Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Land Management Bureau
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
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 Environment, Health, Safety and Security; U.S. Department of Energy.
Final rule.
On September 7, 2021, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for public comment in which it proposed to amend its regulations on contractor workplace substance abuse programs at DOE sites. In this final rule, DOE is adopting the amendments proposed in the NOPR without change. The amendments decrease the random drug testing rate for individuals in certain testing designated positions (TDPs); clarify that all positions requiring access authorizations (security clearances) are included in the TDPs; and clarify requirements for DOE approval prior to allowing persons in certain TDPs to return to work after removal for illegal drug use.
This rule is effective September 14, 2022.
Ms. Moriah Ferullo, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security, EHSS-11, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585; (301) 903-0881 or by email at:
Pursuant to DOE's statutory authority, including the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), and the Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, DOE promulgated a rule on July 22, 1992 (57 FR 32652), establishing minimum requirements for DOE contractor workplace substance abuse programs. The rule provided for drug testing of contractor employees in, and applicants for, TDPs at sites owned or controlled by DOE and operated under the authority of the AEA. The Department determined that possible risks of serious harm to the environment and to public health, safety, and national security justified the imposition of a uniform rule establishing a baseline workplace substance abuse program, including drug testing. The rule created a new part 707 of Title 10 in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) entitled
On September 14, 2007, the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) issued a memorandum addressing drug testing for DOE positions that require access authorizations (security clearances). The memorandum stated the Secretary's determination that all Federal and contractor positions that require security clearances, and all employees in positions that currently have security clearances, have the potential to significantly affect the environment, public health and safety, or national security. The Secretary determined that all such positions would be considered to be TDPs, which means they are subject to applicant, random, and “for cause” drug testing. The Secretary further determined, with regard to random drug testing, that employees in TDPs, other than those designated to be included in the 100 percent annual sample pool (primarily employees in the Human Reliability Program), be tested at a 30 percent annual sample rate. To implement the memorandum's provisions regarding TDPs for DOE contractor employees, the Department issued a final rule at 10 CFR part 707.
On September 7, 2021, the Department published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) proposing to correct these errors (86 FR 49932). In the NOPR, the Department proposed that the second sentence of 10 CFR 707.7(a)(2) would state that employees in the positions identified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of this section will be subject to random testing at a rate equal to 100 percent of the total number of employees identified, and those identified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of this section may be subject to additional drug tests. DOE further proposed to replace the reference to (b)(2) with (c) in 10 CFR 707.7(b)(2)(iii). In the second sentence of 10 CFR 707.14(e), DOE proposed deleting the reference to 10 CFR 707.7(b)(2). DOE also proposed in the NOPR to add a new requirement at 10 CFR 707.7(b)(2)(vi) to specify that access authorization (security clearance) holders will be tested. DOE proposed that the new subsection would refer to all other personnel in positions that require an access authorization (security clearance), other than those identified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of this section. As a result of this change, DOE intends that employees identified in 10 CFR
By publication of this final rule in the
This final rule continues to establish minimum requirements for the workplace substance abuse programs for DOE contractors and their employees, and is promulgated pursuant to DOE's authority under section 161(i)(3) and (p) of the AEA to prescribe such regulations as it deems necessary to govern any activity authorized by the AEA, including standards for the protection of health and minimization of danger to life or property (42 U.S.C. 2201(i)(3) and (p)) and section 8102 of the Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988, as amended (41 U.S.C. 8102).
The Department's NOPR invited public comments on the proposal and provided a 30-day public comment period that ended on October 7, 2021. This section responds to the comments the Department received. It also contains an explanation of certain final rule provisions in order to provide interpretative guidance to DOE offices and DOE contractors that must comply with this final rule.
The Department received two general comments (Ex. 1, 2) regarding the proposed changes to the rule. One commenter (Ex. 1) stated that the workplace substance abuse programs proposed rule was significant because DOE employees and contractors who have security clearances have the ability to affect the environment, public health and safety, and national security, and testing these individuals to make sure that they are not in any way distracted or under another influence is imperative for DOE's mission to continue unimpeded. A second commenter (Ex. 2) stated that implementing substance abuse programs at the DOE sites is a good idea and monitoring employees through drug tests will keep the sites clean and prevent accidents from happening.
The Department agrees with the commenters and believes that requiring a workplace substance abuse program at its sites will assist in maintaining a workplace that is free from the use of illegal drugs and creates a safe and healthy workplace for employees at DOE sites.
One commenter (Ex. 2) stated that some drugs should not be included in the drug tests since some people use them for beneficial reasons. DOE notes that this comment is beyond the scope of the amendments proposed in the NOPR.
The Department received one comment (Ex.1) regarding the proposed 30 percent testing rate for employees in positions identified in paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) of 10 CFR 707.7. The commenter believes that DOE should take additional measures to reinforce the idea that there is a zero-tolerance policy for substance abuse and that the work being conducted should not be conducted by individuals who cannot abide by the rules. The commenter suggested that increasing the size of the annual sample rate from 30 percent would be one such additional measure that would be beneficial to the Department. However, the commenter did not suggest an alternative rate.
DOE has determined that the 30 percent testing rate is: (1) consistent with the 2007 Secretarial memorandum; (2) consistent with the testing rate for DOE Federal employees with security clearances; and (3) appropriate for DOE sites at the present time. Accordingly, DOE is retaining the 30 percent testing requirement in the final rule as proposed in the NOPR. DOE notes that a DOE contractor could impose a higher testing rate pursuant to 10 CFR 707.5, which states that nothing in 10 CFR part 707 is intended to prohibit any contractor subject to this part from implementing workplace substance abuse requirements additional to those of the baseline, including drug testing employees and applicants for employment in any position and testing for any illegal drugs. However, the contractor is required to inform the appropriate Head of DOE Field Element of such additional requirements at least 30 days prior to implementation.
One commenter (Ex. 1) stated that the Department must add additional stipulations for the return of a contractor employee who was removed from a DOE site for the use of illegal drugs, and that their approval to return to a TDP (which necessitates a security clearance) should be conditioned on increased testing on their return. The commenter believed this would increase the likelihood that the Department would know about an individual's use of illegal drugs and refusal to comply with the Department's policies.
In response, DOE notes that when a contractor employee is removed from duty for use of illegal drugs, several conditions must be met under 10 CFR part 707 before the employee may be returned to a TDP. For example, 10 CFR 707.14(c)(1)-(3) provides that an employee may not be returned to a TDP unless the employee has successfully completed counseling or a program of rehabilitation; undergone a urine drug test with a negative result; and been evaluated by the site occupational medical department, which has determined that the individual is capable of safely returning to duty. Also, 10 CFR 707.14(b)(2) states that the failure to take the opportunity for rehabilitation, if it has been made available, for the use of illegal drugs, will require significant disciplinary action up to and including removal from employment under the DOE contract, in accordance with the contractor's policies. In addition, any employee who is twice determined to have used illegal drugs shall in all cases be removed from employment under the DOE contract. As an additional measure, 10 CFR 707.14(g) states that after an employee determined to have used illegal drugs has been returned to duty, the employee shall be subject to unannounced drug testing, at intervals, for a period of 12 months. In addition, in the final rule, 10 CFR 707.14(e) continues to provide that if a DOE access authorization is involved, DOE must be notified of a contractor's intent to return to a TDP an employee removed from such duty for use of illegal drugs. Therefore, DOE is amending the language in 10 CFR 707.14(e) as proposed in the NOPR.
This regulatory action has been determined not to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (October 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action is not subject to review under that Executive order by the Office of Information and Regulatory
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), DOE has analyzed this action in accordance with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has determined that this final rule is covered by the Categorical Exclusion (CX) found in DOE's NEPA regulations at paragraph A5 of appendix A to subpart D, 10 CFR part 1021, because it is a rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule or regulation that does not change the environmental effect of the rule.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
This final rule updates DOE's regulations on workplace substance abuse programs for its contractor workers. This rule applies only to activities conducted by DOE's contractors. DOE expects that any potential economic impact of this rule on small businesses would be minimal because DOE contractors perform work under contracts with DOE or DOE prime contractors at a DOE site. DOE contractors are reimbursed through their contracts for the costs of complying with workplace substance abuse program requirements. They would not, therefore, be adversely impacted by the requirements in this final rule. For these reasons, DOE certifies that this final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities, and DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility analysis for this rulemaking.
This final rule does not impose any new collection of information subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to prepare a written assessment of the effects of any Federal mandate in a proposed or final agency regulation that may result in the expenditure by State, Tribal, or local governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million 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 Act also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officials of State, Tribal, or local governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity to provide 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:
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 would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
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.
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. Agencies are required to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 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 has examined this final rule and has determined that it would not preempt State law and 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. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, Section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines, which are available at:
DOE has reviewed this rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines.
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)(i) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (ii) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (2) 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 should the regulation be 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, DOE has concluded that this final rule will 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.
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of this final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this final rule. The report will state it has been determined that the rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final rule.
Classified information, Drug testing, Employee assistance programs, Energy, Government contracts, Health and safety, National security, Reasonable suspicion, Special nuclear material, Substance abuse.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 27, 2022, by Jennifer Granholm, 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
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Department of Energy amends part 707 of chapter III of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below:
41 U.S.C. 8102
(a) * * *
(2) Programs developed under this part for positions identified in paragraphs (b)(2) and (3) of this section shall provide for random tests at a rate equal to 30 percent of the total number of employees in testing designated positions for each 12-month period. Employees in the positions identified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section and individuals identified in paragraph (c) of this section will be subject to random testing at a rate equal to 100 percent of the total number of employees or individuals, as applicable, identified, and those identified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) may be subject to additional drug tests.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(iii) Protective force personnel, exclusive of those covered in paragraph (b)(1) and (c) of this section, in positions involving use of firearms where the duties also require potential contact with, or proximity to, the public at large;
(iv) Personnel directly engaged in construction, maintenance, or operation of nuclear reactors;
(v) Personnel directly engaged in production, use, storage, transportation, or disposal of hazardous materials sufficient to cause significant harm to the environment or public health and safety; or
(vi) All other personnel in positions that require an access authorization (security clearance), other than those identified in paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) of this section.
(e) If a DOE access authorization is involved, DOE must be notified of a contractor's intent to return to a testing designated position an employee removed from such duty for use of illegal drugs. Positions identified in § 707.7(b)(1) of this part will require DOE approval prior to return to a testing designated position.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; correction.
This action corrects a final rule published by the FAA in the
Effective date 0901 UTC, September 8, 2022. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA published a final rule in the
United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV T-route listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, all references to the CABOT, AK, and IKUFU, AK, WPs reflected in Docket No. FAA-2021-0803, as published in the
1. In FR Doc. 2022-13879, appearing on page 38915, in the second column, at lines 54-56, correct “adding five additional WPs (CABOT, WOGAX, IKUFU, JILSI, and CYCAS) in the” to read “adding three additional WPs (WOGAX, JILSI, and CYCAS) and two Fixes (CABOT and IKUFU) in the”.
2. In FR Doc. 2022-13879, appearing on page 38916, in the third column, at line 17, correct “CABOT, AK WP (lat. 61°12′01.32″ N, long. 160°45′20.93″ W)” to read “CABOT, AK FIX (lat. 61°12′01.32″ N, long. 160°45′20.93″ W)”.
3. In FR Doc. 2022-13879, appearing on page 38916, in the third column, at line 19, correct “IKUFU, AK WP (lat. 61°40′34.53″ N, long. 159°52′35.43″ W)” to read “IKUFU, AK FIX (lat. 61°40′34.53″ N, long. 159°52′35.43″ W)”.
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Interim final rule, with request for comments.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) maintains, as part of its Export Administration Regulations (EAR), the Commerce Control List (CCL), which identifies certain items subject to Department of Commerce (Commerce) jurisdiction. Commerce is revising the CCL, as well as corresponding parts of the EAR, to implement controls on four technologies. These changes reflect certain controls decided by governments participating in the Wassenaar Arrangement on Export Controls for Conventional Arms and Dual-Use Goods and Technologies (WA) at the December 2021 WA Plenary meeting. These four technologies meet the criteria of Section 1758 of the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA) pertaining to emerging and foundational technologies. Accordingly, BIS is accelerating their publication in this interim final rule and will publish the remaining WA-agreed controls in a later rule. These technologies are two substrates of ultra-wide bandgap semiconductors (Gallium Oxide (Ga
Comments on this rule related to the implementation of ECCN 3D006 on the Commerce Control List may be submitted to the Federal rulemaking portal (
All filers using the portal should use the name of the person or entity submitting the comments as the name of their files, in accordance with the instructions below. 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 also provide a non-confidential version of the submission.
For comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC.” Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. The corresponding non-confidential version of those comments must be clearly marked “PUBLIC.” The file name of the non-confidential version should begin with the character “P.” Any submissions with file names that do not begin with either a “BC” or a “P” will be assumed to be public and will be made publicly available through
For general questions, contact Sharron Cook, Office of Exporter Services, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce at 202-482-2440 or by email:
As part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232), Congress enacted the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). Section 1758 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4817) authorizes BIS to establish appropriate controls on the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of emerging and foundational technologies that are essential to the national security of the United States (Section 1758 technologies). See
This interim final rule adds four technologies to the CCL, supplement no. 1 to part 774, as Section 1758 technologies. These technologies were decided upon by governments participating in the WA for addition to the WA's List of Dual-Use Goods and Technologies during the December 2021 WA Plenary meeting. The WA advocates implementation of effective export controls on strategic items with the objective of improving regional and international security and stability. Of the items regarding which decisions were reached in December 2021, four meet the requirements that apply to Section 1758 technologies. Namely, they were identified in a regular ongoing interagency process that is informed by multiple sources (
BIS has determined that two substrates of ultra-wide bandgap semiconductors (Ga
• Revises ECCNs: 3C001.d-.f, 3C005.a and .b, 3C006, and 3E003 for two substrates (Ga
• New ECCN: 3D006 for Software for ECAD for the development of Integrated Circuits (ICs) with GAAFET.
Gallium Nitride (GaN) and Silicon Carbide (SiC) are the leading materials for the production of sophisticated microwave or millimeter wave devices controlled under ECCN 3A001.b or high-power semiconductor devices controlled under ECCNs 3A001.g and 3A001.h on the CCL. In addition to GaN and SiC, materials such as Ga
Specifically, this rule adds to ECCN 3C001 new paragraphs .e for Ga
Commodities specified in ECCN 3C001 paragraphs .c and .f, ECCN 3C005 paragraphs .a and .b, and ECCN 3C006 require a license for national security (NS) and antiterrorism (AT) reasons, respectively, for countries with an “X” listed in columns NS:2 or AT:1 on the Commerce Country Chart in supplement no. 1 to part 738 of the EAR. The development and production technology for these commodities is classified under ECCN 3E003 and requires a license for NS and AT reasons, respectively, to countries with an “X” listed in columns NS:1 or AT:1 on the Commerce Country Chart. A license exception (see part 740 of the EAR) may authorize a transaction that otherwise would require a license.
Electronic Computer-Aided Design (ECAD) is a category of software tools used for designing, analyzing, optimizing, and validating the performance of integrated circuits or printed circuit boards. ECAD software is used by the military and aerospace defense industries for designing complex integrated circuits, Field-Programmable Gate Arrays (FPGAs), Application Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs), and electronic systems. ECAD software solutions enabled a successful design phase of the first Gate-All-Around transistor System-on-Chip test chip.
A common use of ECAD software is to link the various stages involved in progressing smoothly from the Register Transfer Level (RTL) design stage to the logic design stage, then finally to the physical design stage, which results in Geometrical Database Standard II (GDSII). RTL is a model of a digital circuit defined in terms of the flow of digital signals and logical operations down to the level of individual flip-flops,
Gate-All-Around transistor technology approaches are key to scaling to 3 nanometer and below technology nodes. The gate completely encircles the semiconductor electronic conduction channel and thus provides good gate control and scalability of the electrostatics to allow high ratios of on and off leakage currents and minimization of random dopant fluctuations. A thin electronic conducting channel is used to enable gate control of the electric field in the transistor channel preventing short-channel punch through. The backside gate combined with minimization of random doping effect enable scalability to smaller technology nodes. The multiple channels provide higher current capability. The lower parasitic capacitances enable 50 percent faster chip operation compared to bulk technologies. Faster, less bulky, energy efficient, and radiation-hardened integrated circuits would advance many commercial as well as military applications, including defense and communication satellites.
ECAD software is often offered in modules that support the requirements of circuit designers as well as the production prerequisites supplied by foundries. ECAD software is not distinguished by the type or architecture of integrated circuit, but by the capabilities that enable design, analysis, optimization, validation, and verification of the advanced circuitry of specific transistor types. Thus, some ECAD software may be particularly suited to efficiently design complex GAAFET circuits. As proprietary information could be involved, the “specially designed” requirements of the control can be difficult to ascertain in specific ECAD software.
Consequently, with this rule, BIS is controlling this technology as Section 1758 technology by adding new ECCN 3D006 to the CCL to control ECAD “software” “specially designed” for the “development” of integrated circuits having any GAAFET structure and meeting the parameters set forth in ECCN 3D006. Such software must be either “specially designed” for implementing RTL to GDSII or an equivalent standard or “specially designed” for optimization of power or timing rules.
ECCN 3D006 will also include a new technical note that defines ECAD, RTL, and GDSII. ECAD software tools are designed to incorporate and work with the different process design kits (PDKs) from each foundry, which include specifications for that foundry's transistor architecture. The new control applies to an ECAD software tool when it is specially designed as described in 3D006, whether it is exported with a PDK or separately.
ECAD software controlled under new ECCN 3D006 requires a license for NS and AT reasons, respectively, for countries with an “X” listed in columns NS:2 or AT:1 on the Commerce Country Chart. A license exception (see part 740 of the EAR), such as License Exception Strategic Trade Authorization (STA) may authorize a transaction that otherwise would require a license.
