaining text of the rule, and to make conforming changes to related rules.
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.
In conjunction with adoption of an amended Nasdaq UTP Plan proposed by its participants (“Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan”),
The Exchange has been working with other SROs to establish common criteria and procedures for halting and resuming trading in equity securities in the event of regulatory or operational issues. These common standards are designed to ensure that events which might impact multiple exchanges are handled in a consistent manner that is transparent. The Exchange believes that implementation of these common standards will assist the SROs in maintaining fair and orderly markets. Notwithstanding the development of these common standards, Nasdaq will retain discretion in certain instances as to whether and how to handle halts, as is discussed below.
Every U.S.-listed equity security has its primary listing on a specific stock exchange that is responsible for a number of regulatory functions.
All SROs have rules that require them to honor a Regulatory Halt. Nasdaq, as a Primary Listing Market, also has rules outlining the circumstances in which it will halt trading in its listed securities, including situations in which such halts are for regulatory purposes
While the existing rule generally has worked as intended to afford the Exchange authority to initiate a Regulatory Halt in appropriate cases, Nasdaq's experience is that the current rule may not contemplate some situations where a Regulatory Halt would help to maintain fair and orderly markets. For example, the current definition of “Extraordinary Market Activity” focuses on events where trading occurs significantly away from pre-event market prices. However, there may be other situations where trading proceeds in an orderly fashion despite a computer error that causes duplicative orders, bad data or other erroneous information that could impact investors' understanding of the market or their trading activity. The Exchange believes it would facilitate fair and orderly markets to give Primary Listing Markets greater flexibility to consider the facts and circumstances of each case and decide whether a Regulatory Halt is appropriate.
The complex and interconnected market structure in the United States also relies on consolidated market data processed and disseminated by the SIPs. In certain circumstances, the loss of this information or issues with the accuracy or timeliness of the information might cause a Primary Listing Market to determine that a trading halt is appropriate. The Exchange believes that further guidance in the rules will assist market participants in better understanding how various scenarios would be handled.
The Exchange believes that the cross-market proposed changes by: (1) Adopting uniform rules regarding the trigger points for regulatory trading halts in situations most likely to have an impact across markets and multiple listing venues; (2) addressing more scenarios in the uniform rule where a Primary Listing Market may need to implement a Regulatory Halt to maintain fair and orderly markets; and (3) adding provisions that apply to SIP-related issues to increase transparency into how these situations would be handled.
As noted above, the proposed changes that would be uniformly applied across SROs are those that relate to cross-market events as set forth in the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. However, there will still be situations where personnel at the Primary Listing Market will need to determine the impact of the cross-market event on the securities listed on its market and use discretion in deciding whether to halt trading in some or all securities during a cross-market event that affects securities listed on different markets. In making a determination as to whether to declare a Regulatory Halt for Extraordinary Market Activity, the Primary Listing Market will consider the totality of information available concerning the severity of the issue, its likely duration, potential impact on members and other market participants, and it will make a good-faith determination that the criteria for declaring a Regulatory Halt have been satisfied and that a Regulatory Halt is appropriate.
While the Exchange and the other SROs intend to harmonize certain aspects of their trading halt rules, other elements of the rules will continue to be unique to each market. The Exchange believes that this is appropriate to reflect different products listed or traded on each market and the unique relationship of the Primary Listing Market to its listed companies. It is anticipated that these unique rules would most likely be invoked in cases where the Primary Listing Market's decision on whether to institute a Regulatory Halt turns on specific information related to an individual security or issuer, such as the dissemination of news and the issuer's ability to meet listing standards, rather than broader market issues stemming from Extraordinary Market Activity or loss of consolidated market data from a SIP.
In addition to the changes noted above, the Exchange is deleting provisions that are no longer needed and reorganizing the rule to improve its clarity. The Exchange is also making a handful of non-substantive changes to rule text to improve its clarity. The Exchange will implement all of the changes proposed herein in conjunction with other SROs implementing the necessary rule changes. The Exchange will publish an Equity Trader alert at least 30 business days prior to implementing the proposed changes.
The Exchange proposes adding a definitions section as Rule 4120(a) to consolidate the various definitions that will be used in the Rule, some of which are taken from the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. Nasdaq is adopting the following terms from the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan: “Extraordinary Market Activity,” “Material SIP Latency,” “Operating Committee,” “Operational Halt,” “Primary Listing Market,” “Processor,” “Regulatory Halt,” “Regular Trading Hours,”
First, the Exchange proposes to add the definition of “Primary Listing Market”
Second, the Exchange proposes to replace the definition of “Extraordinary Market Activity” with a broader definition of the term taken from Section X.A.1. of the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan.
(1) Extraordinary Market Activity must be occurring in the security—the sole example of such activity included in the rule is “the execution of a series of transactions for a significant dollar value at prices substantially unrelated to the current market for the security, as measured by the national best bid and offer,” and
(2) The Exchange must determine that such Extraordinary Market Activity is likely to have a material effect on the market for the security, and
(3) The Exchange believes that either: (i) Such activity is caused by the misuse or malfunction of an electronic quotation, communication, reporting or execution system operated by, or linked to, the Exchange; (ii) after consultation with another national securities exchange trading the security on an unlisted trading privileges basis, that such activity is caused by the misuse or malfunction of an electronic quotation, communication, reporting or execution system operated by, or linked to, such other national securities exchange; or (iii) after consultation with FINRA regarding a FINRA facility trading the security, such activity is caused by the misuse or malfunction of such FINRA facility or an electronic quotation, communication, reporting, or execution system linked to such FINRA facility.
Although the single scenario in element (1) of the test is not exclusive, the Exchange believes that market participants would benefit from the inclusion of other scenarios that might constitute “Extraordinary Market Activity.” For example, experience indicates that significant market events do not always result in price dislocation. In some cases, trading may remain orderly. Moreover, price discovery—at least when measured by the absence of large price changes—may appear to be orderly, but in fact there may be confusion or information missing (
The proposed definition of Extraordinary Market Activity is the same definition in Section X.A. 1. of the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan.
The new definition of Extraordinary Market Activity also explains what constitutes a “severe and continuing negative impact.” In addition to the scenario in the current rule involving significant price movement, the proposed change adds two new scenarios to provide additional transparency to member firms:
• Duplicative or erroneous quoting, order trade reporting, or other related message traffic between one or more Trading Centers or their members; and
• The unavailability of quoting, order or transaction information, or regulatory messages, for a sustained period.
These problems may cause market participants to change their trading behavior or withdraw from the market entirely. When serious enough, this can affect the fair and orderly operation of the market. In determining whether to initiate a trading halt, Nasdaq would, as set forth in the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan and in proposed Rule 4120(b)(2)(D), consider the totality of information available concerning the severity of the issue, its likely duration, potential impact on members and other market participants, and will make a good-faith determination that the criteria for declaring a Regulatory Halt has been satisfied and that a Regulatory Halt is appropriate. Therefore, the Exchange, acting as the Primary Listing Market, in consultation with the affected trading centers, other SIP Plan participants, or the Processor, as applicable, where feasible, will retain discretion to evaluate the magnitude of each situation to determine whether the event meets the definition of Extraordinary Market Activity.
As with the current rule, the three scenarios included by reference in the new definition would not be exhaustive. This enables the Primary Listing Market to act in the best interests of the market when confronted with unexpected events. However, the Exchange believes that the three scenarios included in the rule cover many of the most likely events that may occur. As is currently the case, the Exchange anticipates providing public notice of Extraordinary Market Activity as soon as it is practicable, with updates as necessary, to assist firms in monitoring the status of issues. These notices, coupled with the proposed rule, will assist participants by alerting them to the situations most likely to result in trading halts.
The third set of new proposed definitions would be specific to events involving the SIP. While Nasdaq recognizes that many events involving the SIP would also meet the definition of “Extraordinary Market Activity,” the Exchange believes that the critical role of the SIPs in market infrastructure factors in favor of additional guidance on how such events will be handled. The definitions of “SIP Outage,” “Material SIP Latency,” “SIP Halt Resume Time,” and “SIP Halt” are intended to provide additional guidance and specific processes to address this subset of potential market issues. In addition, the Exchange is proposing to define terms related to SIP governance needed in order to understand these definitions:
• “SIP”
• “SIP Plan”
• “Operating Committee”
• “Processor”
The Exchange is proposing to adopt a category of Regulatory Halt, called a “SIP Halt,”
The Exchange is proposing to define a “SIP Outage”
Recent experience with events involving a loss of consolidated data from the SIP has shown that in many cases, the least disruptive outcome in the event of a brief interruption in data is to not halt trading in the affected securities if the market is fair and orderly. For example, in August 2013, Nasdaq halted trading in Nasdaq-listed securities due to an interruption in UTP SIP data due to uncertainty about the impact the loss of data would have on market participants. Although the UTP SIP successfully restarted the system within its primary data center and was operational within 17 minutes, the market remained halted for 3 hours at the request of market participants so that they could manage their books, clear stale orders and reconnect to the system. By contrast, the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), benefitting from this prior experience, did not halt trading during a loss of CTA/CQS data in October 2014 and failed over to back-up facilities within 30 minutes of the loss of SIP data. Because NYSE did not halt trading, firms did not need to reconnect and clear order books. As a result, the duration of the NYSE event—measured from loss of SIP data to end of the issue—was shorter and caused less disruption to the market even though the scope of the underlying problem that caused the loss of data from both SIPs was comparable.
At the direction of the Operating Committees, each processor has invested significant money and effort into improving the resiliency of the SIPs. This will increase the likelihood that SIPs will failover rapidly and commence disseminating valid data. Of course, there could still be situations where the failover does not work as expected, or the problem is not cured despite the redundancy available in the backup center. It is in these situations that the Exchange and the other SROs believe that the need for a SIP Halt is most likely to arise.
For this reason, the proposed definition focuses on the agreed time frames for an orderly failover. Emergency procedures applicable to the Processor provide that when a determination is made to failover to the secondary data center, the Processor shall endeavor to complete the failover within 10 minutes.
Accordingly, the Primary Listing Market would be expected to consider a SIP Halt in the event of the loss of SIP data once the loss in data extends or is anticipated to extend for a material period that exceeds the same agreed-upon 10 minute failover thresholds, unless the Primary Listing Market, in consultation with the Processor and the responsible Operating Committee, determines that resumption of accurate data is expected in the near future. The Exchange, in consultation with the other SROs, considered and rejected specifying a numerical time limit after which a SIP Halt would be required. Because of the significant impact a broad trading halt can have on market confidence, the Exchange believes Primary Listing Markets should retain discretion to consider the facts of the incident in evaluating a SIP Halt to avoid having to halt trading despite knowing that the SIP is about to resume data dissemination. Instead, the Primary Listing Market, in consultation with other SROs, SIPs and market participants where feasible, would continually re-evaluate whether a SIP Halt is appropriate and take action when, in its judgment, the thresholds in the definition have been passed. The Primary Listing Market retains discretion throughout the process to institute a Regulatory Halt in good faith—even within the 10 minute failover window—if trading appears disorderly, price discovery has been impacted, or it is otherwise in the interests of a fair and orderly market to halt trading.
In addition to situations where a SIP is no longer disseminating data, circumstances may arise where quotation or last sale price information from the SIP is delayed or stale due to a significant increase in latency. Minor latency in the data will always exist given the nature of a consolidated feed, where data from multiple markets is validated, normalized, consolidated and then distributed. However, significant latency can impact trading decisions and market confidence if participants are unsure whether data accurately reflects the current state of the market.
The Exchange is proposing to define “Material SIP Latency”
Because guidelines are designed as an early warning system to mobilize decision makers, many latency events that exceed the thresholds in the guidelines would not constitute Material SIP Latency resulting in a SIP Halt. Instead, the Primary Listing Market, in consultation with the Operating Committee, would be expected to evaluate the severity of the latency and its continued duration and consider whether the issue is likely to be resolved in the near future. As in the case of a SIP Outage, the Exchange, in consultation with other SROs, considered adopting fixed latency metrics in the rule, but for several reasons, it determined that this would be counterproductive. First, it could create situations where a SIP Halt is imposed even where resolution is imminent. Second, greater flexibility will enable the Exchange and other Primary Listing Markets to learn from experience about how various levels of latency affect trading. Fixed thresholds in the rule might also become outdated over time if latency levels drop due to system enhancements. Regardless of the thresholds, the Primary Listing Market always retains the authority to institute a Regulatory Halt if it determines, in good faith, a halt to be in the interests of a fair and orderly market.
The Exchange proposes to add a definition of “Regulatory Halt”
Finally, the Exchange proposes to add a definition of “Operational Halt,”
The Exchange proposes to consolidate the various types of situations that form the basis for declaring a Regulatory Halt in Rule 4120(b). The proposed rule change would divide the situations that form the basis of the Exchange's authority to declare a Regulatory Halt in a security for which the Exchange is the Primary Listing Market into three categories: (1) As provided by the SIP Plans; (2) discretionary Regulatory Halts; and (3) mandatory Regulatory Halts.
The first category concerns situations enumerated in the SIP Plan, specifically related to a SIP Outage, Material SIP Latency, or Extraordinary Market Activity.
The second category provides the Exchange with discretion to declare a Regulatory Halt in situations described by the proposed rule, such as when the Exchange requests certain information from an issuer and for a security subject to an IPO. The Exchange believes that discretion in determining whether to impose a Regulatory Halt is appropriate because of the many facts and circumstances that must be considered by the Primary Listing Market in determining whether to halt trading. A rule establishing exact standards for a mandatory halt would risk forcing the Exchange to halt trading in circumstances where other facts may weigh against a halt, thereby forcing the Exchange to act in a way that is not in the best interests of the market. Alternatively, fixed standards could also prevent the Exchange from halting in circumstances where a Regulatory Halt would be appropriate. Instead, the proposed change would outline the types of scenarios where the Primary Listing Market may initiate a Regulatory Halt after consulting with the entities specified in the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, where feasible. However, there may be situations where such consultation may not be possible due to technical issues or time sensitivity. The proposed change would preserve the Exchange's ability to act in the best interests of the market in these circumstances, consistent with the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan.
As under the current rule, the proposed change continues to allow the Exchange to institute a Regulatory Halt in circumstances where the Exchange requests additional information from an issuer (current Rule 4120(a)(5) and
Proposed Rule 4120(b)(1)(B)(vi) gives the Exchange discretion to halt trading in an American Depository Receipt (“ADR”) or other Nasdaq-listed security when the foreign securities exchange or market listing the security underlying the ADR or the Nasdaq-listed security or the regulatory authority overseeing such foreign securities exchange or market institutes a halt for regulatory reasons. The Exchange is deleting text that presently exists in the Rule covering ADR and other Nasdaq-listed security halts, at Rule 4120(a)(4), which references national securities exchanges instituting a halt for “regulatory reasons” because under the proposed new rules, a Regulatory Halt will be issued by the Primary Listing Exchange. If the other national securities exchange is the primary listing exchange and declares a regulatory halt, the security will be subject to a halt by the Exchange. Thus, such a halt on the Exchange will be mandatory. The proposed amended rule will consider only actions taken by a foreign exchange that halts the Nasdaq-listed security, or security underlying an ADR, on its market for regulatory reasons (foreign exchanges do not fall within the definition of a “primary listing market” and therefore their regulatory halts do not fall within the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan's definition of Regulatory Halts). The Exchange will then assess the regulatory reasons underlying the halt on the foreign market and possibly initiate a Regulatory Halt.