BIS seeks public comment and input to determine what specific ECAD features are particularly suited to design GAAFET circuits to ensure that the U.S. Government effectively implements this new control. In particular, the U.S. Government is seeking public comment and input from industry regarding the scope of the license requirement as well as input to assist in the interagency review of license applications to export such software. BIS is particularly interested in description of software features or functions that assists the designer to optimize interconnects, synthesis, placements & routes, multi-corner multi-mode, timing/clock-tree, power and thermal, or signal integrity necessary for GAAFET circuits. For example, there may be a highly efficient auto-routing program or type of simulator or schematic editor/engine or waveform display that allows designers to rapidly modify a simulated circuit and assess what effect the change has on the output. Additionally, public comment may inform the U.S. Government in the development of future WA proposals that could revise the control text of 3D006.
In addition, BIS's Technical Advisory Committees recommended that industry has the opportunity to submit public comments regarding the implementation of ECCN 3D006 control,
PGC technology is a technology with the potential to increase gas turbine
While conventional gas turbine engines undergo steady, subsonic combustion, resulting in a total pressure loss, PGC utilizes multiple physical phenomena, including resonant pulsed combustion, constant volume combustion, and detonation, to cause a rise in effective pressure across the combustor, while consuming the same amount of fuel as the constant pressure combustor. This PGC technology, which results in a pressure gain across the combustor, relies on the Humphrey (or Atkinson) cycles and has great potential as a means of achieving higher efficiency in gas turbine power systems. The two main advantages of utilizing PGC in a gas turbine engine are: (1) it reduces the essentially unsteady nature of the combustion cycle, resulting in an increase in thermodynamic efficiency, and (2) due to the pressure increase in the combustor, it allows fewer stages in the compressor, resulting in a more compact engine.
While BIS has not identified any engines currently in production using PGC, there is substantial ongoing research regarding potential production. In part because increased fuel efficiency and the potential for a more compact engine provide military advantages such as a longer loiter time and easier packaging. PGC-based propulsion systems for rockets, space launch vehicles, missiles, and military gas turbine engines, and technology directly related thereto, are already defense articles described on the U.S. Munitions List (USML). However, it is increasingly likely that commercial industrial gas turbine engines will be produced with PGC technology, which will likely be controlled on the CCL as Section 1758 technology.
This rule adds paragraph 9E003.a.2.e to control development and production technology for combustors utilizing `pressure gain combustion' that are not described on the USML and adds a technical note to define `pressure gain combustion.' Technology controlled under ECCN 9E003.a.2.e requires a license for NS and AT reasons, respectively, for countries with an “X” listed in columns NS:1 or AT:1 on the Commerce Country Chart. A license exception (see part 740 of the EAR) may authorize a transaction that otherwise would require a license.
Shipments of items removed from license exception eligibility or eligibility for export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) without a license as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on August 30, 2022, pursuant to actual orders for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous license exception eligibility or without a license so long as they have been exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) before September 14, 2022. Any such items not actually exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) before midnight, on September 14, 2022, require a license in accordance with this interim final rule.
Shipments of items removed from license exception eligibility or eligibility for export, reexport or transfer (in-country) without a license as a result of this regulatory action that were on dock for loading, on lighter, laden aboard an exporting carrier, or en route aboard a carrier to a port of export, on October 14, 2022, pursuant to actual orders for exports, reexports, and transfers (in-country) to a foreign destination, may proceed to that destination under the previous license exception eligibility or without a license so long as they have been exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) before November 14, 2022. Any such items not actually exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) before midnight, on November 14, 2022, require a license in accordance with this interim final rule.
On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the ECRA, 50 U.S.C. Sections 4801-4852. ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.
1. Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects and distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits and of reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This interim final rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined under Executive Order 13132.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
0694-0137 “License Exceptions and Exclusions,” which carries a burden-hour estimate average of 1.5 hours per submission (Note: submissions for License Exceptions are rarely required);
0694-0096 “Five Year Records Retention Period,” which carries a burden-hour estimate of less than 1 minute; and
0607-0152 “Automated Export System (AES) Program,” which carries a burden-hour estimate of 3 minutes per electronic submission.
0694-0088, “Simplified Network Application Processing System,” which carries a burden- hour estimate of 29.4 minutes for a manual or electronic submission.
3. Pursuant to Section 1762 of the ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation and delay in effective date. However, on the recommendation of BIS's Technical Advisory Committees, there is a 30-day comment period on the implementation of the control on ECCN 3D006 and a 60-day delayed effective date with respect to the addition of ECCN 3D006 to the Commerce Control List.
Exports.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Terrorism.
Accordingly, parts 772 and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730-774) are amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
a. Silicon (Si);
b. Germanium (Ge);
c. Silicon Carbide (SiC);
d. “III/V compounds” of gallium or indium;
e. Gallium Oxide (Ga
f. Diamond.
a. Silicon Carbide (SiC), Gallium Nitride (GaN), Aluminum Nitride (AlN), Aluminum Gallium Nitride (AlGaN), Gallium Oxide (Ga
b. Polycrystalline “substrates” or polycrystalline ceramic “substrates”, having resistivities greater than 10,000 ohm-cm at 20 °C and having at least one non-epitaxial single-crystal layer of Silicon (Si), Silicon Carbide (SiC), Gallium Nitride (GaN), Aluminum Nitride (AlN), Aluminum Gallium Nitride (AlGaN), Gallium Oxide (Ga
The list of items controlled is contained in the ECCN heading.
a. “Specially designed” for implementing `Register Transfer Level' (`RTL') to `Geometrical Database Standard II' (`GDSII') or equivalent standard;
b. “Specially designed” for optimization of power or timing rules.
a. Vacuum microelectronic devices;
b. Hetero-structure semiconductor electronic devices such as high electron mobility transistors (HEMT), hetero-bipolar transistors (HBT), quantum well and super lattice devices;
c. “Superconductive” electronic devices;
d. Substrates of diamond for electronic components;
e. Substrates of Silicon-On-Insulator (SOI) for integrated circuits in which the insulator is Silicon Dioxide (SiO
f. Substrates of Silicon Carbide (SiC) for electronic components;
g. “Vacuum electronic devices” operating at frequencies of 31.8 GHz or higher;
h. Substrates of Gallium Oxide (Ga
See § 743.1 of the EAR for reporting requirements for exports under License Exceptions and Validated End-User authorizations.
a. “Technology” “required” for the “development” or “production” of any of the following gas turbine engine “parts,” “components” or systems:
a.1. Gas turbine blades, vanes or “tip shrouds”, made from Directionally Solidified (DS) or Single Crystal (SC) alloys and having (in the 001 Miller Index Direction) a stress-rupture life exceeding 400 hours at 1,273 K (1,000°C) at a stress of 200 MPa, based on the average property values;
a.2. Combustors having any of the following:
a.2.a. `Thermally decoupled liners' designed to operate at `combustor exit temperature' exceeding 1,883 K (1,610°C);
a.2.b. Non-metallic liners;
a.2.c. Non-metallic shells;
a.2. d. Liners designed to operate at `combustor exit temperature' exceeding 1,883 K (1,610°C) and having holes that meet the parameters specified by 9E003.c;
a.2.e. Utilizing `pressure gain combustion';
a.3. “Parts” or “components,” that are any of the following:
a.3.a. Manufactured from organic “composite” materials designed to operate above 588 K (315 °C);
a.3.b. Manufactured from any of the following:
a.3.b.1. Metal “matrix” “composites” reinforced by any of the following:
a.3.b.1.a. Materials controlled by 1C007;
a.3.b.1.b. “Fibrous or filamentary materials” specified by 1C010;
a.3.b.1.c. Aluminides specified by 1C002.a;
a.3.b.2. Ceramic “matrix” “composites” specified by 1C007;
a.3.c. Stators, vanes, blades, tip seals (shrouds), rotating blings, rotating blisks or `splitter ducts', that are all of the following:
a.3.c.1. Not specified in 9E003.a.3.a;
a.3.c.2. Designed for compressors or fans;
a.3.c.3. Manufactured from material controlled by 1C010.e with resins controlled by 1C008;
a.4. Uncooled turbine blades, vanes or “tip shrouds” designed to operate at a `gas path temperature' of 1,373 K (1,100 °C) or more;
a.5. Cooled turbine blades, vanes or “tip-shrouds”, other than those described in 9E003.a.1, designed to operate at a `gas path temperature' of 1,693 K (1,420 °C) or more;
a.6. Airfoil-to-disk blade combinations using solid state joining;
a.7. [Reserved]
a.8. `Damage tolerant' gas turbine engine rotor “parts” or “components” using powder metallurgy materials controlled by 1C002.b;
a.9. [Reserved]
a.10. [Reserved]
a.11. `Fan blades' having all of the following:
a.11.a. 20% or more of the total volume being one or more closed cavities containing vacuum or gas only;
a.11.b. One or more closed cavities having a volume of 5 cm
b. “Technology” “required” for the “development” or “production” of any of the following:
b.1. Wind tunnel aero-models equipped with non-intrusive sensors capable of transmitting data from the sensors to the data acquisition system;
b.2. “Composite” propeller blades or prop-fans, capable of absorbing more than 2,000 kW at flight speeds exceeding Mach 0.55;
c. “Technology” “required” for manufacturing cooling holes, in gas turbine engine “parts” or “components” incorporating any of the “technologies” specified by 9E003.a.1, 9E003.a.2 or 9E003.a.5, and having any of the following:
c.1. Having all of the following:
c.1.a. Minimum `cross-sectional area' less than 0.45 mm
c.1.b. `Hole shape ratio' greater than 4.52;
c.1.c. `Incidence angle' equal to or less than 25°;
c.2. Having all of the following:
c.2.a. Minimum `cross-sectional area' less than 0.12 mm
c.2.b. `Hole shape ratio' greater than 5.65;
c.2.c. `Incidence angle' more than 25°;
d. “Technology” “required” for the “development” or “production” of helicopter power transfer systems or tilt rotor or tilt wing “aircraft” power transfer systems;
e. “Technology” for the “development” or “production” of reciprocating diesel engine ground vehicle propulsion systems having all of the following:
e.1. `Box volume' of 1.2 m
e.2. An overall power output of more than 750 kW based on 80/1269/EEC, ISO 2534 or national equivalents;
e.3. Power density of more than 700 kW/m
f. “Technology” “required” for the “production” of “specially designed” “parts” or “components” for high output diesel engines, as follows:
f.1. “Technology” “required” for the “production” of engine systems having all of the following “parts” and “components” employing ceramics materials controlled by 1C007:
f.1.a Cylinder liners;
f.1.b. Pistons;
f.1.c. Cylinder heads;
f.1.d. One or more other “part” or “component” (including exhaust ports, turbochargers, valve guides, valve assemblies or insulated fuel injectors);
f.2. “Technology” “required” for the “production” of turbocharger systems with single-stage compressors and having all of the following:
f.2.a. Operating at pressure ratios of 4:1 or higher;
f.2.b. Mass flow in the range from 30 to 130 kg per minute;
f.2.c. Variable flow area capability within the compressor or turbine sections;
f.3. “Technology” “required” for the “production” of fuel injection systems with a “specially designed” multifuel (
f.3.a. Injection amount in excess of 230 mm
f.3.b. Electronic control features “specially designed” for switching governor characteristics automatically depending on fuel property to provide the same torque characteristics by using the appropriate sensors;
g. “Technology” “required” for the “development” or “production” of `high output diesel engines' for solid, gas phase or liquid film (or combinations thereof) cylinder wall lubrication and permitting operation to temperatures exceeding 723 K (450 °C), measured on the cylinder wall at the top limit of travel of the top ring of the piston;
h. “Technology” for gas turbine engine “FADEC systems” as follows:
h.1. “Development” “technology” for deriving the functional requirements for the “parts” or “components” necessary for the “FADEC system” to regulate engine thrust or shaft power (
h.2. “Development” or “production” “technology” for control and diagnostic “parts” or “components” unique to the “FADEC system” and used to regulate engine thrust or shaft power;
h.3. “Development” “technology” for the control law algorithms, including “source code”, unique to the “FADEC system” and used to regulate engine thrust or shaft power;
i. “Technology” for adjustable flow path systems designed to maintain engine stability for gas generator turbines, fan or power turbines, or propelling nozzles, as follows:
i.1. “Development” “technology” for deriving the functional requirements for the “parts” or “components” that maintain engine stability;
i.2. “Development” or “production” “technology” for “parts” or “components” unique to the adjustable flow path system and that maintain engine stability;
i.3. “Development” “technology” for the control law algorithms, including “source code”, unique to the adjustable flow path system and that maintain engine stability;
j. “Technology” “required” for the “development” of wing-folding systems designed for fixed-wing “aircraft” powered by gas turbine engines.
k. “Technology” not otherwise controlled in 9E003.a.1 through a.8, a.10, and .h and used in the “development”, “production”, or overhaul of hot section “parts” or “components” of civil derivatives of military engines controlled on the U.S. Munitions List.
Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury.
Final rule; Treasury decision.
The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) establishes the approximately 98,000-acre “Gabilan Mountains” viticultural area in Monterey and San Benito Counties, in California. The newly-established Gabilan Mountains viticultural area is located entirely within the existing Central Coast viticultural area and entirely encompasses the existing Mt. Harlan and Chalone viticultural areas. TTB designates viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase.
This final rule is effective September 14, 2022.
Karen A. Thornton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 1310 G Street NW, Box 12, Washington, DC 20005; phone 202-453-1039, ext. 175.
Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (FAA Act), 27 U.S.C. 205(e), authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe regulations for the labeling of wine, distilled spirits, and malt beverages. The FAA Act provides that these regulations should, among other things, prohibit consumer deception and the use of misleading
Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) authorizes TTB to establish definitive viticultural areas and regulate the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) sets forth standards for the preparation and submission to TTB of petitions for the establishment or modification of American viticultural areas (AVAs) and lists the approved AVAs.
Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region having distinguishing features as described in part 9 of the regulations and, once approved, a name and a delineated boundary codified in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to the wine's geographic origin. The establishment of AVAs allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of an AVA is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area.
Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(2)) outlines the procedure for proposing an AVA and allows any interested party to petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as an AVA. Section 9.12 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 9.12) prescribes standards for petitions to establish or modify AVAs. Petitions to establish an AVA must include the following:
• Evidence that the area within the proposed AVA boundary is nationally or locally known by the AVA name specified in the petition;
• An explanation of the basis for defining the boundary of the proposed AVA;
• A narrative description of the features of the proposed AVA affecting viticulture, such as climate, geology, soils, physical features, and elevation, that make the proposed AVA distinctive and distinguish it from adjacent areas outside the proposed AVA;
• If the proposed AVA is to be established within, or overlapping, an existing AVA, an explanation that both identifies the attributes of the proposed AVA that are consistent with the existing AVA and explains how the proposed AVA is sufficiently distinct from the existing AVA and therefore appropriate for separate recognition;
• If the petition proposes the establishment of a new AVA that is larger than, and encompasses, one or more existing AVAs, the evidence submitted under paragraph (a) of § 9.12 must include information addressing whether, and to what extent, the attributes of the proposed AVA are consistent with those of the existing AVA(s);
• The appropriate United States Geological Survey (USGS) map(s) showing the location of the proposed AVA, with the boundary of the proposed AVA clearly drawn thereon; and
• A detailed narrative description of the proposed AVA boundary based on USGS map markings.
TTB received a petition from Parker Allen of Coastview Vineyards, proposing to establish the “Gabilan Mountains” AVA. The proposed AVA is located in Monterey and San Benito Counties, in California, and lies entirely within the established Central Coast AVA (27 CFR 9.75). Additionally, the proposed AVA encompasses the established Mt. Harlan (27 CFR 9.131) and Chalone (27 CFR 9.24) AVAs. Within the proposed AVA, there are 6 commercial vineyards, which cover a total of approximately 436 acres, as well as 4 wineries. The distinguishing features of the proposed Gabilan Mountains AVA are its elevation, climate, and soils.
The proposed Gabilan Mountains AVA is located in a mountainous region with high elevations. According to the petition, the average elevation within the proposed AVA is 2,370 feet. By contrast, all surrounding regions have lower elevations. To the north of the proposed AVA, the average elevation in the Santa Clara Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.126) is 345 feet. The average elevation within the established Arroyo Seco AVA (27 CFR 9.59), located to the south of the proposed AVA, is 331 feet. To the east of the proposed AVA, the average elevation ranges from 778 feet within the established Paicenes AVA (27 CFR 9.39) to 1,105 feet within the established Cienega Valley AVA (27 CFR 9.38). West of the proposed AVA, the average elevation ranges from 480 feet within the established Monterey AVA (27 CFR 9.98) to 512 feet within the established Santa Lucia Highlands AVA (27 CFR 9.139).
According to the petition, the proposed AVA's higher elevations place it above the heavy fog and marine layer. As a result, the proposed AVA has a cool air climate without the humidity from the fog and low-lying clouds. The petition claims that the lower humidity levels significantly reduce mildew pressure in the proposed AVA, which allows growers to use less fungicide and pursue more organic practices during the growing season.
The petition states that the climate of the proposed Gabilan Mountains AVA distinguishes it from the surrounding regions, particularly with respect to fog and rainfall. According to the petition, the proposed AVA averages fewer than 2.5 hours of fog and low clouds per day each year during the months of June through September. The regions to the west and north of the proposed AVA each average nine hours of fog and low cloud cover daily, while the region to the south averages seven hours. Paicines, which is to the east of the proposed AVA and sheltered from the marine air by the Hollister Hills, receives an average of only 2 hours of fog and low cloud cover daily. According to the petition, the low amounts of fog and lack of low clouds in the proposed AVA allow grapevines more access to direct sunlight, which assists photosynthesis of the vines for proper maturation. The lack of fog and low clouds also reduces the amount of humidity in the proposed AVA, reducing the chance of mildew developing in the vineyards.