Proposed Rule 4120(b)(1)(B)(vii) would permit the Exchange to declare a Regulatory Halt for a security for which it is the Primary Listing Market, in the event of national, regional, or localized disruption that necessitates a Regulatory Halt to maintain a fair and orderly market. This proposal incorporates an identical provision in the Nasdaq UTP Plan.
The third category of Regulatory Halts concerns situations in which it is mandatory that the Exchange must declare a Regulatory Halt. Proposed Rule 4120(b)(1)(C)(i) codifies without substantive modification the existing provisions of Rule 4120(a)(10) in situations where the Exchange becomes aware that the net asset value of a Derivative Securities Product (or the Disclosed Portfolio in the case of Managed Fund Shares, the Composition File in the case of NextShares, or in the case of Proxy Portfolio Securities, a Proxy Basket, or the Fund Portfolio) is not being disseminated to all participants at the same time. The Exchange is required to halt trading in the Derivative Securities Product when this occurs. Similarly, proposed Rule 4120(b)(1)(C)(ii) retains without substantive modification the existing rule with respect to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan (current Rule 4120(a)(12)).
The Exchange is proposing to move or delete certain elements in the current list of situations that form the basis for declaring a Regulatory Halt in Rule 4120(a). First, the Exchange is deleting the current definition of Extraordinary Market Activity in Rule 4120(a)(6), which it proposes to replace with the updated and more extensive definition previously discussed. Second, the Exchange is proposing to delete current Rule 4120(a)(11), which establishes a trading pause in the event of large price moves in securities not covered by the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan.
In coordination with the other SROs, the Exchange developed proposed Rule
Currently, many Trading Centers and other market participants rely on automated, machine-readable trade halt messages disseminated by the SIP to automatically halt their order matching and order dissemination systems. While the Exchange disseminates these messages in other formats and posts the messages on its website, Nasdaq's experience is that these alternative means of communication have not been relied on by many market participants. Proposed Rule 4120(b)(2)(B) would provide advance notice in the manner set forth in the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. The Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan requires the Primary Listing Market to notify all other participants and the SIP using such protocols and other emergency procedures as may be mutually agreed to between the Operating Committee and the Exchange. The Exchange also must take reasonable steps to provide notice to market participants if the SIP Processor is unable to disseminate notice of the Halt or the Primary Listing Market is not open for trading. In such case, the notice would include:
• Proprietary data feeds containing quote and last sale information that the Primary Listing Market also sends to the applicable SIP that is unable to disseminate the halt notices;
• Posting on a publicly available Exchange website; or
• System status messages that are disseminated to market participants who choose to sign up for the service.
The Exchange believes that market participants will benefit from additional sources of halt notifications that include machine readable and easily accessible communications for human traders and Nasdaq recommends that participants be prepared in advance to monitor multiple sources. Although it may take longer for participants to react to messages received in less automated formats, the use of multiple forms of dissemination will increase the likelihood that participants receive important information. It will also assist participants who do not subscribe to the Exchange's proprietary feeds in getting regulatory notices. As noted above, in situations where communication is interrupted the Exchange and other SROs would retain the ability to break trades that occurred after the start of the Regulatory Halt in appropriate circumstances (pursuant to rules governing clearly erroneous trades, at Equity 11, Rule 11890), thereby lessening the potential impact on participants that were delayed in halting trading. Participants must monitor several sources of regulatory notices so that they are aware of the imposition of a Regulatory Halt in situations where communication is interrupted; however, the failure of a participant to do so will not prevent the Exchange from initiating a Regulatory Halt.
Proposed Rule 4120(b)(2)(C) also makes clear that, consistent with the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, except in exigent circumstances, the Primary Listing Market will not declare a Regulatory Halt retroactive to a time earlier than the notice of such halt. Feedback from market participants has been that it is very disruptive to trading when the Primary Listing Market sets the start of a trading halt for a time earlier than the notice of the halt.
Consistent with Section X.C.2 of the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, Proposed Rule 4120(b)(D) states that in making a determination to declare a Regulatory Halt in trading any security for which the Exchange is the Primary Listing Market, the Exchange will consider the totality of information available concerning the severity of the issue, its likely duration, and potential impact on Members and other market participants and will make a good-faith determination that the criteria for declaring the Regulatory Halt have been satisfied and that a Regulatory Halt is appropriate. The Exchange will consult, if feasible, with the affected Trading Center(s), other SIP Plan Participants, or the Processor, as applicable, regarding the scope of the issue and what steps are being taken to address the issue.
Finally, consistent with Section X.C.2 of the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, Proposed Rule 4120(b)(E) states that once a Regulatory Halt has been declared, the Exchange will continue to evaluate the circumstances to determine when trading may resume in accordance with its Rules.
Nasdaq notes that except as otherwise stated, the proposed procedures for initiating Regulatory Halts replace those set forth in current Rule 4120(c).
The Exchange believes that consolidating all subsections concerning a Regulatory Halt declared by other Primary Listing Markets in Rule 4120(b)(3) would add clarity to the rule. As is the case under the current rule, the Exchange would honor a Regulatory Halt.
• Current Rule 4120(a)(2), which states that the Exchange may halt trading on Nasdaq in any security it trades on an unlisted trading privileges basis, if the Primary Listing Market declares a Regulatory Halt in the security to permit dissemination of material news, would become proposed Rule 4120(b)(3)(A)(i). Consistent with Section X.G of the Nasdaq UTP Plan, the proposed Rule will more broadly require Nasdaq to halt trading of a UTP security if the Primary Listing Market declares a Regulatory Halt in that security.
Current Rule 4120(b), which governs trading halts in certain Derivative Securities Products traded on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges, would become proposed
The SROs have jointly developed processes to govern the resumption of trading in the event of a Regulatory Halt. While the actual process of re-launching trading will remain unique to each exchange (for example, trading in Nasdaq-listed securities resumes on the Exchange in most cases through a Halt Cross pursuant to Rule 4753), the proposed rule would harmonize certain common elements of the reopening process that would benefit from consistency across markets. These common elements include the primacy of the Primary Listing Market in resumption decisions, the requirement that the Primary Listing Market make its determination to resume trading in good faith,
Proposed Rule 4120(b)(4) provides the process to be followed when resuming trading upon the conclusion of a Regulatory Halt. The new rule, which incorporates Section X.E, and.(F of the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, is divided into the following three subsections concerning resumption of trading: (A) After a Regulatory Halt other than an IPO or SIP Halt;
The existing resumption process incorporating the Halt Cross is being moved without modification to proposed Rule 4120(b)(4)(A)(i)a.-c. This process will apply to any type of a Regulatory Halt except for halts related to the launch of IPOs and a SIP Halt (which does not exist under the current rule) or an LULD Halt. The existing process for launching IPOs has also been incorporated in the proposed rule without substantive modification as proposed Rule 4120(b)(4)(C).
Proposed Rule 4120(b)(4)(A)(i)d. states that during any trading halt or pause for which a halt cross under Rule 4753 will not occur (as in the case of a Regulatory Halt for securities where Nasdaq is not the Primary Listing Market), orders entered during the Regulatory Halt or pause will not be accepted, unless subject to instructions that the order will be directed to another exchange as described in Rule 4758.
The Exchange proposes to add Rule 4120(b)(4)(A)(i)e. that will address the re-opening process following a Limit Up-Limit Down pause. The Exchange is proposing to move the Limit Up-Limit Down trading pause termination process to Rule 4120(b)(4)(A)(i)e. unchanged from current Rule 4120(c)(10).
For a SIP Halt, proposed Rule 4120(b)(4)(B) establishes the process by which Nasdaq, as the Primary Listing Market, determines to resume trading. The SROs' experience with such events is that communication among SROs, SIPs and market participants is the best way to ensure that the Primary Listing Market has access to available information and to coordinate the reopening of trading in an orderly manner. In addition, the SROs anticipate that market participants and other impacted entities will have access to information about the issue causing the SIP Halt, the duration of the halt and the resumption process through updated communications from the SIP, Operating Committee and Primary Listing Market. The Operating Committees have policies and procedures that, among other things, establish industry notice protocols for various SIP-related events.
Under the proposal, for the resumption of trading after a SIP Halt initiated by the Exchange, the Exchange, as the Primary Listing Market, will make a good-faith determination of the SIP Halt Resume Time, after considering the totality of information as to whether resuming trading would promote a fair and orderly market. Nasdaq would solicit input from the Processor, the Operating Committee, or the operator of the system in question (as well as any Trading Center(s) to which such system is linked), regarding operational readiness to resume trading. The Primary Listing Market retains discretion to delay the SIP Halt Resume Time if it has reason to believe that trading will not resume in a fair or orderly manner.
When resuming trading after a SIP Halt as the Primary Listing Market, Nasdaq will use the same Halt Cross as other Regulatory Halt types, except for a Regulatory Halt related to the launch of an IPO or an LULD Halt. Whereas the Halt Cross for other Regulatory Halt types (except for a Regulatory Halt related to the launch of an IPO or an
Proposed Rule 4120(b)(4)(B)(i)a. gives Nasdaq, as the Primary Listing Market, discretion to delay the SIP Halt Resume Time if it believes that trading will not resume in a fair and orderly manner. Moreover, proposed Rule 4120(b)(4)(B)(i)b allows Nasdaq to stagger the SIP Halt Resume Times for multiple securities in order to reopen in a fair and orderly manner. For example, this discretion could be used to open trading in a small number of symbols to ensure that systems are operating normally before resuming trading in the remaining symbols.
In addition, the proposed rule would establish the last SIP Halt Resume Time as 20 minutes before the end of Regular Trading Hours (
Proposed Rule 4120(b)(4)(B)(i)c. provides that, for a SIP Halt initiated by Nasdaq, the reopening process shall be the same as for a non-IPO Regulatory Halt pursuant to proposed Rule 4120(b)(4)(A)(i)a.-c., except that the Display Only Period will be a minimum of five minutes, but may be extended at the discretion of Nasdaq pursuant to proposed Rule 4120(b)(4)(B)(i)a.&b. Proposed Rule 4120(b)(4)(B)(ii) provides that, for a SIP Halt initiated by another exchange that is the Primary Listing Market, during Regular Trading Hours, Nasdaq may resume trading after trading has resumed on the Primary Listing Market or notice has been received from the Primary Listing Market that trading may resume. Proposed Rule 4120(b)(4)(B)(ii) provides that, for a SIP Halt initiated by a market other than Nasdaq, during Regular Trading Hours, if the Primary Listing Market does not open a security within the amount of time listed by the rules of the Primary Listing Market, Nasdaq may resume trading in that security. Under Proposed Rule 4120(b)(4)(B)(ii), Outside of Regular Trading Hours, Nasdaq may resume trading immediately after the SIP Halt Resume Time.
Nasdaq notes that except as otherwise stated, the proposed procedures for terminating Regulatory Halts replace those set forth in current Rule 4120(c).
The Exchange proposes in Rule 4120(c) to address Operational Halts, which are non-regulatory in nature and apply only to the exchange that calls the halt. The ability to call an Operational Halt has existed for a long time, although in the Exchange's experience, such halts have rarely been initiated. As part of Nasdaq's assessment with the other SROs of the halting and resumption of trading, the Exchange believes that the markets would benefit from greater clarity regarding when an Operational Halt may be appropriate. In part, the proposed change is designed to cover situations similar to those that might constitute a Regulatory Halt, but where the impact is limited to a single market. For example, just as a market disruption might trigger a Regulatory Halt for Extraordinary Market Activity if it affects multiple markets, so a disruption at the Exchange, such as a technical issue affecting trading in one or more securities, could impact trading on the Exchange so significantly that an Operational Halt is appropriate in one or more securities. In such an instance, it would be in the public interest to institute an Operational Halt to minimize the impact of a disruption that, if trading were allowed to continue, might negatively affect a greater number of market participants. An Operational Halt does not implicate other trading centers.
As is currently the case in existing Rule 4120(a)(3)(B), proposed Rule 4120(c)(1)(C) gives discretion to the Exchange to impose an Operational Halt in a security listed on Nasdaq when a Primary Listing Market imposes an Operational Halt in a security that is a derivative or component of the Nasdaq-listed security. As discussed in relation to Derivative Securities Products, Nasdaq does not automatically halt trading—through either a Regulatory Halt or an Operational Halt—when component or derivative securities are halted. However, proposed Rule 4120(c)(1)(C), like the current rule, gives the Exchange authority to halt a security listed on Nasdaq if the impact of the component or derivative security on price discovery or the fair and orderly market in the Nasdaq-listed security is significant enough to warrant a trading halt. Factors would include whether trading in the security listed on Nasdaq is fair and orderly, the nature of the issue that triggered the Operational Halt(s) on the Primary Listing Market(s) in the component or derivative securities and whether the security that is subject to the Operational Halt continues to trade on other Trading Centers.
Proposed Rule 4120(c) also would authorize the Exchange to implement an Operational Halt for any security trading on Nasdaq, including a security listed elsewhere:
• If it is experiencing Extraordinary Market Activity on Nasdaq; or
• when otherwise necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market or in the public interest.
The Exchange is proposing to delete Rule 4120(a)(3)(A) that authorizes the Exchange to institute an “operational trading halt” in a security listed on another exchange when that exchange imposes a trading halt because of an order imbalance or influx. The Exchange believes this language could restrict its ability to follow an Operational Halt imposed by another market to a limited set of fact patterns. The Exchange believes that the broader language provided by the definition of Extraordinary Market Activity and the ability to initiate an Operational Halt when necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market will better serve the interests of investors by allowing the Exchange to act where appropriate.
Proposed Rule 4120(c)(2) provides the process for initiating an Operational Halt. Under the proposed rule, the Exchange must notify the SIP if it has concerns about its ability to collect and transmit Quotation Information or
Proposed Rule 4120(c)(3) will clarify how the Exchange resumes trading after an Operational Halt. Proposed Rule 4120(c)(3) provides that the Exchange would resume trading when it determines that trading may resume in a fair and orderly manner consistent with the Exchange's rules. Proposed Rule 4120(c)(3) includes one change from the current rule. Under the current rule, the Halt Cross process is used to resume trading after all halts in Nasdaq-listed securities, whether the halt is a Regulatory Halt or an Operational Halt. The Exchange is proposing to modify the process for an Operational Halt to give the Exchange discretion to open trading without a Halt Cross if it determines such action to be in the best interests of the market. During the July 8, 2015 suspension of trading by NYSE in all securities due to an operational issue, many market participants requested that NYSE resume trading without an auction to avoid any impact on Regulation NMS compliance and mispricing because trading continued on other markets. NYSE determined that its rules (NYSE Rule 7.35A) allow it to reopen without an auction process, and this decision was well received. Indeed, Nasdaq agrees that a Halt Cross in such a circumstance might prove to be disruptive or result in trade-throughs. Nasdaq's current rules would not permit it to reopen after an Operational Halt without a Halt Cross auction process. The Exchange proposes modifying its rules to provide it the same flexibility.