Although the proposed AVA has less fog and low cloud cover than most of the surrounding regions, annual rainfall amounts within the proposed Gabilan Mountains AVA are higher. The proposed AVA receives an average of 17.24 inches of rain each year, with over 12 inches of that total falling during the fall and winter months. The region to the north of the proposed AVA averages 14.19 inches of rain annually, while the region to the east receives 16.06 inches. To the south of the proposed AVA, the average annual rainfall total is 12.06 inches, and the amount for the region to
The petition describes the soils of the proposed Gabilan Mountains AVA as moderately coarse textured soils over a bedrock of granite. The soils are rich in calcium due to the high limestone content. The petition states that the high calcium content of the soil causes grapes to carry acid later into the growing season, allowing growers to let the grapes remain on the vines longer so that they reach physiological ripeness. The soils are primarily from the Sheridan-Cieneba-Auberry association and are well-drained to excessively drained. According to the petition, the quick-draining soils cause stress to the vines during the growing season, resulting in intense flavors and rich, hardy skins that are less frequently associated with vines grown in poorly drained soils.
By contrast, the petition states that the soils to the east and west of the proposed Gabilan Mountains AVA are medium textured soils on floodplains and alluvial fans. The petition includes a map of the soil associations of San Benito County, which includes the region to the east of the proposed AVA. According to the map, the soils east of the proposed AVA are primarily from the San Benito-Gazos-Linne association. The petition did not include information about the soils to the north and south of the proposed AVA or a soil association map showing the specific soil associations to the west of the proposed AVA.
TTB published Notice No. 206 in the
In Notice No. 206, TTB solicited comments on the accuracy of the name, boundary, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. In addition, given the proposed Gabilan Mountains AVA's location within the Central Coast AVA, TTB solicited comments on whether the evidence submitted in the petition regarding the distinguishing features of the proposed AVA sufficiently differentiates it from the established AVA. TTB also requested comments on whether the geographic features of the proposed AVA are so distinguishable from the established Central Coast AVA that the proposed AVA should no longer be part of the established AVA. Finally, because the proposed AVA encompasses the existing Mt. Harlan and Chalone AVAs, TTB requested comments on whether the proposed AVA is sufficiently different from the existing AVAs, and if the features of the proposed AVA are so different that one or both of the established AVAs should not be included within it. The comment period closed January 10, 2022.
In response to Notice No. 206, TTB received two comments. Both comments support establishing the proposed AVA. Neither comment addressed the inclusion of the Mt. Harlan and Chalone AVAs within the proposed Gabilan Mountains AVA or the proposed AVA's inclusion in the Central Coast AVA.
After careful review of the petition and the comments received in response to Notice No. 206, TTB finds that the evidence provided by the petitioner supports the establishment of the Gabilan Mountains AVA. Accordingly, under the authority of the FAA Act, section 1111(d) of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and parts 4 and 9 of the TTB regulations, TTB establishes the “Gabilan Mountains” AVA in portions of Monterey and San Benito Counties, California, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document.
TTB has also determined that the Gabilan Mountains AVA will remain part of the established Central Coast AVA. As discussed in Notice No. 206, the Gabilan Mountains AVA shares some broad characteristics with the established AVA. For example, the primary characteristic of the Central Coast AVA is its marine-influenced climate, which results in higher rainfall amounts than occur in the inland valleys on the eastern side of the Coastal Ranges. The Gabilan Mountains AVA also experiences higher annual rainfall amounts than the regions to the east of the Coastal Ranges. However, due to its higher elevations, the Gabilan Mountains AVA experiences less marine fog incursion than many of the lower elevations in the Central Coast AVA. Additionally, due to its smaller size, the soils and elevations of the Gabilan Mountains AVA are less varied than those of the large, multi-county Central Coast AVA.
Finally, TTB has determined that the Mt. Harlan and Chalone AVAs will remain a part of the Gabilan Mountains AVA. All three AVAs are high elevation AVAs that experience less marine fog than the lower neighboring regions. Like the Gabilan Mountains AVA, the Mt. Harlan AVA contains soils of the Sheridan, Cieneba, and Auberry series, and the Chalone AVA soils contain large amounts of calcium derived from limestone. However, the Mt. Harlan and Chalone AVAs also have characteristics that distinguish themselves from the Gabilan Mountains AVA and justify their continued existence as AVAs within the larger AVA. For example, both the Mt. Harlan and Chalone AVAs contain a narrower range of elevations due to their smaller size. Additionally, due to its proximity to the Hollister and Cienega Valleys that funnel storms in from the Pacific Ocean, the Mt. Harlan AVA receives more rainfall each year than the Gabilan Mountains AVA as a whole. The Chalone AVA, however, is sheltered from the Pacific storms by the Santa Lucia Mountains and receives less rainfall annually than the Gabilan Mountains AVA as a whole.
See the narrative description of the boundary of the Gabilan Mountains AVA in the regulatory text published at the end of this final rule.
The petitioners provided the required maps, and they are listed below in the regulatory text. The Gabilan Mountains AVA boundary may also be viewed on the AVA Map Explorer on the TTB website, at
Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be labeled with an AVA name or with a brand name that includes an AVA name, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by
With the establishment of the Gabilan Mountains AVA, its name, “Gabilan Mountains,” will be recognized as a name of viticultural significance under § 4.39(i)(3) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.39(i)(3)). The text of the regulations clarifies this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using the name “Gabilan Mountains” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, will have to ensure that the product is eligible to use the AVA name as an appellation of origin.
The establishment of the Gabilan Mountains AVA will not affect the existing Central Coast, Mt. Harlan, or Chalone AVAs, and any bottlers using “Central Coast,” “Mt. Harlan,” or “Chalone” as an appellation of origin or in a brand name for wines made from grapes grown within those AVAs will not be affected by the establishment of this new AVA. The establishment of the Gabilan Mountains AVA will allow vintners to use “Gabilan Mountains” and “Central Coast” as appellations of origin for wines made primarily from grapes grown within the Gabilan Mountains AVA if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for these appellations. Additionally, vintners may use “Gabilan Mountains” as an appellation of origin in addition to or in place of “Mt. Harlon” or “Chalone” for wines made primarily from grapes grown in the Mt. Harlon or Chalone AVAs if the wines meet the eligibility requirements for either of these appellations.
TTB certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirements. Any benefit derived from the use of an AVA name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required.
It has been determined that this final rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993. Therefore, no regulatory assessment is required.
Wine.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, TTB amends title 27, chapter I, part 9, Code of Federal Regulations, as follows:
27 U.S.C. 205.
(a)
(b)
(1) Hollister, CA, 2015;
(2) Mount Harlan, CA, 2015;
(3) Paicines, CA, 2015;
(4) Bickmore Canyon, CA, 2015;
(5) North Chalone Peak, CA, 2015;
(6) Soledad, CA, 2015;
(7) Mount Johnson, CA, 2015;
(8) Gonzales, CA, 2015;
(9) Natividad, CA, 2015; and
(10) San Juan Bautista, CA, 2015.
(c)
(1) The beginning point is on the Hollister map at the intersection of the 1,520-foot elevation contour and an unnamed local road known locally as San Juan Canyon Road, southeast of the southernmost intersection of San Juan Canyon Road and Hillside Road. From the beginning point, proceed south, then southeasterly along the meandering 1,520-foot elevation contour to its intersection with a west-east flowing tributary of Bird Creek in Azalea Canyon; then
(2) Proceed southeast in a straight line, crossing Azalea Canyon and the main channel of Bird Creek, to the intersection of the 1,520-foot elevation contour and a southeast-northwest flowing tributary of Bird Creek; then
(3) Proceed generally southeasterly along the 1,520-foot elevation contour to its intersection with the eastern fork of an unnamed stream; then
(4) Proceed southeast in a straight line, crossing onto the Mount Harlan map, to the intersection of the 1,600-ft elevation contour and the northernmost unnamed creek; then
(5) Proceed generally south, then north along the 1,600-foot elevation contour to its intersection with a north-south trending tributary of Pescadero Creek; then
(6) Proceed south in a straight line, crossing Pescadero Creek, to the 1,520-foot elevation contour; then
(7) Proceed easterly along the meandering 1,520-foot elevation contour, crossing onto the Paicines map, and continuing along the 1,520-foot elevation contour as it meanders back and forth between the Mount Harlan map and the Paicines map, crossing Thompson Creek and continuing along the 1,520-foot elevation contour to its intersection with the eastern fork of an unnamed intermittent stream on the Paicines map north of Three Troughs Canyon; then
(8) Proceed southeast in a straight line to a fork in a tributary of Stone Creek east of Three Troughs Canyon; then
(9) Proceed east-southeast in a straight line, crossing onto the Bickmore Canyon map, to the intersection of an unnamed tributary of the San Benito River and the 1,520-foot elevation contour; then
(10) Proceed southeasterly along the 1,520-foot elevation contour to a point north of the confluence of Willow Creek and the South Fork of Willow Creek; then
(11) Proceed south in a straight line to the confluence of Willow Creek and the South Fork of Willow Creek; then
(12) Proceed east in a straight line to State Route 25; then
(13) Proceed southeasterly along State Route 25 to its intersection with the boundary of Pinnacles National Park; then
(14) Proceed south, then east, then generally south along the boundary of Pinnacles National Park, crossing onto the North Chalone Peak map, to the intersection of the National Park boundary and the 1,520-foot elevation contour northeast of Mann Canyon; then
(15) Proceed westerly along the 1,520-foot elevation contour to its intersection with CA-146; then
(16) Proceed southwest in a straight line, crossing onto the Soledad map, to the fork in an unnamed intermittent creek running parallel to Fabry Road; then
(17) Proceed northwest in a straight line, crossing over Stonewall Creek, the unnamed intermittent creek and its tributaries in Bryant Canyon, and a second unnamed intermittent creek, to the intersection of the 1,480-foot elevation contour and the northern terminus of a third unnamed intermittent stream; then
(18) Proceed north in a straight line to the 1,520-foot elevation contour; then
(19) Proceed southwest, then generally northwest along the meandering 1,520-foot elevation contour, crossing over the Mount Johnson map and back and forth between the Gonzales map and the Mount Johnson map to the intersection of the 1,520-foot elevation contour and an unnamed tributary of Chular Creek southeast of Espinosa Canyon on the Gonzales map; then
(20) Proceed northwest in a straight line, crossing Chular Creek and Espinosa Canyon, to the 1,520-foot elevation contour; then
(21) Proceed generally northwesterly, then northeasterly along the 1,520-foot elevation contour, crossing over the Mount Harlan, Natividad, San Juan Bautista, and Hollister maps, returning to the beginning point on the Hollister map.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the Ocean City Air Show on September 18, 2022, from 12 p.m. through 3 p.m. to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event as Ocean City, NJ. During the enforcement period, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced for the Ocean City Air Show listed in table 1 to paragraph (i)(1) to § 100.501 from 12 p.m. through 3 p.m. on September 18, 2022.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, you may call or email Petty Officer Jennifer Padilla, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, telephone 215-271-4814, email
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 for the Ocean City Airshow regulated area from 12 p.m. through 3 p.m. on September 18, 2022. These actions are being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, table to § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Ocean City, New Jersey, bounded by a line connecting the following points: latitude 39°15′57″N, longitude 074°35′09″W, thence northeast to latitude 39°16′34″ N, longitude 074°33′54″W, thence southeast to latitude 39°16′17″N, longitude 074°33′29″W, thence southwest to latitude 39°15′40″N, longitude 074°34′46″W, thence northwest to point of origin, near Ocean City, NJ.
During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 100.501(g), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for the Atlantic City Ironman on September 10, 2022 to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Atlantic City, NJ. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced for the regulated areas listed in Table 1 to Paragraph (i)(1) of § 100.501 for the Atlantic City Ironman from 6 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on September 10, 2022.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Dylan Caikowski, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, telephone: 215-271-4814, Email:
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.501, for the Atlantic City Ironman from 6:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on September 10, 2022. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Atlantic City Ironman which encompasses portions of the New Jersey Intracoastal Waterway. As reflected in § 100.501(d)(2), during the enforcement periods, if you are the operator of a
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulation for the Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air Show from 8 a.m. through 3:30 p.m. on August 22, 23 and 24, 2022, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Atlantic City, NJ. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 will be enforced for the Thunder Over the Boardwalk Air Show event listed in table 1 to paragraph (i)(1) to § 100.501 from 8 a.m. through 3:30 p.m. on each of the following dates: August 22, 2022, August 23, 2022 and August 24, 2022.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, you may call or email Petty Officer Jennifer Padilla, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, telephone 215-271-4814, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the special local regulations in 33 CFR 100.501 for the Thunder Over the Boardwalk Airshow regulated area from 8 a.m. through 3:30 p.m. on August 22, 23, and 24, 2022. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this 3-day event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Thunder Over the Boardwalk Airshow which encompasses waters of the North Atlantic Ocean, adjacent to Atlantic City, New Jersey, bounded by a line drawn between the following points: From a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°21′31″ N, longitude 074°25′04″ W, thence southeasterly to latitude 39°21′08″ N, longitude 074°24′48″ W, thence southwesterly to latitude 39°20′16″ N, longitude 074°27′17″ W, thence northwesterly to a point along the shoreline at latitude 39°20′44″ N, longitude 074°27′31″ W, thence northeasterly along the shoreline to latitude 39°21′31″ N, longitude 074°25′04″ W.
During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 100.501(g), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is changing the operating schedule that governs the Lansing Island Bridge across Grand Canal, mile 0.7 at Indian Harbour Beach, FL. A request was made to the Coast Guard to allow the drawbridge to remain closed to navigation and untended during the overnight hours due to a lack of requested openings.
This rule is effective September 14, 2022.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Ms. Jennifer Zercher, Bridge Management Specialist, Seventh Coast Guard District, telephone 305-415-6740, email
On February 1, 2022, the Coast Guard published a Test Deviation, with a request for comments, entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Grand Canal, Indian Harbour Beach, FL in the
On June 2, 2022, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Grand Canal, Indian Harbour Beach, FL, in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The Lansing Island Bridge across Grand Canal, mile 0.7, at Indian Harbour Beach, FL, is a single-leaf bascule bridge with a 16-foot vertical clearance at mean high water in the closed position. The normal operating schedule for the bridge is set forth in 33 CFR 117.285(a). Navigation on the waterway consists mainly of recreational mariners.
The bridge owner, Lansing Island Homeowners Association, Inc. requested the Coast Guard consider allowing the drawbridge to remain closed to navigation and untended during the overnight hours due to a lack of requested openings. We requested a copy of the bridge logs from January 1, 2021, through November 30, 2021. After reviewing the logs, the Coast Guard found the drawbridge provided three openings between the hours of 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. Two channels provide alternate access to Grand Canal. Vessels that can pass beneath the bridge without an opening may do so at any time.
The Coast Guard provided two comment periods totaling 90 days and received zero comments.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels capable of transiting under the bridge, without an opening, may do so at any time and alternate routes for vessels to transit Grand Canal are available.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received zero comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) The draw of the Lansing Island Bridge, mile 0.7, at Indian Harbour Beach, shall open on signal, except that from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., daily, the draw need not open for the passage of vessels and will be untended.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters within a 500 foot radius of a fireworks launch barge at 38°12′29.502″N, −92°45′15.4686″W, in the main channel, of the Lake of the Ozarks. The safety zone is to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the fireworks display. Entry of vessels or persons into the zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River or a designated representative.
This rule is effective on August 26, 2022, from 8:45 p.m. through 9:45 p.m.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email MSTC Nathaniel Dibley, Waterways Management Division U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (314) 269-2550, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because we must establish this safety zone by August 26, 2022 and lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port Sector Upper Mississippi River (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks display on August 26, 2022 will be a safety concern for anyone on the Lake of the Ozarks at the designated launch location. This rule resulted from a marine event notification stating that there will be a fireworks display on the Lake of the Ozarks. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone before, during, and after the fireworks display.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 8:45 p.m. until 9:45 p.m. on August 26, 2022. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters within a 500 foot radius of a fireworks launch barge located at mile marker 7 on the Lake of the Ozarks. The duration of this zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters before, during, and after the fireworks display. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. A designated representative is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the U.S. Coast Guard assigned to units under the operational control of USCG Sector Upper Mississippi River. The COTP or a designated representative will inform the public of the enforcement date and times for these safety zones, as well as any emergent safety concerns that may delay the enforcement of the zones.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on on size, location, and duration of the temporary safety zones. This action involves a fireworks display at 38°12′29.502″N, −92°45′15.4686″W, in the main channel, on the Lake of the Ozarks on August 26, 2022. Moreover, the Coast Guard will publish a Local Notice to Mariners and mariners may seek permission to enter the zones.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 1 hour that will prohibit entry within a 500 foot radius of a fireworks launch barge. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(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 available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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)
(2) Persons or vessels desiring to enter into or pass through the zone must request permission from the COTP or a designated representative. They may be contacted on VHF radio Channel 16 or by telephone at 314-269-2332.
(3) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative while navigating in the regulated area.
(c)
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary security zone for certain navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Kiawah Island, South Carolina to prevent waterside threats and incidents for persons under the protection of the United States Secret Service. The action is necessary to protect an official party, public, and surrounding waterways from terrorist acts, sabotage or other subversive acts, accidents or other events of a similar nature. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port (COTP) Charleston, or a designated representative.
This rule is effective without actual notice from August 15, 2022 through 6 p.m. on August 17, 2022. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from 3 p.m. on August 10, 2022 until August 15, 2022.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Petty Officer Thomas Welker, Sector Charleston, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 843-740-3186, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because local authorities asked the Coast Guard to establish the security zone within 3 days of the request. Therefore, the Coast Guard lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule. Immediate action is needed to prevent vessels from approaching the location in Kiawah Island, SC of persons under the protection of the United States Secret Service (USSS protectees). It is impracticable to publish an NPRM because we must establish this security zone by August 10, 2022. It would be contrary to public interest to postpone establishing the temporary security zone.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port (COTP) Charleston has determined that the USSS protectees visit from August 10, 2022, to August 17, 2022, presents a potential target for terrorist attack, sabotage, or other subversive acts, accidents, or other causes of a similar nature. This security zone is necessary to protect the official party, public, and surrounding waterways adjacent to the visit site in Kiawah Island, South Carolina.