For Nasdaq-listed securities where a Halt Cross is conducted, the Exchange will use the same Halt Cross process for resumption outlined in Rule 4120(b)(4)(A)(i)a.-c. as it does for most Regulatory Halt types. The proposed rule notes that Nasdaq may determine to open trading without a Halt Cross if it determines such action to be in the best interests of the market. Where the Exchange decides not to hold a Halt Cross for a security subject to a halt or pause, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 4753 to clarify that market hours trading will resume when Nasdaq releases the security. Moreover, where trading halt or pause for which a halt cross will not occur (as in the case of an Operational Halt for securities where Nasdaq is not the Primary Listing Market), orders entered during the Operational Halt will not be accepted, unless subject to instructions that the order will be directed to another exchange as described in Rule 4758.
The Exchange is proposing to modify a number of other rules that cross reference Rule 4120 in light of the reorganization of these rules. Updated cross references are proposed for the following rules:
• Rule 4702(a) (Order Types) will be modified to update cross references to the Rule that governs Limit-Up-Limit-Down procedures. Rule 4702(b)(16)(A) will be modified to update the cross-reference to the provision within Rule 4120 that is used to set the price of a Company Direct Listing Order.
• Rule 4753(a)(3) (Nasdaq Halt Cross) will be updated to make conforming changes to cross-references to IPO Halt procedures, a Trading Pause initiated pursuant to the Limit Up-Limit Down procedure, and the definition of the terms “Auction Reference Prices” and “Auction Collars.”
• Rule 4753(b) (Nasdaq Halt Cross) will be modified to update the references to subsections of Rule 4120 to reflect the reorganization of Rule 4120. The Exchange also updates a cross-reference to Rule 4120 discussed when describing the role of a “financial advisor.”
• Rule 4753(c) (Nasdaq Halt Cross) will be modified to update a cross reference to Rule 4120.
• Rule 4754(b)(6) (Nasdaq Closing Cross related to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan) will be modified to reflect the new subsections of Rule 4120 that govern LULD Halts.
• IM-5315-2, IM-5405-1, and IM-5505-1 will be modified to reflect updated cross-references to provisions of Rule 4120 that the Exchange is proposing to relocate.
In addition, the Exchange is proposing to amend several rules that rely on the definition of “Regular Market Session” in current Rule 4120(b)(4)(D). Regular Market Session is defined as “the trading session from 9:30 a.m. until 4:00 p.m. or 4:15 p.m.” The Exchange is proposing to replace the references to Regular Market Session in Rule 5710 (Securities Linked to the Performance of Indexes and Commodities (Including Currencies)) and 5711 with references to Regular Trading Hours as proposed in Rule 4120(a)(12). The term “Regular Trading Hours” would be consistent with the existing application of the definition of “Regular Market Session” and obviate the need for multiple definitions for the regular trading day. As previously discussed, no securities traded on Nasdaq currently close at 4:15 p.m. and, therefore, the alternative closing time in the current Regular Market Session definition is not needed.
The Exchange also is proposing to modify IM-5220, which covers dually-listed securities, to reflect the changes proposed to Rule 4120. The proposed rule makes clear that the Primary Listing Market is the market on which the security has been listed longest. This clear statement has eliminated the need for the more specific citations to various subsections of Rule 4120 currently contained in IM-5220 because proposed Rule 4120 distinguishes between those securities for which Nasdaq is the Primary Listing Market and those securities for which Nasdaq is not. The Exchange is also eliminating language from the rule that references the Intermarket Trading System, which no longer exists. These changes are not substantive.
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend certain references in Rule 5711, which governs the trading of certain derivative securities. The references to Regular Market Session would be changed to Regular Trading Hours throughout Rule 5711. This is consistent with changes made in other rules referring to Regular Market Session. The reference in subsection (i)(v)(B)(2) to the trading pauses contained in Rule 4120(a)(11) has been replaced with a citation to the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan, which now applies to these instruments (rather than Rule 4120(a)(11), which as discussed above, is obsolete). The reference in Rule 5711(j)(vi)(B)(5) to halting a series of Managed Trust Securities traded on the Exchange pursuant to unlisted trading privileges will be updated to reference
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder that are applicable to a national securities exchange, and, in particular, with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
As described above, the Exchange and other SROs are seeking to adopt harmonized rules related to halting and resuming trading in U.S.-listed equity securities. The Exchange believes that the proposed rules will provide greater transparency and clarity with respect to the situations in which trading will be halted and the process through which that halt will be implemented and terminated. Particularly, the proposed changes seek to achieve consistent results for participants across U.S. equities exchanges while maintaining a fair and orderly market, protecting investors and protecting the public interest. Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
As discussed previously, the Exchange believes that the various provisions of the proposed rules that will apply to all SROs are focused on the type of cross-market event where a consistent approach will assist market participants and reduce confusion during a crisis. Because market participants often trade the same security across multiple venues and trade securities listed on different exchanges as part of a common strategy, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules will lessen the risk that market participants holding a basket of securities will have to deal with divergent outcomes depending on where the securities are listed or traded. Conversely, the proposed rules would still allow individual SROs to react differently to events that impact various securities or markets in different ways. This avoids the “brittle market” risk where an isolated event at a single market forces all markets trading equities securities to halt or halts trading in all securities where the issue impacted only a subset of securities. By addressing both concerns, the Exchange believes that the proposed rules further the Act's goal of maintaining fair and orderly markets.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rules' focus of responsibility on the Primary Listing Market for decisions related to a Regulatory Halt and the resumption of trading is consistent with the Act, which itself imposes obligations on exchanges with respect to issuers that are listed. As is currently the case, the Primary Listing Market would be responsible for the many regulatory functions related to its listings, including the determination of when to declare a Regulatory Halt. While these core responsibilities remain with the Primary Listing Market, trading in the security can occur on multiple exchanges that have unlisted trading privileges for the security or in the over-the-counter market, regulated by FINRA. These other venues are responsible for monitoring activity on their own markets, but also have agreed to honor a Regulatory Halt.
The proposed changes relating to Regulatory Halts would ensure that all SROs handle the situations covered therein in a consistent manner that would prevent conflicting outcomes in cross-market events and ensure that all Trading Centers recognize a Regulatory Halt declared by the Primary Listing Market. The changes are consistent with and implement the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. While the proposed rules recognize one Primary Listing Market for each security, the rules do not prevent an issuer from switching its listing to another national securities exchange that would thereafter assume the responsibilities of Primary Listing Market for that security. Similarly, the proposed rules set forth a fair and objective standard to determine which exchange will be the Primary Listing Market in the case of dually-listed securities: The exchange on which the security has been listed the longest.
The Exchange believes that the other definitions in the proposed rules are also consistent with the Act. For example, existing rules of the Exchange allow it to take action to halt the market in the event of Extraordinary Market Activity. The proposed rules would expand the scope of what constitutes Extraordinary Market Activity, consistent with the amended definition of that term in the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, thereby furthering the Act's goal of promoting fair and orderly markets. The Exchange is also proposing to adopt definitions for “SIP Outage,” “Material SIP Latency” and “SIP Halt,” to explicitly address situations that may disrupt the markets, and these definitions are identical to the definitions in the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. The proposed rules provide guidance on when the Exchange should seek information from the Operating Committee, other SROs and market participants as well as means for dissemination of important information to the market, consistent with the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. The Exchange believes these provisions strike the right balance in outlining a process to address unforeseen events without preventing SROs from taking action needed to protect the market.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rules, which make halts more consistent across exchange rules, is consistent with the Act in that it will foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in regulating the equities markets. In particular, the Exchange believes it is important for SROs to coordinate when there is a widespread and significant event, as multiple Trading Centers are impacted in such an event. Further, while the Exchange recognizes that the proposed rule will not guarantee a consistent result on every market in all situations, the Exchange does believe that it will assist in that outcome. While the proposed rules relating to Regulatory Halts focuses primarily on the kinds of cross-market events that would likely impact multiple markets, individual SROs will still retain flexibility to deal with unique products or smaller situations confined to a particular market. To that end, the Exchange has retained existing elements of Rule 4120 that focus on its unique products and the processes it has developed over time to interact with its issuers.
Also consistent with the Act, and with the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan, is the Exchange's proposal in Rule 4120(c) to address Operational Halts, which are non-regulatory in nature and apply only to the exchange that calls the halt. As noted earlier, the Exchange presently has the ability to call an Operational Halt, but does so rarely. The Exchange believes that the markets would benefit from greater clarity regarding when an Operational Halt may be appropriate. In
As is currently the case in existing Rule 4120(a)(3)(B), proposed Rule 4120(c)(1)(C) gives discretion to the Exchange to impose an Operational Halt in a security listed on Nasdaq when a Primary Listing Market imposes an Operational Halt in a security that is a derivative or component of the Nasdaq-listed security. As discussed in relation to Derivative Securities Products, Nasdaq does not automatically halt trading—through either a Regulatory Halt or an Operational Halt—when component or derivative securities are halted. However, proposed Rule 4120(c)(1)(C), like the current rule, gives the Exchange authority to halt a security listed on Nasdaq if the impact of the component or derivative security on price discovery or the fair and orderly market in the Nasdaq-listed security is significant enough to warrant a trading halt. Factors would include whether trading in the security listed on Nasdaq is fair and orderly, the nature of the issue that triggered the Operational Halt(s) on the Primary Listing Market(s) in the component or derivative securities and whether the security that is subject to the Operational Halt continues to trade on other Trading Centers.
Proposed Rule 4120(c) also would authorize the Exchange to implement an Operational Halt for any security trading on Nasdaq, including a security listed elsewhere: (i) If it determines that there is a significant order imbalance; (ii) if it is experiencing Extraordinary Market Activity; or (iii) when otherwise necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market or in the public interest.
The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the Act to delete Rule 4120(a)(3)(A), which authorizes the Exchange to institute an “operational trading halt” in a security listed on another exchange when that exchange imposes a trading halt because of an order imbalance or influx. The Exchange believes this language could restrict its ability to follow an Operational Halt imposed by another market to a limited set of fact patterns. The Exchange believes that the broader language provided by the definition of Extraordinary Market Activity and the ability to initiate an Operational Halt in the event of a significant order imbalance in proposed Rule 4120(c) will better serve the interests of investors by allowing the Exchange to act where appropriate.
The Exchange believes the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act
Importantly, the Exchange believes the proposal will not impose a burden on intermarket competition but will rather alleviate any burden on competition because it is the result of a collaborative effort by all SROs to harmonize and improve the process related to the halting and resumption of trading in U.S.-listed equity securities, consistent with the Amended Nasdaq UTP Plan. In this area, the Exchange believes that all SROs should have consistent rules to the extent possible in order to provide additional transparency and certainty to market participants and to avoid inconsistent outcomes that could cause confusion and erode market confidence. The proposed changes would ensure that all SROs handle the situations covered therein in a consistent manner and ensure that all Trading Centers handle a Regulatory Halt consistently. The Exchange understands that all other Primary Listing Markets intend to file proposals that are substantially similar to this proposal.
The Exchange does not believe that its proposals concerning Operational Halts impose an undue burden on competition. Under the existing Rules, the Exchange already possesses discretionary authority to impose Operational Halts for various reasons, including because of an order imbalance or influx that causes another national securities exchange to impose a trading halt in a security, or because another national securities exchange imposes an operational halt in a security that is a derivative or component of a security listed on Nasdaq. As described earlier, the proposed Rule change clarifies and broadens the circumstances in which the Exchange may impose such Halts, and specifies procedures for both imposing and lifting them. The Exchange does not intend for these proposals to have any competitive impact whatsoever. Indeed, the Exchange expects that other exchanges will adopt similar rules and procedures to govern operational halts, to the extent that they have not done so already.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intramarket competition because the provisions apply to all market participants equally. In addition, information regarding the halting and resumption of trading will be disseminated using several freely accessible sources to ensure broad availability of information in addition to the SIP data and proprietary data feeds offered by the Exchange and other SROs that are available to subscribers.
In addition, the proposals include several provisions related to the declaration and timing of trading halts and the resumption of trading designed to avoid any advantage to those who can react more quickly than other participants. The proposed rule gives the Exchanges the ability to declare the timing of a Regulatory Halt immediately. The SROs retain the discretion to cancel trades that occur after the time of the Regulatory Halt. The proposals also allow for the staggered resumption of trading to assist firms in reentering the market after a SIP Halt affecting multiple securities, in order to reopen in a fair and orderly manner. In addition, the proposals encourage early and frequent communication among the SROs, SIPs and market participants to enable the dissemination of timely and accurate information concerning the market to market participants.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such 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.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Alabama dated 03/07/2022.
Issued on 03/07/2022.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17365 C and for economic injury is 17366 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Alabama.
Small Business Administration.
Notice of intent to waive the nonmanufacturer rule for dental equipment and supplies.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) is considering granting a request for a class waiver of the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR) for dental equipment and supplies.
Comments and source information must be submitted by April 11, 2022.
You may submit comments and source information via the Federal Rulemaking Portal at
Carol Hulme, Attorney Advisor, by telephone at 202-205-6347; or by email at
Sections 8(a)(17) and 46 of the Small Business Act (Act), 15 U.S.C. 637(a)(17) and 657s, and SBA's implementing regulations, found at 13 CFR 121.406(b), require that recipients of Federal supply contracts provide the product of a small business manufacturer or processor if the recipient of the set-aside contract is not the actual manufacturer or processor of the product. This requirement is commonly referred to as the Nonmanufacturer Rule (NMR). 13 CFR 121.406(b). The NMR applies to a contract issued as a small business set-aside (except as stated below); a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) set-aside or sole-source contract; a Historically Underutilized Business Zone (HUBZone) set-aside or sole source contract; a women-owned small business (WOSB) or economically disadvantaged women-owned small business (EDWOSB) set-aside or sole source contract; or 8(a) set-aside or sole source contract; a partial set-aside; or a set-aside of an order against a multiple award contract. The NMR does not apply to small business set-aside acquisitions with an estimated value between the micro-purchase threshold and the simplified acquisition threshold.
Sections 8(a)(17)(B)(iv)(II) and 46(a)(4)(B) of the Act authorize SBA to waive the NMR for a “class of products” for which there are no small business manufacturers or processors available to participate in the Federal market. The SBA identifies a “class of products” based on a combination of the six-digit NAICS code and a description of the class of products. A waiver would not have any effect on the requirements in 13 CFR 121.406(b) or on requirements external to the Act that involve domestic sources of supply, such as the Buy American Act, 41 U.S.C. 8301-8305, or the Trade Agreements Act, 19 U.S.C. 2501
As implemented in SBA's regulations at 13 CFR 121.1202(c), in order to be considered available to participate in the Federal market for a class of products, a small business manufacturer must have submitted a proposal for a contract solicitation or been awarded a contract to supply the class of products within the last 24 months.
SBA has received a request for a class waiver for dental supplies and equipment. Specifically, the waiver would apply to dental chairs, dental delivery systems, dental lights, dental cabinets, dental stools, dental handpieces, dental infection control apparatus, dental air management systems, and mechanical room equipment under North American Industry Classification (NAICS) code 339114. If granted, the class waiver would allow otherwise qualified regular dealers to supply the waived item on certain small business contracts, regardless of the business size of the manufacturer. The applicable NAICS Code is 339114 because there are no small businesses that manufacturer this product. A search of the Federal marketplace revealed there are no small business manufacturers that can manufacture and supply this product to the Federal government.
SBA invites the public to comment on this pending request to waive the NMR for dental equipment and supplies. The public may comment or provide source information on any small business manufacturers of this class of products that are available to participate in the Federal market. The public comment period will run for 30 days after the date of publication in the
More information on the NMR and class waivers can be found at Nonmanufacturer rule (
The Department of State's Overseas Schools Advisory Council will hold its Winter Committee Meeting on Thursday, April 7, 2022, from 9:00 a.m. until approximately 12:00 p.m. If permitted, the members will meet in-person. To limit exposure, the meeting is open for the public to participate virtually only. If an in-person meeting is not permitted for the Advisory Council members due to local conditions, the meeting will be held exclusively online.
The Overseas Schools Advisory Council works closely with the U.S. business community on improving American-sponsored schools overseas that are assisted by the Department of State and attended by U.S. government employee dependents, and the children of employees of U.S. corporations and foundations abroad.
This meeting will address issues related to the support provided by the Overseas Schools Advisory Council to American-sponsored overseas schools. There will be a presentation on the status of the Council-sponsored Child Protection Project and Social Emotional Learning Project. Also, the Regional Education Officers in the Office of Overseas Schools will present on the initiatives in the American-sponsored overseas schools.
Public members may attend the meeting virtually, subject to the instructions of the Chair. Those interested in participating virtually should RSVP prior to April 7, 2022 to: Mr. Mark Ulfers, Office of Overseas Schools, Department of State, Tel: 202-261-8200, Email:
The Department will send instructions for virtual participation to those that RSVP. Requests for reasonable accommodation should be sent prior to April 7. Requests sent after that date will be considered but may not be possible to fulfill.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “In America: An Anthology of Fashion” at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation.
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the NextGen Advisory Committee (NAC).
The meeting will be held virtually, on March 28, 2022, from 1:00 p.m.-4:00 p.m. ET. Requests to attend the meeting virtually and request for accommodations for a disability must be received by March 17, 2022. If you wish to make a public statement during the meeting, you must submit a written copy of your remarks by March 17, 2022. Written materials requested to be reviewed by NAC Members before the meeting must be received no later than March 17, 2022.
This will be a virtual meeting. Virtual meeting information will be provided upon registration. Information on the NAC, including copies of previous meeting minutes, is available on the NAC internet website at
Kimberly Noonan, NAC Coordinator, U.S. Department of Transportation, at
The Secretary of Transportation established the NAC under agency authority in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, Public Law 92-463, 5 U.S.C. app. 2, to provide independent advice and recommendations to the FAA, and to respond to specific taskings received directly from the FAA. The NAC recommends consensus-driven advice for FAA consideration relating to Air Traffic Management System modernization.
At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:
• NAC Chairman's Report
• FAA Report
• NAC Subcommittee Chairman's Report
○ Risk and Mitigations update for the following focus areas: Multiple Runway Operations, Data Communications, Performance Based Navigation, Surface and Data Sharing, and Northeast Corridor
• NAC Chairman Closing Comments
The detailed agenda will be posted on the NAC internet website at least one week in advance of the meeting.
This virtual meeting will be open to the public. Members of the public who wish to attend are asked to register via email by submitting their full legal name, country of citizenship, contact information (telephone number and email address), and name of your industry association, or applicable affiliation. Please email this information to the email address listed in the
The U.S. Department of Transportation is committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need alternative formats or services because of a disability, please contact the person listed in the
Five minutes will be allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting. This time may be extended if there is a significant number of members of the public wishing to provide an oral comment. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for each commenter may be limited. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name, address, and organizational affiliation of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, FAA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are required to submit a copy of their prepared remarks for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to NAC members to the person listed under the heading
Members of the public may submit written statements for inclusion in the meeting records and circulation to the NAC members. Written statements need to be submitted to the person listed under the heading
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 11, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0053 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel MISSIONCARE COLLECTIVE is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0053 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Acting Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the
Submit comments on or before April 11, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0055 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel PERSEVERANCE is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0055 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from
Submit comments on or before April 11, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0051 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel BLUE GOOSE is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0051 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Acting Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire.
Submit comments on or before April 11, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0054 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel ANGEL DEL MAR is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0054 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Acting Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this
Submit comments on or before April 11, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0056 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel PILAR is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0056 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Acting Maritime Administrator.
Maritime Administration, DOT.
Notice.
The Secretary of Transportation, as represented by the Maritime Administration (MARAD), is authorized to issue coastwise endorsement eligibility determinations for foreign-built vessels which will carry no more than twelve passengers for hire. A request for such a determination has been received by MARAD. By this notice, MARAD seeks comments from interested parties as to any effect this action may have on U.S. vessel builders or businesses in the U.S. that use U.S.-flag vessels. Information about the requestor's vessel, including a brief description of the proposed service, is listed below.
Submit comments on or before April 11, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket Number MARAD-2022-0052 by any one of the following methods:
•
•
If you mail or hand-deliver your comments, we recommend that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a telephone number in the body of your document so that we can contact you if we have questions regarding your submission.
James Mead, U.S. Department of Transportation, Maritime Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Room W23-459, Washington, DC 20590. Telephone 202-366-5723, Email
As described in the application, the intended service of the vessel MARGARET ANNA is:
The complete application is available for review identified in the DOT docket as MARAD 2022-0052 at
Please submit your comments, including the attachments, following the instructions provided under the above heading entitled
Go to the docket online at
Yes. Be aware that your entire comment, including your personal identifying information, will be made publicly available.
If you wish to submit comments under a claim of confidentiality, you should submit the information you claim to be confidential commercial information by email to
In the event MARAD receives a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the information, procedures described in the Department's FOIA regulation at 49 CFR 7.29 will be followed. Only information that is ultimately determined to be confidential under those procedures will be exempt from disclosure under FOIA.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its rulemaking process. DOT posts these comments, without edit, to
By Order of the Acting Maritime Administrator.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites comments on proposed revisions to Form PHMSA F 7000-1, “Accident Report—Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Systems,” under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Control No. 2137-0047; Form PHMSA F 7100.2-1, “Annual Report for Natural and Other Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems,” under OMB Control No. 2137-0522; Form PHMSA F 7000-1.1, “Annual Report for Hazardous Liquid and Carbon Dioxide Pipeline Systems,” under OMB Control No. 2137-0614; Form PHMSA F 7100.1-1, “Annual Report for Gas Distribution
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 10, 2022.
Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
Angela Hill by telephone at 202-366-1246, by email at
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected entities an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies the proposed changes to information collections under OMB Control Numbers 2137-0047, 2137-0522, 2137-0614, 2137-0629, and 2137-0635 that PHMSA will submit to OMB for approval.
Excavation damage is one of the leading causes of serious pipeline incidents. Additionally, the consequences of these damages have the potential to significantly impact the environment and negatively affect communities across our Nation. In 2000, PHMSA was instrumental in creating the Common Ground Alliance (CGA) a non-profit organization established to help reduce damage to the underground facility infrastructure—ensuring public safety, environmental protection, and the reliability of utility services. In the years since, PHMSA has continued supporting CGA efforts. In 2003, the CGA launched the Damage Information Reporting Tool (DIRT) to collect excavation damage data, including root cause data to identify the underlying causes of excavation damages to underground facilities. Understanding the root causes of excavation damage is essential to identifying measures to prevent future damage.
Since 2010, gas distribution pipeline operators have submitted the number of excavation damage events on their pipelines and one-call notices of excavation (tickets) involving their facilities to PHMSA annually on Form PHMSA F 7100.1-1, “Annual Report for Gas Distribution Systems.” PHMSA incident and accident reports were also modified in 2010 to collect excavation damage data in the format contemplated in the CGA's DIRT. In 2015, PHMSA began collecting gas distribution annual report excavation damage data in each of the CGA DIRT root cause categories. In 2018, to better understand the impact of excavation damages to people, property, and the environment, the CGA added new questions to DIRT and expanded the number of root cause categories.
PHMSA plans to amend its forms to continue alignment of PHMSA submissions regarding excavation damage to pipelines with the CGA's DIRT scheme to improve consistency and to reduce burdens on operators. Many pipeline operators submit data to CGA DIRT, so consistency between the DIRT and PHMSA submissions will avoid duplication of efforts by pipeline operators. The 2018 DIRT data structure also produces more detail about excavation damage root cause than existing PHMSA forms. By collecting more detailed data, PHMSA and stakeholders can better understand the gaps in current pipeline operator damage prevention programs.
As gas gathering, gas transmission, and hazardous liquid pipeline systems are susceptible to excavation damage, PHMSA is proposing to collect excavation damage data on the annual reports for these pipeline systems. Differences among the predominant root causes by pipeline system might indicate different preventive measures for each system type, so these data points will be useful for PHMSA to collect.
PHMSA also proposes miscellaneous changes to the forms and certain instructions unrelated to excavation damage root cause. These changes are fully described in the following paragraphs.
In Part A4 of this form, operators are instructed to enter the earliest local time and date an accident reporting criterion was met. In some cases, consequences occur when the pipeline system fails, but the extent of the consequences are not known until hours, days, or weeks later. PHMSA proposes clarifying the instructions to ensure the form collects the time consequences occurred rather than the time operators fully documented the extent of the consequences.
In Part C3 of this form, operators report the type of item that failed. When a breakout tank weld fails, operators select “onshore breakout tank or storage vessel” in Part A14 and “weld” in Part C3, but are currently unable to enter additional data about the breakout tank in Part C3, sections u and v.
PHMSA proposes to require the collection of breakout tank data in Part C3, sections u and v, for reports where A14, describing the part of the system involved in the accident, is “Onshore Breakout Tank or Storage Vessel.” This change would provide stakeholders with data about the breakout tank regardless of the item that failed on the breakout tank.
In Part G3 of this report, operators enter data when the cause of the accident is excavation damage. Currently, PHMSA instructs operators to submit data about exemptions to one-call laws only when the sub-cause of an accident is third-party excavation damage. PHMSA proposes collecting state law exemption data when any sub-cause within excavation damage is selected. This change would improve PHMSA's ability to identify instances where state law exemptions contributed to the excavation damage accident no matter which party (first, second, or third) was excavating.
PHMSA believes that the current time estimated for excavation damage information collection provides sufficient time for affected operators to include the newly required information. PHMSA does not expect operators to incur additional burden due to these revisions.
PHMSA proposes adding a new part to this form to collect the number of one-call tickets and the number of excavation damage events in each CGA DIRT root cause category. Data for gas transmission and gas gathering pipelines would be reported separately.
PHMSA proposes adding a new part to this form to collect the number of one-call tickets and the number of excavation damage events in each CGA DIRT root cause category.
PHMSA proposes modifying Part J, “Miles of Pipe by Specified Minimum Yield Strength,” to include columns for pipe segments that are required to meet some, but not all, of the 49 CFR part 195 requirements. Specifically, PHMSA proposes adding a column for miles regulated under § 195.11 and a column for miles regulated under § 195.12. These changes promote consistency within the report since miles regulated under §§ 195.11 and 195.12 are reported in Parts H and I of this form.
PHMSA proposes replacing the CGA DIRT root cause categories currently in this form with the 2018 CGA DIRT root cause categories.
PHMSA proposes removing Part E pertaining to the number of excess flow valves (EFVs) and manual service line shut-off valves. In 2010, after the conclusion of an EFV rulemaking, PHMSA added the number of EFVs installed during the year and the total number of EFVs in the system. Also, PHMSA added the number of shut-off valves installed during the year and the total number of shut-off valves in the system as part of the 2016 final rule, “Expanding the Use of Excess Flow Valves in Gas Distribution Systems to Applications Other Than Single-Family Residences” (Docket PHMSA-2011-0009). PHMSA's primary motivation for collecting the number of EFVs and shut-off valves on the annual report was to support PHMSA and state partner inspector efforts to assess compliance with the EFV rules. Based on feedback from inspectors, PHMSA has determined that operators' annual reporting of the number of EFVs and shut-off valves is not helpful for determining compliance. Inspectors have been determining compliance by observing construction practices and reviewing specific installation records. When gas distribution incidents occur, PHMSA collects data about EFVs and shut-off valves specific to the incident location. The collection of data in the incident report provides additional opportunities for inspectors to assess operator compliance with the EFV rulemakings. PHMSA has determined that it no longer needs to collect EFV and shut-off valve data in Part E of the annual report.
In Part A4 of this form, operators are instructed to enter the earliest local time and date an incident reporting criterion was met. In some cases, consequences occur when the pipeline system fails, but the extent of the consequences are not known until hours, days, or weeks later. PHMSA proposes clarifying the instructions to ensure the form collects the time consequences occurred rather than the time operators fully documented the extent of the consequences.
The term “confirmed discovery” is defined in § 191.3. PHMSA proposes adding the local time and date of “confirmed discovery” in Part A of this form. This data would enhance the ability of PHMSA and stakeholders to assess operator compliance with PHMSA incident reporting regulations.
In Part G3 of this form, operators enter data when the cause of the incident is excavation damage. Currently, PHMSA instructs operators to submit data about exemptions to one-call laws only when the sub-cause is third party excavation damage. PHMSA proposes collecting state law exemption data when any sub-cause within excavation damage is selected. This change would improve PHMSA's ability to identify instances where state law exemptions contributed to the excavation damage incident no matter which party (first, second, or third) was excavating.
PHMSA proposes adding questions from the 2018 edition of the CGA DIRT and replacing the root cause categories currently in the form to match the most recent CGA DIRT root cause categories.
PHMSA believes that the current time estimated for this information collection provides sufficient time for affected operators to include the newly required information. PHMSA does not expect operators to incur additional burden due to these revisions.
PHMSA plans to change the name of this form to include pipeline system types that currently use the form to submit incident data to PHMSA. PHMSA proposes to change the name to “Incident Report—Gas Transmission, Gas Gathering, and Underground Natural Gas Storage Facilities.”
In Part A4 of this form, operators are instructed to enter the earliest local time and date that an incident reporting criterion was met. In some cases, consequences occur when the pipeline system fails, but the extent of the consequences are not known until hours, days, or weeks later. PHMSA proposes clarifying the instructions to ensure the form collects the time consequences occurred rather than the time operators fully documented the extent of the consequences.