This rule establishes a security zone from 3 p.m. on August 10, 2022, through 6 p.m. on August 17, 2022. The security zone will cover all navigable waters of the Atlantic Ocean extending 1 mile seaward from the shoreline, into the Atlantic Ocean beginning at 32°36′15.9″ N, 080°3′53.3″ W, proceeding easterly along the shoreline to 32°36′26.6″ N, 080°2′51.9″ W.
The duration of the zone is intended ensure the security of the USSS protectees during the scheduled event. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter, transit through, anchor in or remain within the security zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. If authorization to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the security zone is granted by the COTP or a designated representative, all persons and vessels receiving such authorization must comply with the instructions of the COTP or a designated representative.
The Coast Guard will provide notice of the security zone by Broadcast Notice to Mariners, or by on-scene designated representatives. And if during this period, the USSS protectees have left the area and the COTP no longer sees a need to enforce the security zone, the COPT will issue a general permission to enter via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners. This would indicate that the zone will no longer be subject to enforcement.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and location of the security zone. The security zone is limited in size and location as it will cover 1 square mile of the Atlantic Ocean in the vicinity of Kiawah Island, South Carolina. Although persons and vessels will not be able to enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the security zone without authorization from the COTP Charleston or a designated representative, they may operate in the surrounding area during the enforcement period. Furthermore, the rule will allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone. Persons and vessels may still enter, transit through, anchor in, or remain within the security zone during the enforcement period if authorized by the Captain of the Port Charleston or a designated representative. The Coast Guard will provide advance notification of the security zone via a Broadcast Notice to Mariners, allowing mariners to make alternative plans or seek permission to transit 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
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary security zone enforced continuously for a period of 8 days, unless canceled earlier by the COTP, which will prohibit entry to a portion of the Atlantic Ocean adjacent to Kiawah Island, South Carolina. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(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 available in the docket where indicated under
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 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)
(2) Persons who must notify or request authorization from the COTP Charleston may do so by Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(d)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce the Delaware River, Philadelphia, PA; Safety Zone from 7:45 p.m. through 8:45 p.m. on September 18, 2022, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during the Mexican Independence Day fireworks display. Our regulation for fireworks displays in the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Philadelphia, PA. During the enforcement period, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulation 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the location identified in entry 10 of table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) from 7:45 p.m. through 8:45 p.m. on September 18, 2022.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Dylan Caikowski, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, telephone: (215) 271-4814, Email:
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10 for the Mexican Independence Day fireworks display from 7:45 p.m. through 8:45 p.m. on September 18, 2022. This action is necessary to ensure safety of life on the navigable waters of the United States immediately prior to, during, and immediately after the fireworks display. Our regulation for safety zones of fireworks displays in the Fifth Coast Guard District, table 1 to paragraph (h)(1) to 33 CFR 165.506, entry 10 specifies the location of the regulated area as all waters of Delaware River, adjacent to Penn's Landing, Philadelphia, PA, within a 500-yard radius of the fireworks barge position. The approximate position for the fireworks barge is latitude 39°56′50″ N, longitude 075°08′18″ W. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.506(d), vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port or designated Coast Guard patrol personnel on-scene.
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is taking final action to approve the “FINAL SIP Revision: Nogales PM
This rule is effective September 14, 2022.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-EPA-R09-OAR-2021-0869. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Lindsay Wickersham, Air Planning Office (AIR-2), EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105, 415-947-4192, or by email at
Throughout this document, “we,” “us,” and “our” refer to the EPA.
On March 2, 2022, under CAA section 110(k)(3), the EPA proposed to approve the Nogales Maintenance Plan submitted by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) on April 13, 2021, as a revision to the Arizona SIP.
In our proposed rule, under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we also proposed to grant ADEQ's request to redesignate the Nogales area from “nonattainment” to “attainment” for the 2006 PM
Please see our proposed rule for a detailed discussion of the background for this action, our procedural and substantive review of the Nogales Maintenance Plan and associated budgets, and the rationale for our proposed approval of the Nogales Maintenance Plan and for granting ADEQ's request for redesignation of the Nogales area to attainment.
Our March 2, 2022 proposed rule provided a 30-day public comment period that closed on April 1, 2022. During this comment period we received no comments on our proposal.
As discussed in the proposed rule, to identify environmental burdens and susceptible populations in underserved communities in the Nogales area, we performed a screening-level analysis using the EPA's environmental justice (EJ) screening and mapping tool (“EJSCREEN”). Our screening-level analysis included multiple environmental and demographic indicators, including the EJSCREEN “Demographic Index,” which is the average of an area's percentage of minority and low-income populations. The Demographic Index for the Nogales area is at the 95th percentile, compared to the United States as a whole.
When the EPA establishes a new or revised NAAQS, the CAA requires the EPA to designate all areas of the U.S. as either nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable. If an area is designated nonattainment of the NAAQS, the CAA provides for the EPA to redesignate the area to attainment upon a demonstration by the state authority that the criteria for a redesignation are met, including a showing that the area is currently attaining the NAAQS and will maintain the NAAQS for 10 years beyond redesignation in order to ensure that all those residing, working, attending school, or otherwise present in those areas are protected. This action addresses a plan for continued attainment of the 2006 PM
Under CAA section 110(k)(3), and for the reasons set forth in our March 2, 2022 proposed rule, the EPA is taking final action to approve the Nogales Maintenance Plan as a revision to the Arizona SIP. The EPA finds that the maintenance demonstration showing the area will continue to attain the 2006 PM
Under CAA section 107(d)(3)(D), we are also taking final action to grant ADEQ's request, which accompanied the submittal of the Nogales Maintenance Plan, to redesignate the Nogales area to attainment for the 24-hour PM
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. 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
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples, as specified in Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994), as discussed in Section IV of this proposal.
In addition, there are no areas of Indian country within the Nogales area, and the state plan for which the EPA is finalizing approval does not apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, this final action does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because redesignation is an action that affects the status of a geographical area and does not impose any new regulatory requirements on tribes, impact any existing sources of air pollution on tribal lands, nor impair the maintenance of NAAQS in tribal lands.
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 14, 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, Ammonia, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C 7401
(e) * * *
42 U.S.C 7401
Administration for Community Living, Department of Health and Human Services.
Final rule.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or the Department) is amending its regulations for the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR). These minor amendments to NIDILRR's peer review criteria allow NIDILRR to better evaluate the extent to which our grant applicants conduct outreach to people with disabilities and people from other groups that traditionally have been underserved and underrepresented, as described in Executive Order 13985, and emphasize the need for research and development activities that apply appropriate engineering knowledge and techniques within NIDILRR's Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERC) program.
These final regulations are effective September 14, 2022.
Phillip Beatty, Director, NIDILRR Office of Research Sciences, Administration for Community Living, Department of Health and Human Services, 330 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20201. Email:
ACL publishes this final rule under the authority granted to the Director of the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (the Director), under 29 U.S.C. 762(f) to provide for scientific peer review of all applications for financial assistance for research, training, and demonstrations projects over which the Director has authority; and under 29 U.S.C. 764(b)(3) to establish and support Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs).
The HHS regulation for NIDILRR programs was developed and finalized in 2016 following the transfer of NIDILRR to ACL and HHS from the Department of Education, as required by the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) of 2014. NIDILRR's mission is to generate new knowledge and to promote its effective use to improve the abilities of individuals with disabilities to perform
This final rule provides minor but important updates to the NIDILRR rule at 45 CFR part 1330).
The first update to 45 CFR part 1330 is directly responsive to Executive Order 13985,
To better promote applicants' hiring of people with disabilities, and people from other underserved communities—we proposed to revise 45 CFR 1330.24(n) to disaggregate these populations into two distinct peer review subcriteria. Disaggregation of people with disabilities and people from other underserved communities into separate subcriteria allows peer reviewers to more directly evaluate and score the extent to which grant applicants encourage applications for employment from people in each of these distinct groups. ACL also proposes a conforming amendment to 45 CFR 1330.23(b) reflecting this revision to the selection criteria. As a result of these changes, applicants will be required to describe their outreach practices with respect to people with disabilities and other specific groups, separately and distinctly. ACL intends for grant applicants to provide quantitative and/or qualitative information regarding these disaggregated groups in the narrative of their proposal, and for peer reviewers to accordingly use this information to evaluate and score each individual application.
The second update to 45 CFR part 1330 is intended to better emphasize the need for engineering research and development (R&D) activities in NIDILRR's RERC program funding opportunities. The update would add sub-criteria under both the “Design of Research Activities” (45 CFR 1330.24(c)) and “Design of Development Activities” (45 CFR 1330.24(d)) to allow reviewers to evaluate the extent to which applicants are proposing engineering knowledge and methods that are appropriate to the research questions and development aims described in their RERC applications. The absence of such engineering-focused criteria have led to some RERC grants that are not optimally using engineering R&D methods as envisioned in the statutory language that authorizes and names the RERC program. See 29 U.S.C. 764(b)(3).
We received fourteen public comments from six individuals, five stakeholder associations, and three university departments. We have reviewed all of the public comments received and considered the concerns raised by all stakeholders. As a result, we have made revisions to the proposed regulations at 45 CFR 1330.24. Specifically, we have modified 45 CFR 1330.24(c), (d), and (n). See Section IV “Provisions of the Final Regulations” for detailed description of these changes. A summary of the comments received and our responses to those comments appear in the paragraphs below.
While NIDILRR does not provide scoring rubrics with its scoring criteria and subcriteria in 45 CFR 1330(n), by including this clarification in the sub-criterion we specifically allow grant applicants to describe, and reviewers to evaluate the extent to which applicant organizations encourage applications from people with disabilities who have the greatest support needs.
ACL intends for grant applicants to respond to our disaggregated subcriteria with qualitative or quantitative information, or both, in the narrative of their proposal. Peer reviewers will use this information to evaluate and score each individual application. As revised for this final rule, nothing in the proposed subcriteria language compels applicants to provide quantitative data that would require applicants or their potential employees to disclose disability or other individual characteristics.
NIDILRR intentionally does not further interpret these review criteria that come from our program regulations or provide guidance to applicants or reviewers on the application of any of the criteria. We rely on individual reviewers to consistently apply these and other criteria for each of the grant applications they are reviewing. This approach to peer review, which is commonly used and accepted within the scientific community, allows reviewers with different perspectives and areas of expertise to participate meaningfully in the peer review process.
The same logic and approach apply under our proposed subcriteria related to engineering. As noted by the commenters, there are a wide range of engineering specialties and approaches that we could further define, including but not limited to biomedical engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and software development and computer science. NIDILRR's intent, however, is for reviewers to evaluate the extent to which RERC applicants are applying engineering knowledge and techniques that are appropriate to address the aims and objectives of the proposed RERC grant.
To better reflect this specific intent, NIDILRR is modifying our two proposed subcriteria by adding “appropriate” prior to the word engineering.
In this final rule, we are adopting the provisions in the January 10 proposed rule, with the following changes:
Revised proposed 45 CFR 1330.24(c)(5) to add “appropriate” prior to the word engineering.
Revised proposed 45 CFR 1330.24(d)(4) to add “appropriate” prior to the word engineering.
Revised proposed 45 CFR 1330.24(n)(1) to specify that people with disabilities may include, but are not limited to, people with disabilities who have the greatest support needs.
Revised proposed 45 CFR 1330.24(n)(1) to delete “and hires.”
Revised proposed 45 CFR 1330.24(n)(2) to delete “and hires.”
Revised proposed 45 CFR 1330.24(n)(2) to add “other.”
E.O. 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” and E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if the regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits.
OMB determined that the rulemaking was not an economically significant regulatory action under these E.O.s. The preambles to this rule maintained that it primarily described procedural changes that would require Department expenditures to implement.
The Department has examined the economic implications of this final rule as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
E.O. 13132, Federalism, 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on state and local governments or has federalism implications. The Department has determined that this final rule would not impose such costs or have any federalism implications.
HHS has analyzed this final rule in accordance with the principles set forth in E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, 65 FR 67249 (Nov. 6, 2000). HHS has determined that the final rule does not contain policies that would 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. In accordance with the Department's Tribal consultation policy, the Department solicited comments from tribal officials on any potential impact on Indian Tribes prior to promulgating this final rule.
HHS had determined that this final rule would not have a significant impact on the environment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and its implementing regulations, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521; 5 CFR part 1320, appendix A.1, the Department has reviewed this final rule and has determined that it does not establish new collections of information.
Alison Barkoff, Acting Administrator Administration for Community Living approved this document on July 13, 2022.
Disability, Grant programs, Research.
Accordingly, ACL amends 45 CFR part 1330 as follows:
29 U.S.C. 709, 3343.
(b) In considering selection criteria in § 1330.24, the Director selects one or more of the factors listed in the criteria, but always considers the factors in § 1330.24(n) regarding people with disabilities, and members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, ethnicity, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or age.
(c) * * *
(5) The extent to which research activities use appropriate engineering knowledge and techniques to collect, analyze, or synthesize research data.
(d) * * *
(4) The extent to which development activities apply appropriate engineering knowledge and techniques to achieve development objectives.
(n)
(1) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from people with disabilities, who may include but are not limited to people with disabilities who have the greatest support needs.
(2) The extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from people who are members of other groups that have traditionally been underrepresented in research professions based on race, ethnicity, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation and gender identity), or age.
(3) The extent to which the key personnel and other key staff have appropriate training and experience in disciplines required to conduct all proposed activities.
(4) The extent to which the commitment of staff time is adequate to accomplish all the proposed activities of the project.
(5) The extent to which the key personnel are knowledgeable about the methodology and literature of pertinent subject areas.
(6) The extent to which the project staff includes outstanding scientists in the field.
(7) The extent to which key personnel have up-to-date knowledge from research or effective practice in the subject area covered in the priority.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD) 99-23-18, AD 2005-03-07, AD 2013-12-07, and AD 2014-04-07, which apply to certain Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (now Bell Textron Canada Limited) Model 407 helicopters. AD 99-23-18 requires revising the life limits for certain parts, replacing each part that has exceeded its life limit, and revising the Airworthiness Limitation Section (ALS) of the existing maintenance manual. AD 2005-03-07 requires establishing a maximum accumulated Retirement Index Number (RIN) count for certain crosstube assemblies and revising the ALS of the existing maintenance manual. AD 2013-12-07 requires inspecting the tailboom assembly for a crack, loose rivet, or other damage and depending on the inspection results, replacing certain parts. AD 2014-04-07 requires preflight checking, repetitively inspecting for a crack in certain tailbooms, modifying and re-identifying certain tailbooms, installing an improved horizontal stabilizer assembly, and revising the ALS of the existing maintenance manual. Since the FAA issued those ADs, a report was received of a crack on the tailboom lower skin due to fatigue damage and new and more restrictive airworthiness limitations have been issued. This proposed AD would require incorporating into existing maintenance records requirements (airworthiness limitations) as specified in the ALS service information. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 29, 2022.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information that is identified in this NPRM, contact Bell Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J 1R4, Canada; telephone 1-450-437-2862 or 1-800-363-8023; fax 1-450-433-0272; email
You may examine the AD docket at
Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7330; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7330; email
The FAA issued AD 99-23-18, Amendment 39-11414 (64 FR 61784, November 15, 1999) (AD 99-23-18) for all Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (now Bell Textron Canada Limited) Model 407 helicopters. AD 99-23-18 was prompted by an engineering evaluation of additional flight test data, which resulted in redefining the service life for certain parts and revising the ALS of the existing maintenance manual AD 99-23-18 requires before further flight, revising the life limits for certain parts, and replacing each part that has exceeded its life limit with an airworthy part. AD 99-23-18 also requires revising the ALS of the existing maintenance manual to reflect these new life limits and annotating the component history card or equivalent record with the revised life limits.
The FAA issued AD 2005-03-07, Amendment 39-13963 (70 FR 7016, February 10, 2005) (AD 2005-03-07) for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (now Bell Textron Canada Limited) Model 407 helicopters with landing gear crosstube assemblies, part number (P/N) 407-050-101-101 and -103; P/N 407-050-102-101 and -103; P/N 407-050-201-101 and -103; P/N 407-050-202-101 and -103; P/N 407-704-007-119; P/N 407-722-101; P/N 407-723-104; P/N 407-724-101; or P/N 407-725-104, installed. AD 2005-03-07 was prompted by fatigue testing, analysis, and evaluation by the manufacturer that determined that run-on landings impose a high stress on landing gear or crosstubes and may cause cracking in the area above the skid tube saddle. AD 2005-03-07 requires before further flight, establishing a component history card or equivalent record, converting accumulated run-on landings to an accumulated RIN count, and establishing a maximum accumulated RIN for certain crosstube assemblies. AD 2005-03-07 also requires replacing any crosstube assembly before it exceeds the maximum RIN life limit and revising the ALS of the existing maintenance manual to reflect this new life limit.
The FAA issued AD 2013-12-07, Amendment 39-17485 (78 FR 38546, June 27, 2013) (AD 2013-12-07) for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (now Bell Textron Canada Limited) Model 407 helicopters with tailboom assembly P/N 407-030-801-201, 407-030-801-203, or 407-030-801-205, installed. AD 2013-12-07 was prompted by a stress analysis of the tailboom skin that revealed that high-stress-concentration areas are susceptible to skin cracking. AD 2013-12-07 requires for tailboom assemblies with 8,600 or more hours time-in-service (TIS), or with an unknown number of hours TIS, before the first flight of each day, inspecting the tailboom assembly for a crack; or within 25 hours TIS, or 30 days, whichever comes first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, inspecting for a crack around each fastener and above the edge of the upper stabilizer support. AD 2013-12-07 also requires for certain tailboom assemblies with 6,900 or more hours TIS, within 25 hours TIS or 30 days, whichever occurs first, inspecting the tailboom assembly for a crack by using either a 10X or higher power magnifying glass and thereafter inspecting at intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS; or by eddy current inspecting and thereafter inspecting at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS.
Additionally, AD 2013-12-07 requires, within 100 hours TIS or at the next tailboom inspection, whichever occurs first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, inspecting the tailboom assembly for a crack, loose rivet, or other damage. Depending on the inspection results, AD 2013-12-07 requires if there is a crack, before further flight replacing the tailboom assembly with an airworthy part.