The term “confirmed discovery” is defined in § 191.3. PHMSA proposes adding the local time and date of “confirmed discovery” in Part A of this form. This data would enhance the ability of PHMSA and stakeholders to assess operator compliance with PHMSA incident reporting regulations.
In Part G3 of this form, operators enter data when the cause of the incident is excavation damage. Currently, PHMSA instructs operators to submit data about exemptions to one-call laws only when the sub-cause is third-party excavation damage. PHMSA proposes collecting state law exemption data when any sub-cause within excavation damage is selected. This change would improve PHMSA's ability to identify instances where state law exemptions contributed to the excavation damage incident no matter which party (first, second, or third) was excavating.
PHMSA proposes adding questions from the 2018 edition of the CGA DIRT and replacing the root cause categories currently in the report with the 2018 CGA DIRT root cause categories.
PHMSA believes that the current time estimated for this information collection provides sufficient time for affected operators to include the newly required information. PHMSA does not expect operators to incur additional burden due to these revisions.
In Part A4, operators are instructed to enter the earliest local time and date an incident reporting criterion was met. In some cases, consequences occur when the pipeline system fails, but the extent of the consequences are not known until hours, days, or weeks later. PHMSA proposes clarifying the instructions to ensure the form collects the time consequences occurred rather than the time operators fully documented the extent of the consequences.
The term “confirmed discovery” is defined in § 191.3. PHMSA proposes adding the local time and date of “confirmed discovery” in Part A of this form. This data would enhance the ability of PHMSA and stakeholders to assess operator compliance with PHMSA incident reporting regulations.
PHMSA believes that the current time estimated for this information collection provides sufficient time for affected operators to include the newly required information. PHMSA does not expect operators to incur additional burden due to these revisions.
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies information collection requests that PHMSA will submit to OMB for revision.
The following information is provided for these information collections: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the information collection activity; (6) Description of affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection.
PHMSA will request a 3-year term of approval for these information collections. PHMSA requests comments on the following information:
1.
2.
Section 191.17 requires operators of underground natural gas storage facilities, gas transmission systems, and gas gathering systems to submit an annual report by March 15, for the preceding calendar year. This revision includes changes to the “Annual Report for Natural and Other Gas Transmission and Gathering Pipeline Systems” to collect data on excavation damages. Each year, gas transmission operators submit an estimated 1,440 annual reports to PHMSA. The current estimated burden for each annual report is 47 hours for an overall reporting burden of 67,680 hours [47 hours × 1,440 reports]. Because gas transmission operators are new to collecting and submitting data on excavation damages, PHMSA estimates that it will take the estimated 1,440 respondents a one-time effort of 18 hours, per operator, to update their systems to accommodate the new data request. This will result in operators incurring a one-time burden of 25,920 hours [18 hours × 1,440 reports]. PHMSA expects that it will take gas transmission operators an additional hour, annually, to include the newly requested excavation damage data in their annual report submission. Therefore, over the course of the three-year approval for the information collection, the average time increase to
3.
4.
PHMSA is also revising the burden estimate to account for the elimination of the requirement to report EFV data. PHMSA currently estimates that it takes gas distribution operators 1.5 hours, per report, to submit the total number of EFVs and shut-off valves installed and maintained in each calendar year. Therefore, the burden hour for this requirement is 2,169 hours [1.5 hours × 1,446 reports). PHMSA is proposing to eliminate this requirement which will result in a 2,169-hour burden reduction. Based on the revisions discussed above, the burden hour estimate for the gas distribution annual report will be 20 hours [17.5 hours (current) + 4 hours (DIRT revisions)—1.5 hours (eliminated EFV/shut-off valve data)] for a total annual burden of 28,920 hours [20 hours × 1,446 reports].
5.
(a) The need for the revision of these information collections for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(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 those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
(e) Additional information that would be appropriate to collect to inform the reduction in risk to people, property, and the environment due to excavation damages.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites public comments on its intent to request Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to revise and renew an information collection currently under OMB Control Number 2137-0596 titled: “National Pipeline Mapping System Program.” The information collection currently requires operators to submit geospatial data, attributes, metadata, public contact information, and a transmittal letter appropriate for use in the National Pipeline Mapping System (NPMS). Acceptable formats and additional information are specified in the NPMS Attribute Standards document available at
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before May 10, 2022.
Comments may be submitted in the following ways:
Angela Hill by email at
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected entities an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies the proposed changes to the information collection under OMB Control Number 2137-0596 that PHMSA will submit to OMB for approval.
The NPMS includes a geospatial information system (GIS) dataset that contains information about PHMSA-regulated gas transmission and hazardous liquid pipelines. The NPMS also contains data layers for liquefied natural gas plants and hazardous liquid breakout tanks. PHMSA has a contract for services to perform all NPMS data submission processing and support for pipeline operators submitting NPMS data. This contract also includes all information technology (IT) systems and applications designed to collect, process, and disseminate NPMS data to stakeholders and the public.
On January 22, 2020, OMB approved significant changes to the NPMS information collection and established January 31, 2023, as the expiration date of the information collection. Since OMB approval, PHMSA has determined that implementing the significant changes approved by OMB are not feasible within the terms and scope of the current data submission and IT contract.
The acquisition planning for a re-competition of the NPMS contract has started. However, the complexities introduced by the combined requirements of supporting the NPMS system in its current state while at the same time implementing the significant changes to the system has impacted the contract procurement timeline. The changes to the NPMS system would require architecture, data, and application design modifications. PHMSA has initiated the process of establishing a new NPMS contract to complete this work, but will not be able to complete that process and set up the new system in order to start collecting the new information approved by OMB before the January 31, 2023, expiration date.
PHMSA also proposes that two additional data elements be added to the information collection for gas transmission pipelines. On October 1, 2019, (84 FR 52180) PHMSA published in the
PHMSA intends to maintain a phased implementation plan, as outlined below, for the information collection changes approved in January 2020. The dates shown below are the earliest possible dates PHMSA could start collecting data for each phase. PHMSA will inform operators if we need to revise any of the dates. Details about the contents of each phase are included in the next sections.
These proposed implementation dates would allow PHMSA and pipeline operators to design and build the necessary systems to support the data submittal process. Additional time is also necessary for developing new submission methods and tools, explanatory and procedural materials, and training opportunities, which will provide certainty for both PHMSA and pipeline operators through the implementation of the changes outlined in the NPMS information collection.
In the April 11, 2019, (84 FR 14717)
(1) Pipe diameter; (2) Commodity detail; (3) Breakout tanks; and (4) Abandoned pipeline segments.
In the April 11, 2019,
• Pipe material.
• Pipe join method.
• Onshore/offshore.
• In-line inspection (yes/no).
• Class location.
• Gas HCA segment (yes/no).
• Coated (yes/no).
• Liquified Natural Gas plants (type of plant, year constructed, and capacity, in addition to separate layers and attributes for impoundments and exclusion zones).
PHMSA proposes two new data elements to be submitted by gas transmission pipeline operators in Phase 1. After PHMSA requested OMB approval of the information collection on April 11, 2019, PHMSA regulations were revised to include two new types of gas pipeline segments reflecting elevated risk. PHMSA proposes adding data elements to identify gas pipeline segments within MCAs, as defined in § 192.3, and for the applicability of § 192.710 to gas pipeline segments. Access to these two data elements would be restricted to government officials. Similar to collecting and sharing “gas high consequence area (HCA) segment (yes/no),” collecting and sharing the MCA and § 192.710 data would provide government stakeholders with location information for pipeline segments with elevated risk.
• Gas MCA (yes/no)—if the gas transmission segment is in an MCA as defined in part 192.3, report “Y.” Otherwise, report “N.” For a segment where Gas HCA is “Y,” MCA must be “N.”
• Gas 192.710 (yes/no)—if the gas transmission segment is required to be assessed under 49 CFR 192.710, report “Y.” Otherwise, report “N.” For a segment where Gas HCA is “Y,” 192.710 must be “N.”
In the April 11, 2019,
• Facility Response Plan (FRP) sequence number becomes mandatory.
• Seam type.
• Pipe grade.
• Wall thickness.
• Decade of installation.
• Hazardous liquid segment could affect an HCA—High Populated, Other Populated, Commercially Navigable Waterway, and Ecological USA.
• Assessment method and year.
PHMSA proposes no changes to the number of elements being collected in Phase 2 but does propose minor improvements for how one of the data elements will be collected. The OMB-approved collection includes collecting “pipe grade” in Phase 2. Stakeholders would have used this text to infer the numeric value for specified minimum yield strength (SMYS) of steel pipe.
In the April 11, 2019,
Under the current approval of this information collection, wall thickness is collected as a number when known and text is entered when unknown. This paradigm creates unnecessary work for both PHMSA and pipeline operator GIS staff since sometimes the attribute would be text and sometimes numeric. PHMSA proposes that when the wall thickness is unknown, operators report the wall thickness as 9.999.
The current approval of this information collection states that the FRP sequence number is required for applicable liquid segments per 49 CFR part 194. In the NPMS Attribute Standards document, PHMSA did not list the commodity values for which the FRP sequence number is required. PHMSA proposes modifying the NPMS Attribute Standards document by listing onshore crude oil and onshore refined products as the pipeline segments requiring the FRP sequence number. In some cases, the operator may be required to report a hazardous liquid pipeline to the NPMS before obtaining an FRP sequence number from PHMSA. PHMSA also proposes that operators enter 9.999 for onshore crude oil and onshore refined products segments without an FRP sequence number. An updated NPMS Attribute Standards document reflecting the changes proposed by PHMSA is included in Docket No. PHMSA-2021-0085.
Section 1320.8(d), Title 5, Code of Federal Regulations, requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies an information collection request that PHMSA will submit to OMB for revision.
The following information is provided for this information collection: (1) Title of the information collection; (2) OMB control number; (3) Current expiration date; (4) Type of request; (5) Abstract of the information collection activity; (6) Description of affected public; (7) Estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (8) Frequency of collection.
PHMSA will request a three-year term of approval for this information collection. PHMSA requests comments on the following information:
1.
This proposed revision would require operators to submit geospatial data for MCAs, as defined in 49 CFR part 192, and data based on the applicability of § 192.710 assessments outside of HCAs. This revision would also require operators to submit the data element “SMYS” in psig in place of submitting data on pipe grade. PHMSA does not expect operators to incur additional burden due to the inclusion of these new and revised elements. PHMSA believes that the annual burden allotted for this information collection is sufficient for operators to include the newly requested data elements. A detailed breakdown of the estimated burden for this information collection can be found at
(a) The need for the renewal and revision of this collection of information for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information,
(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 those who are required to respond, including the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The United States Mint is announcing pricing for the following new United States Mint numismatic product in accordance with the table below:
Anne Janeski, Marketing Specialist, Sales and Marketing 202-306-9666; United States Mint; 801 9th Street NW; Washington, DC 20220.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
○
○
○
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
By direction of the Secretary.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before May 10, 2022.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 1717 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 266-4688 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
Lenders ensure the completion of the upper portion of VA Form 26-8937, including the veteran's authorization for release of the information, and forward it to the appropriate VA Office. VA personnel perform the debt check, complete the balance of the form, and return it to the lender, who considers any repayment terms in evaluating the veteran's creditworthiness. Following the closing of any loan, the lender submits the form with the loan report and related documents for post closing review. The form is reviewed by a loan examiner to ensure that debt check requirements have been observed in each case.
By direction of the Secretary.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Interim policy statement.
This interim policy statement describes Commission procedures for evaluating climate impacts under NEPA and describes how the Commission will integrate climate considerations into its public interest determinations under the NGA.
Public comments are due on or before April 4, 2022. Comments on the information collection are due May 10, 2022.
Comments, identified by docket number, may be filed electronically at
1. The Commission is issuing this interim policy statement to explain how the Commission will assess the impacts of natural gas infrastructure projects on climate change in its reviews under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Natural Gas Act (NGA). We seek comment on all aspects of the interim policy statement, including, in particular, on the approach to assessing the significance of the proposed project's contribution to climate change. Although the guidance contained herein is subject to revision based on the record developed in this proceeding, we will begin applying the framework established in this policy statement in the interim. Doing so will allow the Commission to evaluate and act on pending applications under sections 3 and 7 of the NGA without undue delay and with an eye toward greater certainty and predictability for all stakeholders.
2. Climate change poses a severe threat to the nation's security, economy, environment, and to the health of individual citizens. Human-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, including carbon dioxide and methane, are the primary cause of climate change.
3. This policy statement describes Commission procedures for evaluating climate impacts under NEPA, both those caused by a project's contribution to climate change and the impacts of climate change on the project, and describes how the Commission will integrate climate considerations into its public interest determinations under the NGA. For purposes of assessing the appropriate level of NEPA review, Commission staff will apply the 100% utilization or “full burn” rate for the proposed project's emissions to determine whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an environmental assessment (EA). Commission staff will proceed with the preparation of an EIS, if the proposed project may result in 100,000 metric tons per year of CO
4. When considering under the NGA whether a project is in the public interest, the Commission considers a project's impacts on climate change, and, accordingly, will consider proposals by the project sponsor to mitigate all or a portion of the project's climate change impacts, and the Commission may condition its authorization on the project sponsor further mitigating those impacts.
5. This policy statement does not establish binding rules and is intended to explain how the Commission will consider these issues when they arise.
6. Climate change is the variation in the Earth's climate (including temperature, precipitation, humidity, wind, and other meteorological variables) over time. Climate change is driven by accumulation of GHGs in the atmosphere due to the increased consumption of fossil fuels (
7. In 2017 and 2018, the U.S. Global Change Research Program
8. In 2010, the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) issued its first draft guidance on how federal agencies can consider the effects of GHG emissions and climate change under NEPA.
9. CEQ rescinded the 2016 guidance in April 2017, as directed by Executive Order 13783
10. Commission staff has addressed climate change in some fashion in its NEPA documents for at least a decade.
11. In 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) in
12. In 2018, the Commission stated in
13. However, in
14. In 2021, in
15. On April 19, 2018, the Commission issued a Notice of Inquiry (2018 NOI)
16. In response to the 2018 NOI, the Commission received more than 3,000 comments from stakeholders including landowners; tribal, federal, state, and local government officials; non-governmental organizations; consultants, academic institutions, and think tanks; natural gas producers, Commission-regulated companies, local distribution companies, and industry trade organizations; electricity generators and utilities; and others. Many comments addressed GHG emissions.
17. On February 18, 2021, the Commission issued a new, refreshed Notice of Inquiry (2021 NOI),
18. With respect to determining significance, the 2021 NOI sought comment on (1) what type of metrics and models the Commission should consider in determining significance, (2) whether any level of emissions should be considered
19. The public comment period for the 2021 NOI closed on May 26, 2021.
20. Comments relevant to this policy statement are addressed in Section III below.
21. Section 7 of the NGA authorizes the Commission to issue certificates of public convenience and necessity for the construction and operation of facilities transporting natural gas in interstate commerce.