The FAA issued AD 2014-04-07, Amendment 39-17766 (79 FR 35481, June 23, 2014) (AD 2014-04-07) for Bell Helicopter Textron Canada (now Bell Textron Canada Limited) Model 407 helicopters serial numbers (S/Ns) 53000 through 53475, with tailboom P/N 407-030-801-101, -105, or -107, or 407-530-014-101 or -103, installed. AD 2014-04-07 was prompted by additional reports of cracked tailboom skins. AD 2014-04-07 requires for certain part-numbered tailbooms that have not been modified, conducting daily preflight checks of the tailboom for a crack; and for tailbooms with 600 or more hours TIS, within 25 hours TIS, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, visually inspecting the tailboom for a crack using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, and within 600 hours TIS but not later than 30 days modifying and re-identifying certain part-numbered tailbooms, and installing an improved horizontal stabilizer assembly. AD 2014-04-07 also requires for certain part-numbered tailbooms, after the modification, before further flight, establishing a component history card or equivalent record, and revising the existing ALS of the maintenance manual to reflect a new life limit.
AD 2014-04-07 also requires, for certain part-number tailbooms, within 25 hours TIS or 30 days, whichever occurs first, daily visual inspections of the tailboom for a crack, and within 100 hours TIS and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS, using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass, inspecting each tailboom for a loose rivet, crack, skin corrosion, or any other damage. Depending on the inspection results, AD 2014-04-07 requires corrective actions, including, if there is a crack, replacing the tailboom assembly before further flight.
Since the FAA issued AD 99-23-18, AD 2005-03-07, AD 2013-12-07, and AD 2014-04-07, Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, issued AD CF-2021-34, dated October 22, 2021 (Transport Canada AD CF-2021-34), to correct an unsafe condition for Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 407 helicopters, S/N 53000 through 53900, 53911 through 54166, and 54300 and subsequent. Transport Canada advises of a report of a crack on the tailboom lower skin due to fatigue damage, which could affect the structural integrity of the tailboom. Transport Canada advises that Bell Textron Canada Limited issued a revision to the ALS, which adds a new inspection zone for tailboom assemblies to address the unsafe condition.
Accordingly, Transport Canada AD CF-2021-34 requires compliance with Bell BHT-407-MPI, Chapter 04, ALS, Issue 3, dated June 21, 2021, of Bell Model 407 Maintenance Planning Information, PMC-407-97499-01000-00, Issue No. 005, dated July 6, 2022 (BHT-407-MPI, ALS Issue 3), which includes maintenance tasks and life limits for the tailboom and other parts. The FAA is proposing this AD to prevent failure of a part, which could result in loss of control of the helicopter.
Additionally, although AD 99-23-18 and AD 2005-03-07 were prompted by unsafe conditions not related to the tailboom crack that prompted this proposed AD, the actions required to address the unsafe conditions in AD 99-23-18 and AD 2005-03-07 are included in BHT-407-MPI, ALS Issue 3. Therefore, the FAA is superseding AD 99-23-18, AD 2005-03-07, AD 2013-12-07, and AD 2014-04-07, in order to reduce the burden on operators by requiring compliance with a single AD in lieu of multiple FAA ADs.
AD 99-23-18 requires reducing the life limit for drive ring set P/N 406-010-126-107 from 49,000 RIN to 48,000 RIN, and replacing each part that has exceeded its life limit. BHT-407-MPI, ALS Issue 3 states the life limit for drive
AD 2005-03-07 requires establishing a maximum accumulated RIN for certain crosstube assemblies of 5,000 RIN and replacing any crosstube assembly before it exceeds the maximum accumulated RIN. BHT-407-MPI, ALS Issue 3 adds an additional life limit to certain part-numbered crosstube assemblies of 2,500 landings or 5,000 RIN.
AD 2013-12-07 requires for tailboom assemblies with P/N 407-030-801-201, 407-030-801-203, or 407-030-801-205 and with 8,600 or more hours TIS, or with an unknown number of hours TIS, inspecting the tailboom assembly for a crack within 25 hours TIS or 30 days, whichever comes first; and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 50 hours TIS, inspecting for a crack. AD 2013-12-07 also requires for tailboom assemblies with 6,900 or more hours TIS, inspecting the tailboom assembly for a crack within 25 hours TIS or 30 days, whichever comes first. Thereafter AD 2013-12-07 requires either inspecting using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass and thereafter repeating that inspection at intervals not to exceed 150 hours TIS or eddy current inspecting and thereafter repeating the eddy current inspection at intervals not to exceed 500 hours TIS. AD 2013-12-07 also requires within 100 hours TIS or at the next tailboom inspection, whichever comes first, and thereafter at intervals not to exceed 300 hours TIS, inspecting the tailboom assembly for a loose rivet, crack, or other damage.
BHT-407-MPI, ALS Issue 3 adds tailboom assembly P/N 407-530-013-105 and successive dash numbers, and also specifies for tailboom assembly P/N 407-530-013-105 and successive dash numbers and P/N 407-030-801-201 and successive dash numbers, inspecting for a crack every 300 hours; and for tailbooms that have accumulated 6,900 or more hours in service inspecting every 150 hours using a 10X magnifying glass inspection method, or eddy current inspecting every 500 hours; and for tailboom assemblies that have accumulated 8,600 or more hours in service, or with total time unknown, inspecting for a crack either with a daily visual inspection or with a 10X magnifying glass inspection method at intervals not to exceed 50 hours. Additionally, BHT-407-MPI, ALS Issue 3 specifies additional inspection zones, intervals, and criteria.
AD 2014-04-07 requires modifying and re-identifying tailboom P/N 407-030-801-101 as 407-530-014-101, and P/N 407-030-801-105 as P/N 407-530-014-103. AD 2014-04-07 also requires for tailboom P/N 407-530-014-101 and -103, and P/N 407-030-801-107, establishing a retirement life of 5,000 hours TIS, and daily checks for a crack and recurring inspections using a 10X or higher power magnifying glass at intervals not to exceed 100 hours TIS for a loose rivet, a crack, skin corrosion, or other damage. BHT-407-MPI, ALS Issue 3 specifies for tailboom P/N 407-530-014-101 and successive dash numbers, and P/N 407-030-801-107 and successive dash numbers, daily and recurring inspections for a crack every 100 hours TIS. BHT-407-MPI, ALS Issue 3 also revises the inspection areas.
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada, its technical representative, has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after evaluating all known relevant information and determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed BHT-407-MPI, ALS Issue 3, which specifies certain actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits and maintenance tasks. These requirements (airworthiness limitations) include new inspection zones and new maintenance tasks (
This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This proposed AD would supersede AD 99-23-18, AD 2005-03-07, AD 2013-12-07, and AD 2014-04-07, and would require incorporating into existing maintenance records requirements (airworthiness limitations), which are identified in BHT-407-MPI, ALS Issue 3, as described previously.
The FAA has previously mandated airworthiness limitations by mandating each airworthiness limitation task (
Transport Canada AD CF-2021-34 does not supersede any previously issued Transport Canada ADs, whereas this proposed AD would supersede FAA AD 99-23-18, AD 2005-03-07, AD 2013-12-07, and AD 2014-04-07. The airworthiness limitations specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2021-34 encompass the requirements of AD 99-23-18, AD 2005-03-07, AD 2013-12-07, and AD 2014-04-07.
Additionally, Transport Canada AD CF-2021-34 is applicable to certain serial-numbered Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 407 helicopters, whereas this proposed AD would be applicable to all serial-numbered Model 407 helicopters.
The service information specifies replacing each component before exceeding the applicable airworthiness life limit, accomplishing all applicable maintenance tasks within the defined thresholds and intervals, and performing the specified corrective action(s) if a defect is found during the inspection, whereas this proposed AD would require incorporating requirements (airworthiness limitations) into existing maintenance records within 30 days after the effective date of the AD.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 791 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA
Incorporating requirements (airworthiness limitations) into existing maintenance records would take about 2 work-hours for an estimated cost of $170 per helicopter and $134,470 for the U.S. fleet.
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 determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by September 29, 2022.
This AD replaces the ADs specified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this AD.
(1) AD 99-23-18, Amendment 39-11414 (64 FR 61784, November 15, 1999).
(2) AD 2005-03-07, Amendment 39-13963 (70 FR 7016, February 10, 2005).
(3) AD 2013-12-07, Amendment 39-17485 (78 FR 38546, June 27, 2013).
(4) AD 2014-04-07, Amendment 39-17766 (79 FR 35481, June 23, 2014).
The requirements of this AD capture the latest tasks and life limits required to prevent the unsafe conditions addressed by the ADs that are identified in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this AD.
This AD applies to all Bell Textron Canada Limited (type certificate previously held by Bell Helicopter Textron Canada Limited) Model 407 helicopters, certificated in any category.
Joint Aircraft Service Component (JASC) Code: 5300, Fuselage Structure.
This AD was prompted by a report of a crack on the tailboom lower skin due to fatigue damage and the issuance of new and more restrictive airworthiness limitations. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of a part, which could result in loss of control of the helicopter.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 30 days after the effective date of this AD, incorporate into maintenance records required by 14 CFR 91.417(a)(2) or 135.439(a)(2), as applicable for your helicopter, the requirements (airworthiness limitations) specified in Bell BHT-407-MPI, Chapter 04, Airworthiness Limitations Schedule, Issue 3, dated June 21, 2021, of Bell Model 407 Maintenance Planning Information, PMC-407-97499-01000-00, Issue No. 005, dated July 6, 2022.
After the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD have been done, no alternative requirements (airworthiness limitations) are allowed unless they are approved as an alternative method of compliance (AMOC) in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD.
Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with 14 CFR 21.197 and 21.199, provided no passengers are onboard.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (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 local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Andrea Jimenez, Aerospace Engineer, COS Program Management Section, Operational Safety Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1600 Stewart Ave., Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone (516) 228-7330; email
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J 1R4, Canada; telephone 1-450-437-2862 or 1-800-363-8023; fax 1-450-433-0272; email
(3) The subject of this AD is addressed in Transport Canada AD CF-2021-34, dated October 22, 2021. You may view the Transport Canada AD on the internet at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that the path for the grounding wire of the engine fire shut off valve (FSOV) is routed through the wing trailing edge, which is not the shortest path available. This proposed AD would require modifying the wiring between the inboard fixed leading edge in the wing and in the forward cargo compartment on the left- and right-hand sides, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by September 29, 2022.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For material that will be incorporated by reference (IBR) in this AD, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
You may examine the AD docket at
Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; email
EASA, which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA AD 2022-0088, dated May 17, 2022 (EASA AD 2022-0088) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for certain Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes.
This proposed AD was prompted by a report that the path for the grounding wire of the engine FSOV is routed through the wing trailing edge, which is not the shortest path available. This proposed AD introduces a new engine FSOV grounding wire routed through the leading edge route, which will require formerly installed cables on the wing trailing edge to be disconnected at the equipment side. By introducing the new route that is the shortest available path, the engine FSOV grounding wire will have improved protection from an uncontained engine rotor failure. The FAA is proposing this AD to address an increased possibility of an engine FSOV unavailability in the event of an uncontained engine rotor failure, which could result in an uncontrolled engine fire. See the MCAI for additional background information.
EASA AD 2022-0088 specifies procedures for modifying the wiring between the inboard fixed leading edge in the wing and in the forward cargo compartment on the left- and right-hand sides. This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in the
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in EASA AD 2022-0088 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate EASA AD 2022-0088 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with EASA AD 2022-0088 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in EASA AD 2022-0088 does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “all required actions and compliance times,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Required Action(s) and Compliance Time(s)” in EASA AD 2022-0088. Service information required by EASA AD 2022-0088 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this proposed AD would affect 30 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
According to the manufacturer, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected individuals. The FAA does not control warranty coverage for affected individuals. As a result, the FAA has included all known costs in the cost estimate.
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 determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by September 29, 2022.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus SAS Model A350-941 airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2022-
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 29, Hydraulic power.
This AD was prompted by a report that the path for the grounding wire of the engine fire shut off valve (FSOV) is routed through the wing trailing edge, which is not the shortest path available. The FAA is issuing this AD to address an increased possibility of an engine FSOV unavailability in the event of an uncontained engine rotor failure, which could result in an uncontrolled engine fire.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, EASA AD 2022-0088.
(1) Where EASA AD 2022-0088 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) The “Remarks” section of EASA AD 2022-0088 does not apply to this AD.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) For EASA AD 2022-0088, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; telephone +49 221 8999 000; email
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Dan Rodina, Aerospace Engineer, Large Aircraft Section, FAA, International Validation Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3225; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend five area navigation (RNAV) routes (T-224, T-314, T-315, T-325, and Q-68), and establish two RNAV routes (T-303, and T-360). These routes would support the FAA VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program, and would expand the availability of RNAV routing in the National Airspace System (NAS).
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2022.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (800) 647-5527 or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0932; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-22 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV routes in the NAS, increase airspace capacity, and reduce complexity in high air traffic volume areas.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0932; Airspace Docket No. 21-
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0932; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-22.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021 and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 CFR part 71 to amend five area navigation (RNAV) routes (T-224, T-314, T-315, T-325, and Q-68), and establish two RNAV routes (T-303, and T-360).
These changes would provide RNAV routing to supplement VOR Federal airways that will be impacted by the VOR MON program, and support the transition to a more efficient Performance Based Navigation route structure.
Low altitude United States Area Navigation routes are published in paragraph 6011, and high altitude United States Area Navigation Routes are published in paragraph 2006, respectively, of FAA Order 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV routes listed in this document would be subsequently published in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend three low altitude Area Navigation (RNAV) routes (T-routes), and establish three T-routes to augment the VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The purpose is to enhance the efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) by transitioning from a ground-based to a satellite-based navigation system.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2022.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0941; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-27 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV in the northeast United States and improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS by lessening the dependency on ground-based navigation.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0941; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-27) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0941; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-27.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend three low altitude RNAV T-routes, and establish six T-routes in the northeast United States to augment the VOR MON Program.
The amended route would overlay portions of airway V-46 from Nantucket to Calverton. It would overlay airway V-44 from the BELTT WP to the PAWLN WP. As amended, T-705 would extend from Nantucket, MA, to MUTNA, NY.
United States Area Navigation (RNAV) routes are published in paragraph 6011, and Canadian Area Navigation routes are published in paragraph 6013, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The RNAV routes listed in this document would be subsequently published in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-35 and V-260 in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2022.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building, Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (800) 647-5527 or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0939; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-25 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the VOR Federal airway route structure in the eastern United States to maintain the efficient flow of air traffic.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0939; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-25) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0939; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-25.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify VOR Federal airways V-35 and V-260. The proposed route changes are described below.
Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Dolphin, FL; INT Dolphin 266° and Cypress, FL, 110° radials; INT Cypress 110° and Lee County, FL, 138° radials; Lee County; INT Lee County 326° and St. Petersburg, FL, 152° radials; St. Petersburg; INT St. Petersburg 350° and Cross City, FL, 168° radials; Cross City; Greenville, FL; Pecan, GA; Macon, GA; INT Macon 005° and Athens, GA, 195° radials; Athens; Electric City, SC; Sugarloaf Mountain, NC; Holston Mountain, TN; Glade Spring, VA; Charleston, WV; INT Charleston 051° and Elkins, WV, 264° radials; Clarksburg, WV to Morgantown, WV.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to modify five VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways, and remove one airway. This action supports the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2022.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (800) 647-5527 or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0940; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-26 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0940; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-26) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0940; Airspace Docket No. 21-ASO-26.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to modify VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-67, V-159, V-185, V-209, and V-379; and remove airway V-541. The proposed route changes are described below.
As amended, V-209 would extend From Semmes, AL, to the intersection of the of the Semmes 356° and the Eaton, MS 080° radials; and From the intersection of the Bigbee, MS 139° and the Brookwood, AL 230° radials, to Gadsden, AL.
Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways listed in this document would be subsequently published in and removed from FAA Order JO 7400.11.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From INT Centralia 010° and Vandalia, IL, 162° radials; Vandalia; Spinner, IL; Burlington, IA; Iowa City, IA; Cedar Rapids, IA; Waterloo, IA; to Rochester, MN.
From Virginia Key, FL: INT Virginia Key 344° and Treasure, FL, 178° radials; Treasure; INT Treasure 318° and Orlando, FL, 140° radials; Orlando; Ocala, FL; Cross City, FL; Greenville, FL; Pecan, GA; Eufaula, AL; INT Eufaula, 320° and Vulcan, AL 139° radials to Vulcan. From Holly Springs, MS; Gilmore, AR; Walnut Ridge, AR; Dogwood, MO; Springfield, MO; Napoleon, MO; INT Napoleon 005° and St. Joseph, MO, 122° radials; St. Joseph; to Omaha, IA.
From Savannah, GA; INT Savannah 335° and Colliers, SC, 150° radials; to Colliers. From Snowbird, TN; INT Snowbird 301° and Volunteer, TN, 069° radials; to Volunteer.
From Semmes, AL, to INT Semmes 356° and Eaton, MS, 080° radials. From INT Bigbee, MS 139° and Brookwood, AL 230° radials; Brookwood; Vulcan, AL; INT Vulcan 097° and Gadsden, AL, 233° radials; to Gadsden.
From INT Westminster, MD 167° and Smyrna, DE 242° radials; to Smyrna.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Stephens Memorial Hospital Heliport, Norway, ME, to accommodate area navigation (RNAV) global positioning system (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving this heliport. Also, this action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Oxford County Regional Airport, Oxford, ME, by updating the airport's geographic coordinates, and removing unnecessary verbiage from the airport description. Controlled airspace is necessary for the safety and management of instrument flight rules (IFR) operations in the area.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2022.
Send comments on this proposal to: the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify the Docket No. FAA-2022-0903; Airspace Docket No. 22-ANE-8 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order JO 7400.11F Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
John Fornito, Operations Support Group, Eastern Service Center, Federal Aviation Administration, 1701 Columbia Avenue, College Park, GA 30337; Telephone (404) 305-6364.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority, as it would establish airspace in Norway, ME, and amend airspace in Oxford, ME, to support IFR operations in the area.