22. Section 3(a) of the NGA provides for federal jurisdiction over the siting, construction, and operation of facilities used to import or export gas.
23. Both NGA sections 7 and 3 authorize the Commission to attach terms and conditions to its authorization.
24. NEPA and its implementing regulations require agencies, before taking or authorizing a major federal action that may significantly affect the quality of the human environment, to take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of the proposed action and disclose their analyses to the public by preparing an EIS.
25. Previous CEQ regulations and court cases have examined a proposed project's “context” and “intensity” or the severity of the impact as factors for determining what constitutes a significant effect.
26. In evaluating whether an impact is significant, the Commission determines whether “it would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment.”
27. In addition to determining whether its actions may significantly affect the quality of the human environment, NEPA requires the Commission to consider whether there are steps that could be taken to mitigate any adverse environmental consequences.
28. Consistent with CEQ regulations,
29. The Commission will consider all evidence in the record relating to a project's estimated GHG emissions,
30. CEQ regulations implementing NEPA require agencies to consider effects or impacts that “are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action . . . including those effects that occur at the same time and place as the proposed action . . . and may include effects that are later in time or farther removed in distance for the proposed action . . . .”
31. As discussed below, the Commission proposes to:
• Consider direct emissions of a project a reasonably foreseeable effect;
• Find that an NGA section 3 export facility project is not the legally relevant cause of upstream and downstream emissions;
• Consider on a case-by-case basis whether downstream emissions are a reasonably foreseeable effect of an NGA section 7 interstate project; and
• Consider on a case-by-case basis whether upstream emissions are a reasonably foreseeable effect of an NGA 7 project.
32. Several commenters assert that the Commission must consider fugitive emissions from the transportation of gas.
33. As the Commission has long held, direct GHG emissions from the project's short-term construction
34. Some commenters argue that the Commission must consider the downstream emissions of natural gas projects,
35. As discussed above, in August 2017, the D.C. Circuit issued
36. The D.C. Circuit reiterated this determination in two subsequent cases. First, in
37. INGAA and others read the Supreme Court's
38. Given that data show that the vast majority of consumed gas is ultimately combusted,
39. We disagree with commenters' assertions that
40. The Commission finds this and subsequent direction from the D.C. Circuit more instructive than
41. However, for proposed export projects under NGA section 3, the Commission will not consider downstream GHG emissions an effect requiring analysis under NEPA regulations. The Department of Energy, not the Commission, has sole authority to license and consider the environmental impacts of the export of any natural gas.
42. Some commenters state that the Commission must consider the upstream GHG emissions of natural gas projects, including fugitive emissions from production,
43. In various NGA section 7 proceedings, the Commission has considered upstream emissions on a case-by-case basis—sometimes acknowledging it is difficult to quantify upstream emissions due to several unknown factors, including the location of the supply source and whether transported gas will come from new or existing production.
44. To calculate operational emissions, project sponsors should continue to follow the existing guidance outlined in section 4.9.1.3 of the Commission's Guidance Manual for Environmental Report Preparation for
45. Additionally, the Commission recognizes that there may be other factors that might serve to reduce a proposed project's climate impacts. For example, the installation of emission-reduction technology or purchase of offsets by downstream users would reduce the impacts. Thus, to enable the Commission's use of the best estimate of a project's GHG emissions, project sponsors are encouraged to calculate project GHG emissions using a projected utilization rate and submit evidence of any other factors that might impact a project's net emissions such as the factors identified by commenters below.
46. Commenters recommend that the Commission consider factors that might impact a project's net emissions, such as (1) whether the transported gas will phase out use of a more carbon-intensive energy source, like coal or fuel oil, and will prevent the use of more carbon-intensive energy sources in the future; (2) whether the pipeline will transport gas that would otherwise be transported by vehicles, thereby reducing the emissions from transporting the gas; (3) whether the proposed project will transport gas volumes that would have otherwise been delivered to the same consumers through a different pipeline or may ultimately end up transporting fuel blends including renewable natural gas or hydrogen; (4) whether the project sponsor will purchase offsets to counter project emissions; or (5) whether the project may be backed by a local distribution company serving customer demand in states with established emissions caps.
47. INGAA and other commenters strongly urge the Commission to calculate a project's downstream emissions, if at all, based on the likely utilization rate of the proposed project, instead of relying on a full-burn estimate.
48. Conversely, New Jersey Conservation Foundation and others argue the Commission must calculate direct, downstream, and upstream GHG emissions by assuming the maximum authorized operating conditions, unless, some add, the project sponsor can demonstrate otherwise.
49. In previous environmental documents and certificate orders, the Commission has disclosed a project's operational emissions
50. Because in most instances a 100% utilization rate estimate does not accurately capture the project's climate impacts, estimated emissions that reflect a projected utilization rate will provide more useful information. The project's projected utilization rate may be calculated using, for example:
• Expected utilization data from project shippers;
• Historical usage data;
• Demand projections;
• An estimate of how much capacity will be used on an interruptible basis.
51. The project sponsor is encouraged to file its projected utilization rate, as well as its justification for the rate and any supporting evidence, in its application for authorization under NGA section 3 or 7. The Commission will also consider evidence submitted by commenters and protesters in support of or opposition to the projected utilization rate.
52. Further, the Commission will consider any other evidence in the record that impacts the quantification of the project's reasonably foreseeable emissions. For example, the Commission will consider: Evidence of a net-reduction in GHG emissions where the use of transported gas displaces the use of a higher emitting alternative fuel;
53. Under NEPA, an agency must prepare an EIS for every “major [f]ederal action[ ] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.”
54. To assess significance, the Commission determines whether the impact “would result in a substantial adverse change in the physical environment,”
55. Specifically, in
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has explained that a proposed interstate natural gas pipeline's reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions are relevant to whether the pipeline is required by the public convenience and necessity. A rigorous review of a project's reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions is also an essential part of the Commission's responsibility under NEPA to take a “hard look” at a project's environmental impacts. Determining the significance of the impacts from a proposed project's GHG emissions informs the Commission's review in a number of important respects, including its decision whether to prepare an environmental impact statement.
56. To date, no federal agency, including the Commission, has established a threshold for determining what level of project-induced GHG emissions is significant. The Commission received a number of comments, discussed below, offering perspectives on whether and at what level it should assess the significance of a proposed project's GHG emissions.
57. The Commission received relevant comments in response to both the 2018 and 2021 NOIs on whether the Commission should: Determine
58. Numerous commenters (Delaware Riverkeeper, Food and Water Watch, North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, Sabin Center, and others) argue that the Commission should make a significant impact determination based on a project's GHG emissions, which they argue would include the project's associated upstream and downstream emissions. Some commenters, for example the Sabin Center in 2018, direct the Commission to the NEPA regulation at 40 CFR 1508.27 (that was removed by amendments effective September 14, 2020), which provides that “significantly” as used in NEPA requires considerations of both the context of the action and the intensity of the impacts associated with any proposal.
59. In contrast, some regulated entities and other commenters express concern about the Commission determining the significance of a project's impacts on the basis of GHG emissions, especially upstream and downstream emissions. For example, INGAA and others (Energy Infrastructure Council, Williams, etc.) argue that the Commission should, at most, engage in a qualitative discussion of downstream GHG emissions because net GHG emissions are not reasonably foreseeable, and that the Commission should not assess the significance of upstream or downstream emissions.
60. Commenters argue that the Commission lacks the ability to make a significance determination and has no objective basis upon which to evaluate the impacts of GHG emissions associated with any specific proposed project.
61. Finally, commenters state that the Commission should defer to other agencies, such as CEQ or EPA, in setting a significance threshold, citing: The lack of a national energy policy or federal GHG limits; the EPA's existing authority to regulate GHG emissions under the Clean Air Act; the direction of Executive Orders 13990 and 14008, which commenters say direct EPA to examine its own GHG emissions standards; and the ongoing Interagency Work Group efforts on the SCC.
62. Some commenters argue that the Commission should consider any net increase in GHG emissions as significant.
63. A few commenters suggest specific numerical thresholds. The Sabin Center recommends that the Commission assess the magnitude of GHG emissions impacts using EPA's quantification threshold of 25,000 tons per year of CO
64. Conversely, a few commenters state that emissions from all individual projects could be considered
65. CEQ points the Commission to its 2016 guidance as an existing resource to help agencies assess GHG emissions and the effects of climate change in NEPA reviews.
66. Some commenters recommend that the Commission use state, regional, and global GHG reduction goals to provide context and/or define
67. Other commenters suggest alternative means or tools for assessing significance. For example, commenters suggest that the Commission should use a “Climate Test.”
68. EDF comments that a comparison of a project's emissions to international, state, or regional carbon budgets, or assessing geophysical impacts such as increases in carbon dioxide levels, global temperatures, or sea levels can be misleading and trivialize the project's impacts.
69. Some industry commenters state that any comparison of direct or indirect emissions should be made to global GHG inventories, not national or state inventories.
70. Several commenters generally argue for a monetization of climate damages using the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gas (SC-GHG) tools
71. Conversely, other commenters oppose use of the SCC tool in determining significance
72. Public Interest Organizations state that, while neither the NGA nor NEPA explicitly reference the SCC tool, there is nothing in these or other federal statutes that would prohibit its use.
73. CEQ notes that it was working with representatives on the GHG IWG to develop additional guidance regarding the application of the SC-GHG tools in decision-making processes, including NEPA analysis.
74. The Public Interest Organizations state that monetizing impacts using the SCC tool provides the public and decisionmakers with accessible figures useful in determining whether a project is in the public interest and allows the Commission to easily compare project harms and economic benefits, whereas other metrics can misleadingly minimize climate impacts due to inadequate contextualization.
75. Kinder Morgan asserts that the SCC tool relies on inputs or assumptions that introduce too much uncertainty.
76. New Jersey Conservation Foundation recommends that the Commission use all of the GHG IWG's interim values provided for the SC-GHG tools (GHG IWG recommends using a discount rate of 3%, but also provides values associated with discount rates of 2.5% and 5%).
77. Boardwalk and Kinder Morgan argue that the Commission should only use the SCC tool as a qualitative tool.
78. Kinder Morgan states that the SCC tool was not designed for project-specific analysis but could be used as a screening tool in a qualitative analysis. If the Commission uses the SCC tool, Kinder Morgan recommends that it should explain why and how it was used.
79. To determine the appropriate level of NEPA review, the Commission is establishing a significance threshold of 100,000 metric tons or more per year of CO
80. An emissions threshold of 100,000 metric tons per year of CO
81. In its NEPA document, staff will estimate the proposed project's GHG emissions based on all relevant evidence submitted in the record—including the project's utilization rate, offsets, and mitigation. A project with estimated emissions of 100,000 metric tons per year of CO
82. Section 3 of the NGA requires the Commission to approve an application for the exportation or importation of natural gas unless the proposal “will not be consistent with the public interest.”
83. As discussed above, the courts have interpreted the Commission's obligations under NEPA to require analysis of downstream GHG emissions for NGA section 7 certificate projects, but do not require an analysis of either downstream or upstream GHG emissions for section 3 export projects.
84. Contrary to the suggestion of some commenters, the Commission would not intrude into another agency's domain by establishing a significance threshold. The Commission does not propose to set an emissions standard that projects will be expected to meet; rather, the threshold would be an indication of potential significance for purposes of the Commission's review of a project's environmental impacts under NEPA and trigger the preparation of an EIS.
85. As discussed above, NEPA requires the Commission to take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of a proposed action and to prepare an EIS disclosing its analysis to the public where its action may significantly affect the quality of the human environment, or to prepare an EA for a proposed action that is not likely to have significant effects or when the significance is unknown to determine if an EIS is necessary. We note that neither EPA nor CEQ raise objections to the Commission determining the significance of GHG emissions; in fact, EPA points to Executive Order 14008, which directs the federal government to prioritize assessment, disclosure, and mitigation of climate pollution and climate-related risks, in response to the Commission's query on how it could determine the significance of a project's GHG emissions.
86. As discussed above, NEPA requires the Commission to determine whether a project would have any significant effects on the environment, including the effects of GHG emissions on the climate.
87. We are establishing a uniform GHG emissions threshold because GHG emissions affect climate to the same degree, regardless of the location or specifics of a particular project. Establishing such a threshold will provide the Commission a workable and consistent path forward to analyze proposed projects. Further, a numerical threshold is a clear, consistent standard that can be easily understood and applied by the regulated community and interested stakeholders.
88. Human impact on the warming of the global climate system is unequivocal.
89. Based on an internal review of natural gas projects from 2008 to 2021, a 100,000 metric tons per year threshold will cover the vast majority of potential GHG emissions from natural gas projects authorized by the Commission. For context, projects that likely have 100,000 metric tons per year or more of GHG emissions include projects transporting an average of 5,200 dekatherms per day and projects involving the operation of one or more compressor stations or LNG facilities.
90. Outside the NEPA context, other federal and state agencies that have established thresholds to evaluate or regulate GHG emissions from an analysis of the emissions from regulated sources. Most notably, in 2012, EPA issued the Tailoring Rule to regulate GHG emissions from stationary sources of air pollution under the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
91. Under Step 2, EPA expanded the Tailoring Rule by requiring a new source or a major modification to an existing source to obtain PSD and/or Title V permits based on GHG emissions alone. Sources that had the potential to emit at least 100,000 tons per year of CO
92. In setting the 75,000 tons and 100,000 tons per year of GHGs thresholds, EPA considered the administrative burden of permitting the estimated number of additional facilities under each threshold and the percentage of total national stationary source GHG emissions that would be covered under the threshold.
93. In 2014, the Supreme Court invalidated portions of the Tailoring Rule, holding that EPA may not use GHG emissions as the sole basis for determining whether a source is subject to a PSD or Title V permitting requirements.
94. Further, at least two agencies in California that are directed to determine the significance of GHG emissions and climate impacts of proposed projects under the California Environmental Quality Act have also proposed or established thresholds of significance based on an analysis of regulated sources. First, in 2008, the California Air Resources Board (California ARB) proposed finding a less than significant impact for a proposed industrial project that, with mitigation, emits no more than 7,000 metric tons per year of CO
95. Like EPA and the California agencies, we are basing our threshold on an analysis of regulated sources. Although we are adopting a conceptually similar methodology in establishing our threshold, we note that our approach will cover a larger number of emissions than the threshold established by EPA in the Tailoring Rule. EPA's thresholds of 75,000 and 100,000 tons per year accounted for only 65% and 67% of emissions from EPA-regulated sources, respectively, whereas our proposed threshold of 100,000 metric tons per year would deem nearly three-quarters of Commission-regulated natural gas project, which collectively account for roughly 99% of GHG emissions from Commission-regulated natural gas projects, to have a significant impact on climate change.