Interested persons are invited to comment on this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2022-0903 and Airspace Docket No. 22-ANE-8) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0903; Airspace Docket No. 22-ANE-8.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Stephens Memorial Hospital Heliport, Norway, ME, to accommodate RNAV GPS standard instrument approach procedures (SIAPs) serving this heliport. This action would also amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Oxford County Regional Airport, Oxford, ME, by updating the airport's geographic coordinates to coincide with the FAA's database, and removing `excluding that airspace within the Auburn, ME Class E airspace area' from the airport description, as it is unnecessary verbiage, as per Order 7400.2N.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures”, prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.0-mile radius of Stephens Memorial Hospital Heliport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 9.6-mile radius of Oxford County Regional Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish three low altitude United States Area Navigation (RNAV) routes (T-routes) in support of the VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Minimum Operational Network (MON) Program. The purpose is to enhance the efficiency of the National Airspace System (NAS) by transitioning from a ground-based to a satellite-based navigation system.
Comments must be received on or before September 29, 2022.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: (800) 647-5527, or (202) 366-9826. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0931; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-20 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would expand the availability of RNAV in the eastern United States and improve the efficient flow of air traffic within the NAS by lessening the dependency on ground-based navigation.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0931; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-20) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management Facility (see
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-0931; Airspace Docket No. 21-AEA-20.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received on or before the specified comment closing date will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the comment closing date. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to establish three low altitude RNAV T-routes, designated T-307, T-324, and T-335, in the northeast United States to support the VOR MON Program and the transition from ground-based navigation aids.
In the description of T-307, the following waypoints (WP) are used in place of VORTACs or VHF Omnidirectional Range/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME) facilities as indicated. The OUTLA, VA, WP replaces the Cape Charles, VA (CCV), VORTAC. The ZJAAY, MD, WP replaces the Snow Hill, MD (SWL), VORTAC. The WNSTN, NJ, WP replaces
In the T-324 description, the BRVRY WP replaces the Kessel VOR/DME, and the JIIMS, NJ, WP, replaces the Cedar Lake VOR/DME.
In the description of T-335, WPs will replace certain VORTACs as follows. The ZJAAY, MD, WP replaces the Snow Hill, MD (SWL), VORTAC. The TRPOD, MD, WP replaces the Salisbury, MD (SBY), VORTAC. The BYEDN, DE, WP replaces the Dupont, DE (DQO), VORTAC. The LIMRK, PA, WP replaces the Pottstown, PA (PTW), VORTAC. The WLKES, PA, WP replaces the Wilkes-Barre, PA (LVZ), VORTAC.
The full descriptions of the above routes are listed in the proposed amendments to part 71 set forth below.
United States Area Navigation routes are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The United States Area Navigation routes listed in this document would be subsequently published in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notification of limited reopening of rulemaking record; notification of postponement of public hearing.
OSHA is reopening the comment period for an additional 60 days to allow for additional public comment on specific topics. Additionally, OSHA is postponing the tentatively scheduled informal public hearing. Before making any decisions about future proceedings, OSHA will review all of the comments on the proposal, including any comments submitted during the reopening of the comment period. Thus, any further decisions about the scheduling of a hearing are in abeyance until that time. Announcements about any future hearing dates will be published by notice in the
Written comments in response to OSHA's reopening of the comment period must be submitted to Docket No. OSHA-2021-0012 by October 14, 2022.
Documents submitted to the docket by OSHA or stakeholders are assigned document identification numbers (Document ID) for easy identification and retrieval. The full Document ID is the docket number plus a unique four-digit code. For example, the full Document ID number for the comment submitted by the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) and the Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health (ADOSH), which is discussed in more detail below, is Document ID OSHA-2021-0012-0228. OSHA will identify this comment, and other comments in the rulemaking, by the term “Document ID” followed by the comment's unique four-digit code.
Electronic copies of this
On April 21, 2022, OSHA published a Notice of Proposed Reconsideration and Revocation of Final Approval of the Arizona State Plan for Occupational Safety and Health (Notice) (87 FR 23783). Comments were initially due on May 26, 2022. In response to requests from the public, OSHA extended the comment period to July 5, 2022 (87 FR 31442). OSHA received 197 comments concerning the proposal during the comment period. The April 21, 2022 document tentatively scheduled an informal public hearing on the proposal to begin on August 16, 2022.
On July 5, 2022, the last day of the comment period, the Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) and its sub-agency, the Arizona Division of Occupational Safety and Health (ADOSH), submitted a comment on the proposal (Document ID 0228). Therein, the ICA and ADOSH stated that Arizona has completed a number of measures to address the concerns OSHA identified
• Arizona has updated all of its State Plan Application (“SPA”) portal entries to accurately reflect adoption dates for National Emphasis Programs (NEPs) and final rules.
• Arizona is in the final stage of the rulemaking process to adopt the following final rules: Standards Improvement Project Phase-IV (“SIP-IV”); Beryllium in Construction and Shipyards; and Cranes and Derricks in Construction: Railroad Roadway Work.
• The ICA adopted an increase to the minimum penalties for serious and non-serious violations to match OSHA minimums on October 21, 2021.
• On June 23, 2022, the Arizona Legislature passed House Bill (“HB”) 2120, amending A.R.S. § 23-418 to tie the statutory ADOSH maximum penalties (and minimum penalties for willful/repeat violations) to the corresponding OSHA maximum and minimum penalty levels, with annual adjustments for inflation.
• HB 2120 also amended A.R.S. § 23-414 to authorize adoption of an Emergency Temporary Standard (“ETS”) when either the ICA
• Arizona adopted the recordkeeping and COVID-19 log requirements in OSHA's COVID-19 Healthcare ETS as a permanent standard on February 17, 2022.
Additionally, ICA and ADOSH clarified that Arizona had adopted the two NEPs that OSHA had specifically identified as not yet adopted by the State Plan in the proposal,
Further, ICA and ADOSH responded to OSHA's concerns regarding Arizona's failure to provide OSHA with the required documentation of adoption of certain measures, as required by statute and regulations. For example, although ICA and ADOSH do not appear to dispute that Arizona failed to timely provide OSHA with documentation of adoption of the NEP on Trenching and Excavation, they asserted that Arizona began conducting inspections under the NEP on Trenching and Excavation as early as May 7, 2019, indicating that the NEP had, in fact, been adopted and implemented shortly after the adoption deadline (Document ID 0228, pp. 29-30). OSHA has reviewed its records alongside ICA and ADOSH's comment and finds that (with one minor exception) all of the ICA and ADOSH assertions described in this Notice are accurate.
As noted above, ICA and ADOSH submitted their comment on the last day of the comment period. Moreover, as noted above, HB 2120, the bill that addressed issues related to maximum penalties and Arizona's authority to adopt an ETS, was not signed into law until July 6, 2022, the day after the comment period closed. Because the information provided in the ICA and ADOSH comment suggests that Arizona has taken steps to address items that were fundamental to OSHA's decision to propose revocation of Arizona's final approval (87 FR 23785-87), OSHA is reopening the comment period on a limited basis to allow stakeholders to submit additional comments. Specifically, OSHA invites stakeholders to submit comments on the actions referenced in ICA and ADOSH's July 5, 2022, comment and any impact those actions should have on OSHA's proposed revocation of the State Plan's final approval. In particular, stakeholders who previously submitted comments should note in any new comments whether they wish to revise or withdraw any portion of their previously-submitted comments. Following the reopened comment period, OSHA will consider any supplemental comments received, in addition to comments already received, as it makes decisions regarding future proceedings and whether to finalize its proposal to revoke final approval of the Arizona State Plan.
In its April 21, 2022, publication, OSHA explained that any interested person could request an informal hearing concerning the proposed revocation (87 FR at 23783). OSHA indicated it would hold such a hearing if the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health (Assistant Secretary) found that substantial objections had been filed (Id.). To allow for this possibility, the agency tentatively scheduled an informal public hearing on the proposal, beginning August 16, 2022 (Id.).
In light of the reopening of the comment period, OSHA is postponing the public hearing scheduled to begin on August 16. Before making any decisions about future proceedings, OSHA will review all of the comments on the proposal, including any comments submitted during the reopening of the comment period. Thus, any further decisions about the scheduling of a hearing are in abeyance until that time. Announcements about any future hearing dates will be published by notice in the
The Assistant Secretary's decision whether to continue or revoke the Arizona State Plan's final approval will be made after careful consideration of all relevant information presented in this rulemaking (29 CFR 1902.52(a)). To aid the Assistant Secretary in making this decision, OSHA is soliciting public participation in this process. Interested parties are encouraged to submit comments on the actions referenced in ICA's July 5, 2022, comment and any impact those actions should have on OSHA's proposed revocation of the State Plan's final approval.
Douglas L. Parker, Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC authorized the preparation of this document under the authority specified by Section 18 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 667), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393 (Sept. 18, 2020)), and 29 CFR parts 1902, 1952, 1953, 1954, and 1955.
Signed at Washington, DC.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Application for waiver; comment request.
The Commission is acknowledging a Postal Service application for waiver pursuant to Commission regulations as it relates to a workshare discount. This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On August 8, 2022, the Postal Service filed an application for waiver pursuant to 39 CFR 3030.286 requesting that the Commission waive the applicability of 39 CFR 3030.283 for the workshare discount associated with USPS Marketing Mail Carrier Route Flats dropshipped at the Destination Delivery Unit (DDU) in the next rate adjustment filing.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3030.283, a workshare discount proposed by the Postal Service in any rate adjustment filing that exceeds the cost avoided must either be associated with a new postal service, a change to an existing postal service, or a new workshare initiative; be at least a 20 percent decrease from the existing workshare discount; or provided in connection with a subclass of mail, consisting exclusively of mail matter of educational, cultural, scientific, or informational value (39 U.S.C. 3622(e)(2)(C)) and is in compliance with 39 CFR 3030.285(c).
If the proposed workshare discount does not comply with the limitations of 39 CFR 3030.283, the Postal Service must file an application for waiver pursuant to 39 CFR 3030.286.
The Postal Service requests a waiver of 39 CFR 3030.283 for the workshare discount associated with USPS Marketing Mail Carrier Route Flats dropshipped at the DDU in the next rate adjustment proceeding to be filed no sooner than October 7, 2022. Application at 1. The Postal Service states that the methodology used in calculating passthroughs for USPS Marketing Mail flat-shaped pieces results in volatile passthrough percentages, making compliance with 39 CFR 3030.283 difficult. Application, Supporting Statement at 3. It further states that, to overcome this volatility and comply with 39 CFR 3030.283, would require irrational pricing.
The Postal Service maintains that its waiver request should be granted for three reasons. First, the Postal Service intends to “seek approval of prices that will minimize non-compliance and its consequences” and would be limited to the passthrough for USPS Marketing Mail Carrier Route Flats pieces dropshipped at the DDU. Application, Supporting Statement at 8. Furthermore, it states that, because the volume of these pieces is relatively low, “the cost of [ ] non-compliance is only approximately, $200,000. . .and that amount will inure to the benefit of the mailers in any event.”
For these reasons, the Postal Service seeks to set the workshare discount associated with USPS Marketing Mail Carrier Route Flats pieces dropshipped at the DDU above the avoided costs such that the workshare discount's passthrough is 105.0 percent.
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2022-12 for consideration of matters raised by the Application. More information on the Application may be accessed via the Commission's website at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2022-12 for consideration of the matters raised by the United States Postal Service Application for a Waiver Under 39 CFR 3030.286, filed August 8, 2022.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than August 16, 2022.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Katalin K. Clendenin to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve changes to the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted by the State of North Carolina through the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality (NCDEQ), Division of Air Quality (DAQ), through a letter dated April 13, 2021. This SIP revision includes changes to a subset of NCDEQ's regulations regarding emission control standards. EPA is proposing to approve these changes pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act).
Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2022.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2021-0554 at
Andres Febres, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Mr. Febres can be reached via electronic mail at
EPA is proposing to approve certain changes to North Carolina's SIP that were provided to EPA through NCDEQ via a letter dated April 13, 2021, and related to North Carolina's 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) Subchapter 02D, Section .0500,
Rule 02D .0516,
EPA has preliminarily determined that these changes to the SIP will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to the North Carolina SIP.
Rule 0517,
EPA has preliminarily determined that these changes to the SIP will not interfere with attainment and
Rule .0519,
Additionally, an incorrect reference to paragraph .0519(a), in paragraph (d) of this rule, was changed to instead reference paragraph .0519(b). This is a typographical correction because the provisions in paragraph .0519(d) are regarding nitrogen oxide emissions from boilers, which would fall under paragraph (b) of this rule, whereas paragraph .0519(a) refers to nitrogen dioxide emissions from nitric acid manufacturing plants.
Paragraph .0519(c) was revised to clarify the units that are subject to the emissions limit calculation of this paragraph. The changes clarify that .0519(c) applies to boilers “burning coal, oil, or gas in combination” which would mean any combination of these three fuel types.
The remaining changes to Rule .0519 are clarifying in nature. For example, an “or” is added to .0519(b)(1) to clarify that there are two separate emissions standards that apply to different types of boilers; an equation is reformatted in .0519(c); and .0519(d) is rephrased for clarity, including identification of the cross-referenced rules.
EPA has preliminarily determined that these changes to the SIP will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to the North Carolina SIP.
Rule 0533,
EPA has preliminarily determined that these changes to the SIP will not interfere with attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Therefore, EPA is proposing to approve the aforementioned changes to the North Carolina SIP.
In this document, EPA is proposing to include, in a final EPA rule, regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with the requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as described in Section I and II of this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference 15A NCAC Subchapter 02D, Section .0516,
EPA is proposing to approve the April 13, 2021, SIP revision to incorporate various changes to a subset of North Carolina's emission control standards provisions into the SIP. Specifically, EPA is proposing to approve changes to 15A NCAC 02D Sections .0516,
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or “Agency”) is proposing to determine that the Imperial County nonattainment area would have attained the 2015 ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) by the August 3, 2021 “Marginal” area attainment date, but for emissions emanating from outside the United States. If we finalize this proposed action, the Imperial County nonattainment area would no longer be subject to the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirements pertaining to reclassification upon failure to attain and therefore would remain classified as a Marginal nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. This action, when finalized, will fulfill the EPA's statutory obligation to determine whether the Imperial County ozone nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the attainment date.
Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2022.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R09-OAR-2022- 0501 at
Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105; telephone number: (415) 972-3964; email address:
Throughout this document “we,” “us,” or “our” refer to the EPA.
Ground-level ozone pollution is formed from the reaction of volatile organic compounds (VOC) and oxides of nitrogen (NO
Under CAA section 109, the EPA promulgates NAAQS (or “standards”) for pervasive air pollutants, such as ozone. The EPA has previously promulgated NAAQS for ozone in 1979, 1997, and 2008.
Section 107(d) of the CAA provides that when the EPA promulgates a new or revised NAAQS, the Agency must designate areas of the country as nonattainment, attainment, or unclassifiable based on whether an area is not meeting (or is contributing to air quality in a nearby area that is not meeting) the NAAQS, meeting the NAAQS, or cannot be classified as meeting or not meeting the NAAQS, respectively. Subpart 2 of part D of title I of the CAA governs the classification, state planning, and emissions control requirements for any areas designated as nonattainment for a revised primary ozone NAAQS. In particular, CAA section 181(a)(1) also requires the EPA to classify each ozone nonattainment area at the time of designation, based on the extent of the ozone problem in the area (based on the area's design value). Classifications for ozone nonattainment areas range from “Marginal” to “Extreme.” CAA section 182 provides the specific attainment planning and additional requirements that apply to each ozone nonattainment area based on its classification. CAA section 182, as interpreted in the EPA's implementing regulations at 40 CFR 51.1308 through 51.1317, also establishes the timeframes by which air agencies must submit and implement SIP revisions to satisfy the applicable attainment planning elements, and the timeframes by which nonattainment areas must attain the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Effective on August 3, 2018, the EPA designated 52 areas throughout the country, including Imperial County, California, nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The list of applicable requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Marginal includes a submission that meets the baseline emissions inventory, source emission statements, and nonattainment new source review program requirements. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has provided submittals to the EPA for the Imperial County nonattainment area addressing these requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, and the EPA has proposed to approve them.
Transportation and general conformity apply within the Imperial County 2015 ozone NAAQS nonattainment area under section 176(c) of the CAA and the federal regulations for transportation conformity (40 CFR 93 subpart A) and general federal actions (40 CFR 93 subpart B). This action, if finalized, would not affect the applicability of these regulations within Imperial County.
As described in the 2015 Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule, section 182(a) of the CAA does not require states to implement reasonably available control measures (RACM) or reasonably available control technology (RACT) in Marginal ozone nonattainment areas, and nothing in section 179B alters the statutory requirements with respect to RACM/RACT obligations in subpart 2.
Section 181(b)(2)(A) of the CAA requires that within 6 months following the applicable attainment date, the EPA shall determine whether an ozone nonattainment area attained the ozone standard based on the area's design value as of that date. If the EPA determines that an area failed to attain, CAA section 181(b)(2)(A) requires the area to be reclassified by operation of law to the higher of: (1) the next higher classification for the area, or (2) the classification applicable to the area's design value as of the determination of failure to attain.
The EPA's proposed determination that Imperial County would have attained the 2015 ozone standard but for international emissions is based in part upon data that have been collected and quality-assured by CARB and the Imperial County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in accordance with 40 CFR part 58 and recorded in the EPA's Air Quality System (AQS) database.
For areas such as Imperial County classified as Marginal nonattainment for the 2015 ozone NAAQS, the attainment date was August 3, 2021.
CAA section 179B(b) provides that where a state demonstrates to the Administrator's satisfaction that an ozone nonattainment area would have attained the NAAQS by the applicable attainment date but for emissions emanating from outside the United States (U.S.), that area shall not be subject to the mandatory reclassification provision of CAA section 181(b)(2).
Anthropogenic emissions sources outside of the U.S. can affect to varying degrees the ability of some air agencies to attain and maintain the 2015 ozone NAAQS in areas within their jurisdiction. In a nonattainment area affected by international emissions, an air agency may elect under CAA section 179B to develop and submit to the EPA a demonstration intended to show that a nonattainment area would attain, or would have attained, the relevant NAAQS by the applicable statutory attainment date “but for” emissions emanating from outside the U.S.