96. As noted above, commenters argue for and against the use of various existing GHG inventories or goals as a comparison tool to determine significance. Comparison to an existing GHG inventory or goal presents substantially different percentages based on the chosen goal (international, state, regional, or local). Because different projects may have different potential purposes and the purpose of a project may be characterized to support or oppose a particular viewpoint, we do not believe that tying the Commission's significance determination for a proposed project's GHG emissions to a particular inventory or goal is appropriate. However, we recognize that this type of comparison can be helpful to inform the Commission's analysis and the public, especially when presented using a consistent metric across proposed projects under consideration by the Commission. We note that many commenters reference the SC-GHG as one tool. To the extent permitted by law,
97. Federal agencies can use mitigation to minimize the potential adverse environmental effects of their actions,
98. The NGA grants the Commission broad authority to attach reasonable terms and conditions to NGA section 7 certificates of public convenience and necessity and NGA section 3 authorizations.
99. On November 19, 2021, the Commission held a Commission staff-led technical conference to discuss methods project sponsors may use to mitigate the effects of direct and indirect greenhouse gas emissions resulting from Natural Gas Act sections 3 and 7 authorizations.
100. In addition to the panelists' written statements, the Commission received over 20 comments in response to the technical conference. The Commission considered these statements and comments in developing the mitigation policy described below.
101. Some commenters state that the Commission has broad authority under the NGA to place conditions in certificate authorizations requiring pipeline companies to mitigate GHG impacts,
102. Commenters also claim that any attempt to mitigate indirect GHG emissions would infringe on the regulatory authority of other federal and state agencies and result in back-door regulation of energy policy.
103. We disagree with contentions that the Commission does not have the authority under the NGA or NEPA to require mitigation of GHG emissions by a project sponsor. The D.C. Circuit stated in
104. Regarding claims that the Commission cannot mandate mitigation of downstream emissions because those emissions are outside the Commission's jurisdiction, we recognize, as many commenters assert, that the Commission does not have the statutory authority to impose conditions on downstream users or other entities outside the Commission's jurisdiction, such as production, gathering, and local distribution entities.
105. We note that the Supreme Court's ruling in
106. The Commission encourages the project sponsor to propose measures to mitigate the direct GHG emissions of its proposed project to the extent these emissions have a significant adverse environmental impact.
107. The Commission will consider the project's impact on climate change, including the project sponsor's mitigation proposal, as part of its public interest determination under NGA section 3 or 7.
108. Also we note that NEPA does not preclude the Commission from approving a project with significant adverse impacts.
109. While the Commission has broad authority to require mitigation of GHG emissions by a project sponsor, we are not mandating here any particular form of mitigation.
a. Be both real and additional—the emissions reductions would not have otherwise happened unless the proposed reduction mechanism was implemented, and the associated reductions occur beyond regulatory requirements;
b. be quantifiable—any emissions reductions must be calculated using a transparent and replicable methodology;
c. be unencumbered—seller has clear ownership of or exclusive rights to the benefits of the GHG reduction; and
d. be trackable—the project sponsor must also propose means for the Commission to monitor and track compliance with the proposed mitigation measures for the life of the project.
110. Commenters express concerns with how the Commission will determine whether mitigation measures are verifiable or how the Commission will monitor or track compliance with mitigation measures in a way that avoids double counting emissions reductions.
111. We believe it best not to mandate mitigation based on a specific volume or proportion of emissions. Encouraging project sponsors to submit proposed mitigation measures as opposed to mandating a certain level of mitigation for all projects allows the Commission to consider a project sponsor's proposed mitigation plan in comparison to the project's benefits, such as fuel switching or providing reliable gas service, when making a public interest determination and allows project sponsors the flexibility to choose what mitigation measures work best for their individual project. Moreover, we recognize that determining an appropriate amount of mitigation, particularly for downstream uses, depends on a variety of complex factors, some of which may not be known at the time of an application, such as state and local climate change policies, the interconnected nature of the natural gas pipeline system, long-term changes in natural gas supply sources, changes in demand for natural gas over time, individual companies' long-term goals to reduce GHG emissions, the availability of renewable energy credits or other carbon offsets, and the potential for future action by other federal agencies.
112. Similarly, we believe it best to allow project sponsors to demonstrate that their proposed mitigation measures are verifiable and propose means for the Commission to monitor or track the proposed measures through the life of the project. This approach allows project sponsors to take advantage of existing monitoring programs and tailor verification and tracking to their chosen mitigation proposals and prevents the Commission from needing to establish a new monitoring program.
113. While project sponsors are free to propose any type of mitigation mechanism, the following are examples of mitigation mechanisms project sponsors may consider.
114. Project sponsors may mitigate the GHG emissions of a proposed project through participation in one (or more) of the various types of carbon offset markets. Sponsors could, for example, purchase renewable energy credits, participate in a mandatory compliance market (if located in a state that requires participation in such a market), or participate in a voluntary carbon market.
115. Renewable energy credits (REC) are tradeable, market-based
116. Commenters argue that the Commission may not require RECs because unlike offsets, RECs pertain only to the use of electric power and are therefore not appropriate for upstream or downstream mitigation, do not mitigate or compensate for GHG emissions, and are not denominated in carbon dioxide (CO
117. The compliance market is a mandatory offset program regulated by national, regional, or provincial law and mandates CO
118. A prime example of an existing, domestic compliance market is the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI). RGGI is a cooperative effort by eleven Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states
a. Landfill gas (methane) capture/burning;
b. sulfur hexafluoride capture/recycling;
c. afforestation (the establishment of a forest in an area where there was no previous tree cover);
d. energy efficiency (end use); and
e. agricultural manure management operations (avoided emissions).
119. In addition to RGGI, California participates in the Western Climate Initiative with Quebec and Nova Scotia,
120. If an applicant proposes any method of market-based mitigation of GHG emissions, such as those described in this section, we encourage the applicant to inform the Commission of any state or regional compliance goals or initiatives that may be relevant to our consideration of such mitigation proposal.
121. If a project sponsor is not located in a state that participates in a mandatory compliance market, the voluntary carbon market offers an opportunity to mitigate project emissions. The voluntary carbon market transacts with offsets, which are the instrument representing the reduction, avoidance, or sequestration of one metric ton of GHG.
122. Typically, an independent third party qualifies offset projects and establishes standards to verify offsets; however, not all offsets available in the voluntary market are certified by a third party. In order to ensure the additionality and permanence of offsets, the use of unverified offsets is discouraged. If a project sponsor proposes to mitigate project emissions through participation in a voluntary carbon market, the sponsor is encouraged to seek Commission approval of the third party that would verify the offsets prior to participation. Examples of existing, acceptable third-party certifiers include:
a. Climate Action Reserve;
b. Verified Carbon Standard;
c. American Carbon Registry.
123. Some commenters support allowing project sponsors to purchase emissions offsets while others oppose it as a mitigation method. For example, Policy Integrity recommends that the
124. Conversely, some commenters oppose the Commission requiring project sponsors to purchase offsets from third parties because it is difficult to ensure that carbon offsets have the necessary traits of additionality (the reduction would not have happened but for the purchased offset), permanence (the reduction persists for the entire certification period of the offset), absence of leakage (the offset does not trigger some other activity elsewhere that adds GHG emissions), and rigorous third-party verification.
125. In addition to purchasing RECs or emissions offsets, project sponsors could also propose to mitigate and/or offset GHG emissions through the use of physical, on- or off-site mitigation measures. Physical mitigation measures could include smaller-scale efforts including reducing a project's fugitive methane emissions or incorporating renewable energy or other energy efficient technologies to reduce a project's GHG emissions from compressor stations, or larger-scale undertakings such as carbon capture and storage, or direct air CO
126. Commenters detail a host of mitigation measures they are currently undertaking or propose to implement to reduce direct project emissions, such as: Installing vent gas recovery systems and optimizing operations to reduce venting and blowdowns, replacing cast iron/unprotected steel pipes with polyethylene or protected steel pipes to minimize leaks, employing a variety of technologies and methods to identify and reduce leaks, and replacing natural gas-fired horsepower at compressor stations.
127. Commenters also recommend that the Commission consider a project sponsor's participation in programs that help shippers voluntarily reduce emissions and other voluntary emissions reductions programs when evaluating mitigation measures, such as the ONE Future Coalition, Oil and Gas Climate Initiative, Climate and Clean Air Coalition Oil and Gas Methane Partnership, EPA Natural Gas STAR Program and Natural Gas STAR Methane Challenge Program, Methane Guiding Principles, the Natural Gas Sustainability Initiative, and The Environmental Partnership.
128. Commenters request that the Commission allow full cost recovery for any GHG mitigation measures through either the section 7 process or a general section 4 rate case for capitalized mitigation costs but caution the Commission to ensure that mitigation efforts are verified and the consumer's interest in low prices are balanced with a project sponsor's right to recover costs and earn a fair rate of return under the NGA.
129. We will apply this interim policy statement to both pending and new NGA section 3 and 7 applications.
• The project's projected utilization rate and supporting information;
• an estimate of reasonably foreseeable project GHG emissions;
• if upstream and downstream emissions are not quantified, evidence to support why those emissions are not reasonably foreseeable project emissions;
• evidence, if any, that impacts the quantification of the project's reasonably foreseeable GHG emissions;
• a description of its proposed GHG mitigation measures, including the percent of the project's direct and indirect GHG emissions that will be mitigated and, if applicable, a tracking mechanism for tracking mitigation of GHG emissions; and
• a detailed cost estimate of its proposed GHG mitigation and a proposal for recovering those costs.
130. As explained above, the Commission will then consider the project's impact on climate change, including the project sponsor's mitigation proposal to reduce direct GHG emissions and, to the extent practicable, to reduce any reasonably foreseeable project emissions, as part of its determination under NEPA and its public interest determination under NGA section 3 or 7.
131. The collection of information discussed in the Policy Statement is being submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
132. The Commission solicits comments from the public on the Commission's need for this information, whether the information will have practical utility, the accuracy of the burden estimates, recommendations to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and any suggested methods for minimizing respondents' burden, including the use of automated information techniques. PUBLIC COMMENTS ARE DUE May 10, 2022. The burden estimates are focused on implementing the voluntary information collection pursuant to this Policy Statement. The Commission asks that any revised burden estimates submitted by commenters include the details and assumptions used to generate the estimates.
133. The following estimate of reporting burden is related only to this Policy Statement.
134.
135.
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142. Interested persons may provide comments on this information-collection by one of the following methods:
•
•
• Hard copy other than USPS: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
143. The Commission invites comments on the interim policy statement by April 4, 2022. Comments must refer to Docket No. PL21-3-000 and must include the commenter's name, the organization they represent, if applicable, and their address in their comments.
144. The Commission encourages comments to be filed electronically via the eFiling link on the Commission's website at
145. Commenters that are not able to file comments electronically must send an original of their comments to: Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Secretary of the Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
146. All comments will be placed in the Commission's public files and may be viewed, printed, or downloaded remotely as described in the Document Availability section below. Commenters on this proposal are not required to serve copies of their comments on other commenters.
147. In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
148. From the Commission's Home Page on the internet, this information is available on eLibrary. The full text of this document is available on eLibrary in PDF and Microsoft Word format for viewing, printing, and/or downloading. To access this document in eLibrary, type the docket number excluding the last three digits of this document in the docket number field.
149. User assistance is available for eLibrary and the Commission's website during normal business hours from the Commission's Online Support at 202-502-6652 (toll free at 1-866-208-3676) or email at
By the Commission.
Commissioner Danly is dissenting with a separate statement attached.
Commissioner Christie is dissenting with a separate statement attached.
DANLY, Commissioner,
1. I dissent in full from today's Interim Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Policy Statement which purports to set forth the Commission's procedures to evaluate the climate change impacts of proposed natural gas projects under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and to incorporate climate change considerations into the Commission's determinations under sections 3 and 7 of the Natural Gas Act (NGA).
2. This policy statement is irredeemably flawed. It is practically unworkable because it establishes a standardless standard. Its universal application to all projects, both new and pending (some for over two years), is an affront to basic fairness and is unjustifiable, especially in light of the many unnecessary delays already suffered by applicants. It is unlawful because it is illogical, it arrogates to the Commission power it does not have, and it violates the NGA, NEPA and the Commission's and the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations. It is also deliberately drafted so as to evade judicial review. Lastly, it will sow confusion throughout an industry that already suffers profound uncertainty. This issuance does not know what it is and neither will affected entities: It is immediately applicable, but also seeks comments, and it is allegedly not a draft policy statement, but an “interim” one. How can stakeholders have any confidence in its contents at all?
3. When reading this policy statement, it is nearly impossible to credit the majority with actually believing that “minimiz[ing] our litigation risk,” making Commission decisions “legally durable,” and “increas[ing], not reduc[ing], customer and investor confidence,” are truly the goals of this proceeding.
4. The Interim Policy Statement begins by explaining it will apply upon issuance while at the same time being subject to comment and revision.
5. Next, it provides a historical background on past court, Commission, and CEQ issuances. For the sake of brevity, I will not describe this background discussion other than to note it is frequently misleading.
6. Then the Interim Policy Statement announces that “the Commission will quantify a project's GHG emissions that are reasonably foreseeable and have a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action.”
7. The majority also states that it will continue to consider whether upstream emissions are a reasonably foreseeable effect for NGA section 7 projects on a case-by-case basis.
8. The Interim Policy Statement then describes how the quantity of project's emissions will be determined: By using a projected utilization rate for the project and considering “other factors that might impact a project's net emissions.”
9. I would suspect most attentive readers would have been interested to then learn how, having determined the means by which to arrive at these numbers, the Commission plans to weigh emissions among all of the other factors to be considered in its NGA determination. But the majority does not say.
10. Next, the Interim Policy Statement explains “the Commission is establishing a significance threshold of 100,000 metric tons or more per year [(tpy)] of CO
11. The Interim Policy Statement says the Commission has authority to impose GHG mitigation for both direct emissions and downstream emissions.
12. The majority tells project sponsors they are “free to propose any mechanism to mitigate the project's GHG emissions”
13. The majority's guidance ends there, leaving the project sponsor to figure out how
14. But the mitigation requirements may not end there. The majority states it “may require additional mitigation as a condition of an NGA section 3 authorization or section 7 certificate.”
15. Next, we reach the majority's guidance on cost recovery. The majority states “[p]ipelines
16. The Interim Policy Statement concludes by informing project sponsors with pending applications that they “will be given the opportunity to supplement the record and explain how their proposals are consistent with this policy statement” and that those filings will be subject to a reply comment period.
17. In sum, the Commission will weigh direct GHG emissions and, in most cases, downstream emissions in its NGA determinations. It will not tell you how these emissions will be assessed other than to say that project sponsors are encouraged to mitigate them. It will not tell you how project shippers will be protected from imprudently incurred costs. This is the tyranny of vagueness. It is also a threat. Imagine the fear that will animate the mitigation “voluntarily” proposed by those project sponsors with pending applications who are facing millions of dollars in sunk costs and with shippers that have relied on projects being placed into service and now only have higher cost and less reliable options available. This policy statement cannot rightly be described as “encouraging” anything.
18. It is worth pausing to consider the underlying premise of the majority's policy for considering GHG emissions, establishing a GHG emission threshold for preparing EISs, and requiring GHG emission mitigation. All are based on the presumption that GHG emissions are an “effect” of the proposed action.
19. In order to constitute an “effect,” three elements must be met: (1) There is a “change[ ] in the human environment,” that change (2) is “reasonably foreseeable,” and (3) it “has a reasonably close causal relationship to the proposed action or alternatives.”
20. No, the majority is concerned about the changes in the human environment caused, not by the existence of GHG emissions themselves, but by climate change. The Interim Policy Statement is absolutely clear that this is its animating purpose: “The Commission is issuing this interim policy statement to explain how the Commission will assess the impacts of natural gas infrastructure projects on climate change”;
21. The question therefore is not whether GHG emissions are reasonably foreseeable but whether
22. While determining the environmental impacts of a project is done on a case-by-case basis, the
23. The chain of causation is too attenuated for the cause and effect in this case to be considered to have a “reasonably close causal relationship.” The reasoning goes as follows: “Changes to water resources, agriculture, ecosystems, human health, and ocean systems” occurring throughout the world result from global atmospheric changes that themselves result from the warming that itself results from increases in the world-wide concentration of GHGs that enter the atmosphere as the emissions released by using natural gas, that in the case of end uses (that is, not pipeline operational uses), results from the transportation of natural gas. The logical sequence is clear, but the causation is quite attenuated. And this attenuation cannot be shortened through the ploy of employing GHG emissions as a proxy for climate change.
24. The consideration of effects resulting from the upstream production or downstream use of natural gas violates the NGA and CEQ's regulations.
25. The NGA authorizes the Commission to consider only those factors bearing on the “public convenience and necessity.”
26. As the Court explained in
27. And while there were “subsidiary purposes” for the passage of the Natural Gas Act,
28. The majority cannot turn to the Supreme Court's holding in
29. Nor is the D.C. Circuit's outlier opinion,
30. Thus, we should not rest too much weight upon
31. In sum, environmental effects resulting from the upstream production and downstream use of gas are not factors bearing on the public convenience and necessity under the Natural Gas Act. Further, the CEQ's regulations affirmatively prohibit those effects from being considered in an agency's compliance with NEPA.
32. In addition, the majority's presumption that project emissions exceeding 100,000 tpy of CO
33. The majority offers three irrelevant rationales for this
34. The majority also states “even relatively minor GHG emissions pose a significant threat” “[b]ecause of the dire effects at stake.”
35. On top of being illogical, the Interim Policy Statement effectively amends the Commission's NEPA regulations without undergoing notice-and-comment procedures as required by the Administrative Procedure Act.
36. Given these fatal flaws, it is no wonder the majority seeks comment “in particular, on the approach to assessing the significance of the proposed project's contribution to climate change.”
37. Next, the majority states that the Commission's conditioning power gives it authority to require a pipeline to mitigate GHGs emitted by its operations
38. As commenters explain,
39. The Commission's conditioning authority also does not allow the Commission to mitigate GHG emissions from upstream or downstream users. The commenters make the point,
40. Further, the Commission's conditioning authority cannot be used in ways that would be directly contrary to the purpose of the NGA—to promote the production of plentiful supplies of natural gas at reasonable rates. The majority may not rewrite the purpose of the NGA to instead charge the Commission with the mission of discouraging the production and use of natural gas.
41. The Interim Policy Statement's encouragement that project sponsors mitigate GHG emissions is in practical effect a requirement,
42. The majority does not attempt to make either of these required findings. It simply leaps from stating that the Commission has the discretion to mitigate GHG emissions to “expecting” applicants to mitigate their emissions. This amounts to no more than “because I said so.” More is required.
43. One cannot help but notice the lengths to which the majority goes in order to make this policy statement “non-binding,” using words like “propose,” “wish,” “opportunity,” and even insisting, in response to this dissent, that it does not “impose[] an obligation, deny[y] a right, or fix[ ] some legal relationship,”
44. In this way, the majority appears to believe it can do whatever it wants. Arrogate to the Commission authority it does not have. Disregard regulations that are currently in force. Flout prevailing Supreme Court precedent. Make threats to manipulate project sponsors into “voluntarily” subjecting themselves to unnecessary processes and proposing mitigation of the “harm” resulting from the proposed use or transportation of natural gas to provide a service that Congress declared to be in the public interest.
45. If an entity requests rehearing of today's policy statement, the majority can simply reject it—either by notice or order (without any discussion of the merits)—stating that rehearing does not lie for policy statements. And if a petition for review follows, the Commission can argue that the Interim Policy Statement is not subject to review because it is not a substantive rule. And if some project sponsor suggests it is proposing mitigation under duress and it reserves the right to challenge the mitigation requirement in court, the Commission can argue the project sponsor cannot be aggrieved because it voluntarily proposed the mitigation and accepted the certificate and its terms.
46. This is not good governance. Nor do I think it likely the majority will be successful. In my view, the Interim Policy Statement is a substantive, binding rule that is subject to judicial review. Despite the Interim Policy Statement's hortatory verbiage, “there are sinews of command beneath the velvet words.”
47. This is not encouragement. This is command. The project sponsors will know that if they want to win approval for their projects this is what they must do
48. There is, however, no ambiguity in this: The Commission has changed the requirements for obtaining project approvals and applicants need to come before the Commission acknowledging that it is so.
49. The interim policy statement also determines that emissions over 100,000 tpy of CO
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
James P. Danly,
CHRISTIE, Commissioner,
1. Last year I voted to re-issue this Notice of Inquiry (NOI) for another round of comment
2. Unfortunately, the new certificate policy the majority approves today
3. The fundamental changes the majority imposes today to the Commission's procedures governing certificate applications are wrong as both law
4. The new policy also threatens to do fundamental damage to the nation's energy security by making it even more costly and difficult to build the infrastructure that will be critically needed to maintain reliable power service to consumers as the generation mix changes to incorporate lower carbon-emitting resources such as wind and solar. And as recent events in Europe and Ukraine graphically illustrate, America's energy security is an inextricable part of our national security.
5. And while I agree that reducing carbon emissions that impact the climate is a compelling policy goal,
6. The long-running controversy over the role and use of GHG analyses in natural-gas facility certificate cases raises two central questions of law and a third that flows from the first two:
7.
8.
9.
10. As discussed below, today's orders get each of these questions wrong.
11. The starting point for answering all of these questions must be what “public interest” analysis the NGA empowers the Commission to make. Can the Commission's statutory responsibility to determine the “public convenience and necessity” be used to
12. As discussed herein, any claim that a “public interest” analysis under the NGA gives FERC the authority to reject a project based solely on GHG emissions is specious and ahistorical. The history of the NGA indicates that Congress intended the statute to
13. I recognize that the Commission and the courts have construed “public convenience and necessity” to require the Commission to consider “all factors bearing on the public interest,”
14. With regard to GHG emissions that may be associated with upstream production activities or downstream distribution to, or consumption by, retail consumers, the Commission simply has
15. Even if the Commission were to undertake some estimate of the indirect GHG impacts of third-party activities that it has no authority to regulate, it does not follow that the Commission can then reject a certificate based on those impacts.
16. It is a truism that FERC is an economic regulator,
17. To those who say “well, times have changed and Congress was not
18. Any authority to perform a public interest analysis under the NGA must be construed with reference to the animating purposes of the Act. It is not a free pass to pursue any policy objective—however important or compelling it may be—that is related in some way to jurisdictional facilities.
Any such authority to consider all factors bearing on “the public interest” must take into account what “the public interest” means
19. Whereas the Commission's role in certificating facilities under the NGA is explicit,
20. Surely if Congress had any intention that GHG analyses should (or could) be the basis for rejecting certification of natural-gas facilities, it would have given the Commission clear statutory guidance as to when to reject on that basis. Instead, those who want the Commission to conjure up a standard on GHG emissions for deciding how much is
21. Using GHG analysis to reject a certificate implicates an important judicial doctrine used in evaluating just how far an administrative agency can go in essentially
22. The Commission's actions today implicate the “major questions doctrine,” which Justice Gorsuch has recently explained as follows:
The federal government's powers . . . are not general, but limited and divided. Not only must the federal government properly invoke a constitutionally enumerated source of authority to regulate in this area or any other, it must also act consistently with the Constitution's separation of powers. And when it comes to that obligation, this Court has established at least one firm rule: “We expect Congress to speak clearly” if it wishes to assign to an executive agency decisions “of vast economic and political significance.” We sometimes call this the major questions doctrine.
In short, the major questions doctrine presumes that Congress reserves major issues to itself, so unless a grant of authority to address a major issue is explicit in a statute administered by an agency, it cannot be inferred to have been granted.
23. Whether this Commission can reject a certificate based on a GHG analysis—a certificate that otherwise would be approved under the NGA—is undeniably a major question of public policy. It will have enormous implications for the lives of everyone in this country, given the inseparability of energy security from economic security. Yet the Supreme Court has made it clear that broad deference to administrative agencies on major questions of public policy is
24. There is no “unmistakable legislative support” for the powers the Commission asserts today. A broad power to regulate upstream and downstream GHG emissions and their global impacts has simply
25. The fact that the NGA requires the Commission to make some form of public interest determination in the course of a certificate proceeding does not furnish a basis for the Commission to arrogate to itself the authority to constrain the development of natural gas resources on the grounds of their potential greenhouse gas emissions. As now-Justice Kavanaugh has explained: “If an agency wants to exercise expansive regulatory authority over some major social or economic activity . . .
26. The fact that the Commission has absolutely no standard against which to measure the impact of natural gas production upstream or use downstream of the facilities it certificates is also important. In order for Congress to delegate any authority to an executive agency, it must legislatively set forth an intelligible principle for the agency to follow.
27. Although the NGA requires the Commission to determine whether a proposed facility is in the “public convenience and necessity,” the term “has always been understood to mean `need' for the service. To the extent the environment is considered, such consideration is limited to the effects stemming from the construction and operation of the proposed facilities.”
28. To summarize: Whether and how to regulate GHG emissions is a major question of vast economic and political significance. Congress has not explicitly authorized the Commission to regulate in this area as required under the major questions doctrine, nor has it laid down an intelligible principle for the Commission to follow as required by the non-delegation doctrine. Moreover,
29. Let's now turn to the second major question.
30. Is this Commission required or allowed by NEPA
31. Again, the short answer is no. NEPA does not contain a shred of specific textual authority requiring or allowing the Commission to
32. Even conducting an analysis of indirect GHG effects under NEPA goes too far. The Supreme Court has explicitly rejected the idea that an “an agency's action is considered a cause of an environmental effect [under NEPA] even when the agency has no statutory authority to prevent that effect.”
33. First off, in determining how far an agency's NEPA responsibilities run, one “must look to the underlying policies or legislative intent in order to draw a manageable line between those causal changes that may make an actor responsible for an effect and those that do not.”
34. Second, speculating about the possible future impact on global climate change of a facility's potential GHG emissions does not assist the Commission in its decision-making and therefore violates the “rule of reason”: Where an agency lacks the power to do anything about the possible environmental impacts, it is not obligated to analyze them under NEPA.
35. This conclusion becomes even more obvious when considered alongside the undeniable fact that neither NEPA nor any other statute contains a scintilla of guidance as to which specific metrics are to be used to determine when the Commission can or must reject a project based on a GHG analysis. The Commission today establishes a threshold of 100,000 metric tons of CO
36. These are just arbitrarily chosen numbers. A proliferation of quantification does not constitute reasoned decision-making. All of the important questions about the creation and application of this threshold remain unanswered: Is there anything in either the NGA or NEPA to indicate how much is too much and should be rejected? Or how little is low enough to get under the red line? No. If the Commission is attempting to quantify
37. I recognize that the 100,000 metric tons marker adopted in today's orders is not a threshold for rejecting a proposed project but only for subjecting it to further scrutiny in the form of an EIS. But this is no small matter—completion of an EIS is extremely cost-intensive and time-consuming and, in addition, creates a plethora of opportunities for opponents of the project who otherwise lack meritorious objections to it, to run up the costs, to cause delays, and to create new grounds for the inevitable appeals challenging the certificate even if the applicant does manage to obtain it.
38. NEPA provides no statutory authority to reject a gas project that would otherwise be approved under the NGA. How could it? As is well-known, the duties NEPA imposes are essentially procedural and informational.
39. It's not actually very difficult to see how the approach the majority adopts today is “inconsistent with the statutory requirements of the Commission.”
40. There is no meaningful way of evaluating any of the critical issues, and no statutory authority to actually do anything about upstream or downstream emissions,
41. Today's orders rely to a remarkable degree on a smattering of statements from a handful of recent orders. Simply put, these authorities are simply “too slender a reed”
42. Neither
43. Virtually the entire structure of the majority's fundamental policy changes rests on a single line from
44.
45. But the
46. As for
47. Finally, as to the contention that the Commission is bound to follow
48. We are indeed bound to follow judicial precedent, but we don't get to “cherry pick” one precedent such as
49. Preventing the construction of each and every natural gas project is the overt public-policy goal of many well-funded interest groups working to reduce or eliminate natural gas usage.
50. Recently I said the Commission's new rule on unlimited late interventions in certificate cases was “not a legal standard, but a legal weapon.”
51. Let me emphasize that every person or organization pursuing the policy goal of ending the use of natural gas by opposing every natural gas facility has an absolute right under the First Amendment to engage in such advocacy. However, whether to end the use of natural gas by banning the construction of all new natural gas projects is a public policy question of immense importance, one that affects the lives and livelihoods of tens of millions of Americans and their communities, as well as the country's national security. In a democracy, such a huge policy question should
52. This public-policy context is absolutely relevant to these orders because it illustrates that the long-running controversy at this Commission over the use of GHG analyses in natural-gas certificate cases, whether it's a demand to quantify indirect impacts from upstream production and downstream use,
53. EPA admits as much in a remarkably (perhaps unwittingly) revealing passage in a letter to this Commission:
EPA reaffirms the suggestion that the Commission avoid expressing project-level emissions as a percentage of national or state emissions. Conveying the information in this way
54. So according to EPA, this Commission—which is supposed to be
55. The EPA's purported guidance to this Commission illustrates that the real debate here is not over the minutiae of one methodology versus another, or whether one methodology is “generally accepted in the scientific community” and another is not,
56. The real debate over the use of GHG analyses in certificate proceedings is about public policy, not law, and ultimately comes down to these questions:
57. Based on the analysis above the following legal conclusions can be drawn:
58.
59.
60.
61. These legal conclusions do not mean that responding to climate change is not a compelling policy necessity for the nation. In my view it is, as I stated above.
62. However, neither my policy views—nor those of any other member of this Commission—can confer additional legal authority on FERC.
63. For if democracy means anything at all, it means that the people have an inherent right to choose the legislators to whom the people grant the power to decide the major questions of public policy that impact how the people live their daily lives. Unelected federal judges and executive-branch administrators, no matter how enlightened they and other elites may regard themselves to be, do not have the power to decide such questions; they only have the power to carry out the duly-enacted laws of the United States, including the most important law of all, the Constitution. That is the basic constitutional framework of the United States and it is the same for any liberal democracy worth the name.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.