CAA section 179B provides the EPA with authority to consider impacts from international emissions in two contexts: (1) a “prospective” state demonstration submitted as part of an attainment plan, which the EPA considers when determining whether the SIP adequately demonstrates that a nonattainment area will attain the NAAQS by its future attainment date (CAA section 179B(a)); or (2) a “retrospective” state demonstration, which the EPA considers after the attainment date in determining whether a nonattainment area attained the NAAQS by the attainment date (CAA section 179B(b)-(d)).
First, CAA section 179B(a) provides that, “[N]otwithstanding any other provision of law, an implementation plan or plan revision required under this chapter shall be approved by the Administrator if (1) such plan or revision meets all the requirements applicable to it . . . other than a requirement that such plan or revision demonstrate attainment and maintenance of the relevant national ambient air quality standards by the attainment date specified under the applicable provision of this chapter, or in a regulation promulgated under such provision, and (2) the submitting state establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that the implementation plan of such state
Second, CAA section 179B(b) provides that, for ozone nonattainment areas, “[n]otwithstanding any other provision of law, any State that establishes to the satisfaction of the Administrator that . . . such State
Irrespective of whether developing and submitting a prospective or retrospective demonstration, states still must meet all nonattainment area requirements applicable for the relevant NAAQS and area classification. The 2015 Ozone NAAQS Implementation Rule did not include regulatory requirements specific to CAA section 179B but did provide guidance on certain points. In the preamble to the rule, the EPA confirmed that: (1) only areas classified Moderate and higher must show that they have implemented reasonably available control measures and reasonably available control technology (RACM/RACT); (2) CAA section 179B demonstrations are not geographically limited to nonattainment areas adjoining an international border; and, (3) a state demonstration prepared under CAA section 179B can consider emissions emanating from sources in North America (
The EPA issued more detailed guidance regarding CAA section 179B on December 18, 2020, that includes recommendations to assist state, local, and tribal air agencies that intend to
In the 179B Guidance, the EPA confirmed that while approval of a CAA section 179B demonstration provides specific forms of regulatory relief for air agencies, the EPA's approval does not relieve air agencies from obligations to meet the remaining applicable planning or emission reduction requirements in the CAA. It also does not provide a basis either for excluding air monitoring data influenced by international transport from regulatory determinations related to attainment and nonattainment, or for redesignating an area to attainment. If an air agency is contemplating a CAA section 179B demonstration in either the CAA section 179B(a) “prospective” context or the CAA section 179B(b) “retrospective” context, the EPA encourages communication throughout the demonstration development and submission process, along the lines of these basic steps: (1) the air agency contacts its EPA Regional office to discuss CAA section 179B regulatory interests and conceptual model; (2) the air agency begins gathering information and developing analyses for a demonstration; (3) the air agency submits a draft CAA section 179B demonstration to its EPA Regional office for review and discussion; and (4) the air agency submits its final CAA section 179B demonstration to the EPA. After that process is complete, the EPA makes a determination as to the sufficiency of the demonstration after a public notice and comment process. The EPA may act on a prospective demonstration when taking action on an area's attainment plan. For a retrospective demonstration, the EPA may determine its adequacy when taking action to determine whether the area attained by the attainment date and is subject to reclassification.
The EPA's consideration of the CAA section 179B demonstrations submitted by states in connection with reclassification of ozone nonattainment areas is governed by CAA section 179B(b).
The CAA does not specify what technical analyses would be sufficient to demonstrate “to the satisfaction of the Administrator” that a “State would have attained the [NAAQS for the pollutant in question] by the applicable attainment date, but for” international emissions. The EPA recognizes that the relationship between certain NAAQS exceedances and associated international transport is clearer in some cases than in others. The following characteristics would suggest the need for a more detailed demonstration with additional evidence: (1) affected monitors are not located near an international border; (2) specific international sources and/or their contributing emissions are not identified or are difficult to identify; (3) exceedances on internationally influenced days are in the range of typical exceedances attributable to local sources; and (4) exceedances occurred in association with other processes and sources of pollutants, or on days where meteorological conditions were conducive to local pollutant formation (
Given the extensive number of technical factors and meteorological conditions that can affect international transport of air pollution, and the lack of specific guidance in the Act, the EPA evaluates CAA section 179B demonstrations based on the weight of evidence of all information and analyses provided by the air agency. The appropriate level of supporting documentation will vary on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature and severity of international influence, as well as the factors identified above. The EPA considers and qualitatively weighs all evidence based on its relevance to CAA section 179B and the nature of international contributions as described in the demonstration's conceptual model. Every demonstration should include fact-specific analyses tailored to the nonattainment area in question. When a CAA section 179B demonstration shows that international contributions are larger than domestic contributions, the weight of evidence will be more compelling than if the demonstration shows domestic contributions exceeding international contributions. In contrast, when a CAA section 179B demonstration shows that international emissions have a lower contribution to ozone concentrations than domestic emissions, and/or international transport is not significantly different on local exceedance days compared to non-exceedance days, then the weight of evidence will not be supportive of a conclusion that a nonattainment area would attain or would have attained the relevant NAAQS by the statutory attainment date “but for” emissions emanating from outside the U.S.
In evaluating a CAA section 179B demonstration the EPA also considers what measures an air agency has implemented to control local emissions.
The Imperial County nonattainment area for the 2015 ozone standard includes the whole County, including lands of the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians within the geographic boundary of Imperial County.
There are currently four ozone monitoring sites in Imperial County. Listed from south to north, the Imperial ozone monitoring sites are: Calexico-Ethel Street, El Centro-9th Street, Westmorland, and Niland.
Tables 1 and 2 of this document list the 2016-2020 annual fourth highest daily maximum 8-hour average (“4th max”) and design values at the Imperial County ozone monitors. The Calexico-Ethel Street monitor, which is one mile from the border, consistently measures the highest 4th max concentration in each year; concentrations decrease as each monitor's distance from the border increases. The 2019 design value, which is valid for all four sites, shows a similar relationship between concentration and distance from the border: 0.079 ppm at Calexico-Ethel Street, 0.072 ppm at El Centro-9th Street (9 miles from border), 0.061 ppm at Westmorland (26 miles from border), and 0.054 ppm at Niland (38 miles from border).
The Niland monitor design value has been consistently below 0.070 ppm since 2016. In addition, the valid design values and complete yearly 4th maxes at Niland have been consistently lower than the El Centro-9th Street and Calexico-Ethel Street monitors in the past five years. The Westmorland monitor started operation in July 2015; the only valid Westmorland monitor design value, in 2019, was 0.061 ppm, below the 2015 ozone NAAQS of 0.070 ppm. In addition, the complete yearly 4th maxes at Westmorland have been consistently lower than the El Centro-9th Street and Calexico-Ethel Street monitors in the past five years.
On August 16, 2021, CARB submitted to the EPA for review its “Imperial County Clean Air Act Section 179B(b) Analysis for the 70 ppb 8-Hour Ozone Standard” (“Demonstration”). CARB submitted additional information on November 24, 2021. Using several lines of evidence, CARB evaluated whether, and the extent to which, ambient ozone levels in Imperial County would be affected by emissions emanating from northern Mexico. This evaluation includes a conceptual model of ozone formation in Imperial County including a discussion of the meteorological and topographic conditions that influence ozone formation; an analysis of the ozone design value trends in the County from 2000 to 2020; an emissions inventory analysis comparing ozone precursor emissions in Imperial County, California to those in the Mexicali Municipality in Mexico; an ambient observational analysis of back-trajectories examining whether there is an internationally influenced source-receptor relationship on ozone exceedance days in Imperial County; and a photochemical air quality modeling exercise estimating the contribution of cross-border, northern Mexico emissions to ozone design values in Imperial County.
CARB provided a conceptual model describing ozone formation in the Imperial County ozone nonattainment area, which is located on the border of the United States and Mexico and encompasses all of Imperial County. Imperial County includes the northern portion of the Imperial Valley, which extends from the southern end of the Salton Sea southward into Mexico, where it becomes known as the Mexicali Valley. The valleys are bordered by mountains to the west and east, and on the south side by mountains south of the border to the southwest of Mexicali. These ranges channel airflow within the Imperial and Mexicali Valleys, without topographic features between, creating a shared binational air shed for the region. Imperial County experiences hot, dry weather and stagnation in the summer, which are conducive to ozone formation. Highest ozone concentrations are experienced between May through September and generally peak in the late afternoon. Ozone and ozone precursors are often transported to Imperial County by prevailing winds from Mexicali to the south, and to a lesser extent from other surrounding air basins.
CARB provided trends in the ozone design values for the Calexico-Ethel Street, El Centro-9th Street, and Niland monitors, number of days with maximum daily 8-hour ozone values greater than 70 ppb within the nonattainment area, and Imperial County ozone precursor emissions from 2000-2020.
CARB provided a table of 2018 ozone precursor emissions, shown in Table 3 of this document.
CARB's Demonstration includes an analysis of back trajectories created using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Hybrid Single Particle Lagrangian Integrated Trajectory (HYSPLIT) model.
CARB's analysis flagged an exceedance day as having likely influence from emissions emanating from Mexico if the majority of back-trajectories (at least five out of eight) for that day originated from or passed over Mexico. CARB then removed those flagged days and recalculated the 2020 design values for the Calexico-Ethel Street and El Centro-9th Street monitors. Using this analysis, CARB asserts that when days with likely influence from emissions emanating from Mexico are excluded based on the HYSPLIT analysis, the estimated design values for the monitors would meet the 0.070 ppm (70 ppb) 8-hour ozone standard.
Appendix A to CARB's Demonstration describes CARB's photochemical modeling. CARB simulated conditions between April 2018 and October 2018 using the Community Multiscale Air Quality model (CMAQ) driven by meteorological fields from the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) prognostic model.
CARB included a performance analysis for the meteorological model (WRF) and the ozone model (CMAQ) simulations including statistics recommended in the EPA's “Modeling Guidance for Demonstrating Air Quality Goals for Ozone, PM
CARB provided an operational evaluation of the ozone model performance including tables of statistics for elevated ozone periods (greater than 60 ppb) as recommended in the Modeling Guidance for 1-hour ozone, daily maximum 1-hour ozone, and daily maximum 8-hour modeled ozone compared to observations at the Calexico-Ethel Street and El Centro-9th Street ozone monitoring locations.
After confirming the model performance for the 2018 base case using 2018 anthropogenic emissions for both the U.S. and Mexico, CARB performed a “brute-force” or “zero-out” sensitivity case. The only difference from the base case is that anthropogenic, near-source northern Mexico emissions (those within the CMAQ 4 and 12 km modeling domains
As shown in Table 4 of this document, with the removal of anthropogenic northern Mexico emissions in the 4 km and 12 km modeling domains, the average of the 2018-2020 design values for Calexico-Ethel Street is predicted to be reduced from 78.0 to 69.2 ppb, and for El Centro-9th Street is reduced from 72.0 to 61.3 ppb. These calculations indicate that emissions from northern Mexico contribute approximately 9 ppb to the design value at the Calexico-Ethel Street monitor and approximately 11 ppb to the design value at the El Centro-9th Street monitor. The contribution from the rest of Mexico and other international sources outside of the modeling domain were not removed. Had the contribution from the rest of Mexico and other international sources also been removed, the modeling would have predicted a larger contribution to the design values from international emissions.
As part of meeting its duty to determine whether the Imperial County area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, the EPA evaluated air quality monitoring data submitted by CARB to determine the attainment status of the Imperial County nonattainment area as of its Marginal area attainment date. The Agency has also evaluated the State's 179B(b) demonstration that the Imperial County nonattainment area would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the attainment date, but for international emissions. Based on our review, the EPA is proposing to approve the CAA section 179B(b) demonstration. The EPA is proposing this action to fulfill its statutory obligation under CAA section 181(b)(2) to determine whether the Imperial County nonattainment area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS as of the attainment date of August 3, 2021. Our rationale supporting the proposed approval of the State's 179B(b) demonstration and determination is summarized below. The full rationale is included in the technical support document provided in the docket for this rulemaking.
CARB's retrospective 179B(b) demonstration includes multiple lines of evidence consistent with the key types of analyses recommended in our 179B Guidance.
CARB provided a conceptual model describing the meteorology and topography of the area, an evaluation of ozone precursor emissions, and an analysis of ozone trends at County monitors. We agree that the following factors support the proposition that the Mexicali Municipality emissions likely have a substantial influence on Imperial County ozone levels, particularly at the Calexico-Ethel monitor, which remains the only monitor with a violating 2020 design value: the topography and meteorology of the Imperial and Mexicali areas results in a single, shared binational airshed; Mexicali Municipality ozone precursor emissions are much larger (currently approximately four times greater) than Imperial County emissions; ozone concentration trends over time show that monitors farther from the border have experienced decreasing concentrations, while at the Calexico-Ethel monitor concentrations have remained flat; and spatially, ozone concentrations decrease with increasing distance from the border.
CARB ran the HYSPLIT model to generate 8-hour back-trajectories for each of the eight hours contributing to each 2018-2020 daily maximum 8-hour average ozone exceedance (greater than 70 ppb) at the Calexico-Ethel and El Centro-9th Street monitors at three altitudes (100 m, 500 m, 1000 m). CARB flagged days that had at least 5 of the 8 hours originating from or traversing through Mexico as having likely influence from emissions emanating from Mexico. The 179B Guidance recommends a slightly more stringent
CARB also recalculated the 2020 design value excluding the days flagged following the same methodology. The EPA notes that flagged days on which international emissions are likely to have an impact might also be affected by domestic emissions, and a simple back-trajectory analysis cannot distinguish whether ozone levels on that day would have exceeded the NAAQS without any international contributions. Therefore, a simple recalculation of the design value excluding days with influence from Mexico is not a conclusive “but for” analysis. However, the EPA agrees that CARB's 8-hour back trajectory analysis shows that there is consistent, direct transport from the high-emissions Mexicali Municipality on high ozone days to violating Imperial County monitors. This direct transport, in conjunction with the much larger emissions magnitudes in Mexicali than in Imperial County, supports an international source-receptor relationship between the Mexicali area and Imperial County on exceedance days.
CARB used CMAQ (version 5.3.2) driven by WRF (version 4.2.1) meteorological fields to conduct its photochemical modeling analysis. The EPA recognizes both CMAQ and WRF as technically sound, state-of-the-science models applicable for use in regulatory applications.
As previously discussed, CARB used the model results to estimate the impact of cross-border, northern Mexico emissions on air quality. The results of this estimate were applied to the average of the 2018, 2019, and 2020 ozone design values at Calexico-Ethel Street and El Centro-9th Street (78 and 72 ppb, respectively) and indicate near-source Mexico emissions contribute approximately 9 ppb and 11 ppb to the design values at Calexico-Ethel Street and El Centro-9th Street, respectively. The EPA notes that the analysis here conservatively evaluates only cross-border emissions from northern Mexico, and does not evaluate effects of international emissions from other parts of Mexico or elsewhere.
The EPA has performed additional analysis of its 2020 Ozone Policy Assessment (“2020 PA”) modeling
The 2020 PA modeling predicts that the international anthropogenic ozone contribution to the top 10 model days specifically for Imperial County is 31.8 ppb, the largest international anthropogenic contribution of any nonattainment area in the country. In contrast to the modeling submitted by CARB, which quantifies only the small portion of the international contribution that comes from near-source anthropogenic emissions in northern Mexico, the EPA's modeling quantifies impacts from all international anthropogenic emissions sources. This international anthropogenic contribution is four times larger than the U.S. anthropogenic contribution of 8.2 ppb on those days. The EPA also provided contribution estimates to the average of the 2018, 2019, and 2020 design values for Imperial County (78 ppb) and predicted that the international anthropogenic contribution to that value was 31.8 ppb and U.S. anthropogenic contribution was 8.2 ppb.
In conclusion, the EPA finds that these multiple lines of evidence, taken together, support the conclusion that Imperial County would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the August 3, 2021 attainment date “but for” international emissions and support the approval of CARB's 179B(b) demonstration.
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) requires that federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, identify and address disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations. Additionally, Executive Order 13985 (86 FR 7009, January 25, 2021) directs federal government agencies to assess whether, and to what extent, their programs and policies perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of color and other underserved groups, and Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, February 1, 2021) directs federal agencies to develop programs, policies, and activities to address the disproportionate health, environmental, economic, and climate impacts on disadvantaged communities.
To identify environmental burdens and susceptible populations in underserved communities in the Imperial County nonattainment area and to better understand the context of our proposed approval of CARB's 179B(b) demonstration on these communities, we conducted a screening-level analysis using the EPA's environmental justice (EJ) screening and mapping tool (“EJSCREEN”).
As discussed in the EPA's EJ technical guidance, people of color and low-income populations, such as those in Imperial County, often experience greater exposure and disease burdens than the general population, which can increase their susceptibility to adverse health effects from environmental stressors.
If finalized, this proposed action to approve California's demonstration that the Imperial County ozone nonattainment area would have attained the standard by the statutory attainment date, but for emissions emanating from Mexico, would result in the area retaining its Marginal classification. The area will retain its designation as nonattainment and continue to implement nonattainment new source review, but will not be reclassified as “Moderate” and the State will not be required to submit a plan demonstrating attainment or to adopt additional control measures, consistent with CAA section 179B(b).
However, we note that the Imperial County nonattainment area is also designated nonattainment, and classified as Moderate, for the 2008 ozone NAAQS. Section 172(c)(1) of the CAA requires states to implement RACM/RACT level emission controls for ozone nonattainment areas classified Moderate and above. In 2020, the EPA determined that California's Moderate area nonattainment plan for the Imperial County nonattainment area for the 2008 ozone NAAQS provides for the implementation of all RACM as required by CAA section 172(c)(1) and 40 CFR 51.1112(c).
In addition, the EPA notes that there are other efforts underway to reduce environmental burden along the U.S.-Mexico border, including Imperial County. The United States and Mexico
The U.S.-Mexico Environmental Program (“Border 2025”) is a five-year (2021-2025) binational effort designed “to protect the environment and public health in the U.S.-Mexico border region, consistent with the principles of sustainable development.”
Border 2025 sets out four strategic goals, including the reduction of air pollution and the improvement of water quality, to address environmental and public health challenges in the border region. Within the goals are specific objectives that identify actions that will be taken in support of the program's mission. The goals and objectives were determined binationally between the EPA and the Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources of Mexico (SEMARNAT) to address ongoing environmental challenges, and considered input from state and tribal partners. The “California‐Baja California 2021-2023 Border 2025 Action Plan” lists and describes the projects that are being undertaken to achieve the goals and objectives of Border 2025, along with the target outputs, expected results, and status of each action.
In addition to the ongoing efforts under the Border 2025 agreement, in 2020, the EPA awarded the Imperial County APCD $3,350,371 to pave 3.5 miles of residential alleyways in the downtown core of the City of Calexico to reduce PM
The EPA is committed to environmental justice for all people, and we acknowledge that the Imperial County nonattainment area includes minority and low income populations that could be affected by this action. As discussed in Section I.B. of this document, the District and State have met the requirements for ozone nonattainment areas classified as Marginal. Notwithstanding the purpose of this action determining that the Imperial ozone nonattainment area would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS but for emissions transported from Mexico, the EPA is working to reduce disproportionate health, environmental, economic, and climate change impacts in the Imperial County nonattainment area by other means, including those described in this section.
For the reasons discussed in this document, we are proposing to determine, consistent with our evaluation of the “Imperial County Clean Air Act Section 179B(b) Analysis for the 70 ppb 8-Hour Ozone Standard,” that the Imperial County nonattainment area would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS by the Marginal area attainment date of August 3, 2021, but for emissions emanating from outside the United States. If finalized, the EPA's obligation under section 181(b)(2)(A) to determine whether the area attained by its attainment date will no longer apply and the area will not be reclassified. The area will remain designated nonattainment and thus the State will continue to comply with applicable requirements for a Marignal ozone nonattainment area.
The EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this document. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal until September 14, 2022 and will consider comments before taking final action.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
This rulemaking does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA not already approved by the Office of Management and Budget. This action proposes to find that the Imperial County Marginal ozone nonattainment area would have attained the 2015 NAAQS by the applicable attainment date, but for emissions emanating from outside the United States. Thus, the proposed action does not establish any new information collection burden that has not already been identified and approved in the EPA's information collection request.
I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the RFA. This action will not impose any requirements on small entities. The proposed determination that Imperial County would have attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS but for international emissions does not in and of itself create any new requirements beyond what is mandated by the CAA. Instead, this rulemaking only makes factual determinations, and does not directly regulate any entities.
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small
This action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states and tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. The division of responsibility between the Federal Government and the states for the purposes of implementing the NAAQS is established under the CAA.
This action has tribal implications. However, it will neither impose substantial direct compliance costs on federally recognized tribal governments, nor preempt tribal law.
The EPA has identified two tribal areas located within the Imperial County nonattainment area, which is the subject of this action proposing to determine the area attained the 2015 ozone NAAQS, but for emissions emanating from outside the United States. The EPA has invited the Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and the Torres Martinez Desert Cahuilla Indians to engage in government to government consultation in advance of our proposed action and intends to continue to communicate with the tribes as the Agency moves forward in developing a final rule.
The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that the EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive Order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards.
Executive Order (E.O.) 12898 (59 FR 7629 (Feb. 16, 1994)) establishes federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision directs federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs, policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income populations in the United States. The EPA's evaluation of this issue is contained in the section of the preamble titled “Environmental Justice Considerations.”
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Designations and classifications, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Volatile organic compounds.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Proposed rule; availability of draft environmental assessment; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in response to a request from the United States Coast Guard, propose to issue regulations authorizing the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take by harassment of small numbers of northern sea otters during marine construction and pile driving in the Gulf of Alaska coastal waters. Take may result from marine construction and pile-driving activities. This proposed rule would authorize take by harassment only. No lethal take would be authorized. If this proposed rule is finalized, we will issue letters of authorization, upon request, for specific proposed activities in accordance with the final rule for a period of 5 years. Therefore, we request comments on these proposed regulations.
Comments on these proposed incidental take regulations and the accompanying draft environmental assessment will be accepted on or before September 14, 2022.
•
•
We will post all comments at
Sierra Franks, Marine Mammals Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 East Tudor Road MS-341, Anchorage, AK 99503, Telephone 907-786-3844, or Email:
In accordance with the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1371(a)(5)(A)) and its implementing regulations, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (hereafter Service or we), propose incidental take regulations (ITR) that if finalized would authorize the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of northern sea otters (
This proposed rule is based on our draft findings that the total takings of northern sea otters during proposed activities will impact small numbers of animals, will have a negligible impact on this species or stocks, and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of this species for subsistence use by Alaska Natives. We base our draft findings on data from monitoring the encounters and interactions between this species; research on this species; potential and documented effects on this species from similar activities; information regarding the natural history and conservation status of northern sea otters; and data reported from Alaska Native subsistence hunters.
The proposed regulations include permissible methods of nonlethal taking; mitigation measures to ensure that the USCG's activities will have the least practicable adverse impact on the species, their habitat, and the availability of this species for subsistence uses; and requirements for monitoring and reporting.
Section 101(a)(5)(A) of the MMPA gives the Secretary of the Interior (Secretary) the authority to allow the incidental, but not intentional, taking of small numbers of marine mammals, in response to requests by U.S. citizens (as defined in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in part 18 (at 50 CFR 18.27(c)) engaged in a specified activity (other than commercial fishing) within a specified geographic region. The Secretary has delegated authority for implementation of the MMPA to the Service. According to the MMPA, the Service shall allow this incidental taking if we find that the total of such taking for the 5-year regulatory period:
(1) Will affect only small numbers of individuals of the species or stock;
(2) Will have no more than a negligible impact on the species or stock;
(3) Will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock for taking for subsistence use by Alaska Natives; and
(4) We issue regulations that set forth:
(a) Permissible methods of taking,
(b) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact on the species or stock and its habitat and the availability of the species or stock for subsistence uses, and
(c) Requirements for monitoring and reporting of such taking.
The term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, or kill, or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal. Harassment for activities other than military readiness activities or scientific research conducted by or on behalf of the Federal Government means “any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild” (the MMPA defines this as 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” (the MMPA defines this as Level B harassment).
The terms “negligible impact” and “unmitigable adverse impact” are defined in 50 CFR 18.27 (
The term “small numbers” is also defined in 50 CFR 18.27. However, we do not rely on that definition here as it conflates “small numbers” with
The term “least practicable adverse impact” is not defined in the MMPA or its enacting regulations. In promulgating ITRs, we ensure the least practicable adverse impact by requiring mitigation measures that are effective in reducing the impact of project activities, but they are not so restrictive as to make project activities unduly burdensome or impossible to undertake and complete.
The USCG's marine construction and pile-driving activities may result in the incidental taking of sea otters. The MMPA does not require that the USCG must obtain incidental take authorization; however, any taking that occurs without authorization is a violation of the MMPA.
The Service first received a request for ITRs from the USCG on July 2, 2021. The Service sent requests for additional information on August 12, September 13, and November 10, 2021, and February 10, 2022 and received updated versions of the petition from USCG on October 14, 2021, and January 18 and February 28, 2022, the latter of which was determined to be adequate and complete. Several revisions were made involving animal presence, ensonified areas, number of days of operations, and mitigation and monitoring protocols. Geospatial files of the work sites were received on December 3, 2021. The Service used the February 2022 petition and December 2021 spatial files for analyses.
The proposed regulations, if finalized, would authorize the nonlethal, incidental, unintentional take of small numbers of sea otters that may result from the proposed activities based on standards set forth in the MMPA. They would not authorize or “permit” activities, only the incidental take associated with those activities. The proposed regulations include:
(1) Permissible methods of nonlethal taking;
(2) Measures designed to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on sea otters and their habitat, and on the availability of this species for subsistence uses; and
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
An LOA is required to conduct activities pursuant to an ITR. Under this proposed ITR, if finalized, the USCG may request an LOA for the authorized nonlethal, incidental Level B harassment of sea otters incidental to the specific activities described in these proposed regulations. Requests for LOAs must be consistent with the activity descriptions and mitigation and monitoring requirements of the ITR and be received in writing at least 30 days before the activity is to begin. Requests must include (1) an operational plan for the activity, including the number of days of work and the nature of work to be conducted; (2) a digital geospatial file of the project footprint; (3) estimates of the numbers of exposures of sea otters related to each project component; and (4) a site-specific marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan that specifies the procedures to monitor and mitigate the effects of the activities on sea otters. Once this information has been received, we will evaluate each request and issue the LOA if we find that the level of taking will be consistent with the findings made for the total taking allowable under the ITR. We must receive an after-action report on the monitoring and mitigation activities within 90 days after the LOA expires. For more information on requesting and receiving an LOA, refer to 50 CFR 18.27(f).
The specified geographic region covered by the requested ITRs (USCG ITR region (figure 1)) encompasses Gulf of Alaska (GOA) coastal waters, including State waters, within 2 kilometers (km) (~1.25 miles (mi)) of eight USCG facilities within the USCG Civil Engineering Unit Juneau Area of Responsibility. These facilities are: Base Kodiak, Moorings Seward, Moorings Valdez, Moorings Cordova, Moorings Sitka, Station Juneau, Moorings Petersburg, and Base Ketchikan.
The USCG will perform maintenance activities that will include pile repair (
Detailed descriptions of the proposed work are provided in the applicant's request for ITRs for programmatic maintenance, repair, and replacement activities (February 2022) and the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan (January 2022). These documents can be obtained from the locations described above in
There are three sea otter stocks in Alaska: Southeast Alaska stock, Southcentral Alaska stock, and the Southwest Alaska stock. All three stocks are represented in the project area. Sea otters at Base Kodiak belong to the Southwest Alaska stock. Moorings Seward, Moorings Valdez, and Moorings Cordova lie within the range of the Southcentral Alaska stock. Moorings Sitka, Station Juneau, Moorings Petersburg, and Base Ketchikan lie within the range of the Southeast Alaska stock. Detailed information about the biology of these stocks can be found in the most recent stock assessment reports for the Southwest Alaska, Southcentral Alaska, and Southeast Alaska stocks (USFWS 2014a, b, c), which can be found at
Sea otters may be distributed anywhere within the specified project area other than upland areas; however, they generally occur in shallow water near the shoreline. They are most commonly observed within the 40-meter (m) (131-foot[ft]) depth contour (USFWS 2014a, b, c), although they can be found in areas with deeper water. Ocean depth is generally correlated with distance to shore, and sea otters typically remain within 1 to 2 km (0.62 to 1.24 mi) of shore (Riedman and Estes 1990). They tend to be found closer to shore during storms, but venture farther out during good weather and calm seas (Lensink 1962; Kenyon 1969).
Sea otters are nonmigratory and generally do not disperse over long distances (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984), usually remaining within a few kilometers of their established feeding grounds (Kenyon 1981). Breeding males stay for all or part of the year in a breeding territory covering up to 1 km (0.62 mi) of coastline, while adult females maintain home ranges of approximately 8 to 16 km (5 to 10 mi), which may include one or more male territories. Juveniles move greater distances between resting and foraging areas (Lensink 1962; Kenyon 1969; Riedman and Estes 1990; Tinker and Estes 1996). Although sea otters generally remain local to an area, they are capable of long-distance travel. Sea otters in Alaska have shown daily movement distances greater than 3 km (1.9 mi) at speeds up to 5.5 km per hour (hr) (km/hr; 3.4 mi/hr) (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984).
The Southeast Alaska sea otter stock boundaries include Dixon Entrance Strait at the U.S.-Canada border to the south and Cape Yakataga, Alaska, to the north (USFWS 2014a, b, c). However, the largest abundances of sea otters in Southeast Alaska are found in the northern part of this range and expanding south to east (Tinker et al. 2019).
The Service conducted large-scale surveys in cooperation with the U.S. Geological Survey in 2003 and 2010 in southern Southeast Alaska (from Kake to Duke Island and Cape Chacon) and in
This survey data has been incorporated into a spatiotemporal model of ecological diffusion using a Bayesian hierarchical framework (Eisaguirre et al. 2021). This model was used to develop the most recent estimate of 26,347 otters in the Southeast Alaska stock, and generated otter abundance estimates at a resolution of 400 m by 400 m. Abundance values within the project area ranged from 0.1 to 0.3 otters per 0.16 square kilometer (km
The Southcentral Alaska sea otter stock occurs in the center of the sea otter range in Alaska and extends from Cape Yakataga in the east to Cook Inlet in the west, including Prince William Sound, the eastern Kenai Peninsula coast, and Kachemak Bay (USFWS 2014a, b, c). Between 2014 and 2019, aerial surveys have been conducted in three regions of the Southcentral Alaska sea otter stock: (1) Eastern Cook Inlet, (2) Outer Kenai Peninsula, and (3) Prince William Sound by aerial transects flown at 91 m (298.56 ft) of altitude. The combined estimates of the three regions resulted in an approximate 21,617 (SE = 2,190) sea otters and an average density of 1.96 sea otters/km
The Southwest Alaska sea otter stock occurs from western Cook Inlet to Attu Island in the Aleutian chain (USFWS 2014a, b, c). The Southwest Alaska sea otter stock was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 2005 as a distinct population segment (DPS) (70 FR 46366, August 9, 2005). This stock is divided into five management units (MUs): Western Aleutians; Eastern Aleutians; South Alaska Peninsula; Bristol Bay; and Kodiak, Kamishak, and Alaska Peninsula (USFWS 2013). The specified geographic region occurs within the range of the Kodiak, Kamishak, and Alaska Peninsula MUs.
The range of the Kodiak, Kamishak, and Alaska Peninsula MUs extends from Castle Cape to Western Cook Inlet on the southern side of the Alaska Peninsula and also encompasses Kodiak Island (USFWS 2020). The specified geographic region is within the range of the sea otter population at Kodiak Archipelago. Waters surrounding Kodiak Island were surveyed in 2014 using the same methods described above for the surveys of the Southeast and Southcentral Alaska stocks (Cobb 2018). The estimate of sea otter density that resulted from these surveys is 2.54 animals per km
We characterized “noise” as sound released into the environment from human activities that exceeds ambient levels or interferes with normal sound production or reception by sea otters. The terms “acoustic disturbance” or “acoustic harassment” are disturbances or harassment events resulting from noise exposure. Potential effects of noise exposure are likely to depend on the distance of the sea otter from the sound source, the level and intensity of sound the sea otter receives, background noise levels, noise frequency, noise duration, and whether the noise is pulsed or continuous. The actual noise level perceived by individual sea otters will also depend on whether the sea otter is above or below water and atmospheric and environmental conditions. Temporary disturbance of sea otters or localized displacement reactions are the most likely effects to occur from noise exposure.
Pile driving and marine construction activities will fall within the hearing range of sea otters. Controlled sound exposure trials on southern sea otters (
Exposure to high levels of sound may cause changes in behavior, masking of communications, temporary or permanent changes in hearing sensitivity, discomfort, and injury to marine mammals. Unlike other marine mammals, sea otters do not rely on sound to orient themselves, locate prey, or communicate under water; therefore, masking of communications by anthropogenic sound is less of a concern than for other marine mammals. However, sea otters, especially mothers and pups, do use sound for communication in air (McShane et al. 1995), and sea otters may monitor underwater sound to avoid predators (Davis et al. 1987).
Noise exposure criteria for identifying underwater noise levels capable of causing Level A harassment (injury) to marine mammal species, including sea otters, have been established using the same methods as those used by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) (Southall et al. 2019). These criteria are based on estimated levels of sound exposure capable of causing a permanent shift in sensitivity of hearing (
Sound exposure thresholds incorporate two metrics of exposure: the peak level of instantaneous exposure likely to cause PTS and the cumulative sound exposure level (SELcum) during a 24-hour period. They also include weighting adjustments for the sensitivity of different species to varying frequencies. PTS-based injury criteria were developed from theoretical extrapolation of observations of temporary threshold shifts (TTS) detected in lab settings during sound exposure trials (Finneran 2015). Southall and colleagues (2019) predict PTS for sea otters, which are included in the “other marine carnivores” category, will occur at 232 dB peak or 203 dB SEL
Thresholds based on TTS have been used as a proxy for Level B harassment (
NMFS (2018) criteria do not identify thresholds for avoidance of Level B harassment. For pinnipeds (seals and sea lions), NMFS has adopted a 160-dB threshold for Level B harassment from exposure to impulsive noise and a 120-dB threshold for continuous noise (NMFS 1998, HESS 1999, NMFS 2018). These thresholds were developed from observations of mysticete (baleen) whales responding to airgun operations (
We have evaluated these thresholds and determined that the Level B threshold of 120 dB for nonimpulsive noise is not applicable to sea otters. The 120-dB threshold is based on studies in which gray whales (
Based on the lack of sea otter disturbance response or any other reaction to the 1980's playback studies and the absence of a clear pattern of disturbance or avoidance behaviors attributable to underwater sound levels up to about 160 dB resulting from low-frequency broadband noise, we assume 120 dB is not an appropriate behavioral response threshold for sea otters exposed to continuous underwater noise.
Based on the best available scientific information about sea otters and closely related marine mammals when sea otter data are limited, the Service has set 160 dB of received underwater sound as a threshold for Level B harassment by disturbance for sea otters for these ITRs. Exposure to unmitigated in-water noise levels between 125 Hz and 38 kHz that are greater than 160 dB—for both impulsive and nonimpulsive sound sources—will be considered by the Service as Level B harassment. Thresholds for Level A harassment (which entails the potential for injury) will be 232 dB peak or 203 dB SEL for impulsive sounds and 219 dB SEL for continuous sounds (table 2).
The NMFS (2018) guidance neither addresses thresholds for preventing injury or disturbance from airborne noise, nor provides thresholds for avoidance of Level B harassment. Southall et al. (2007) suggested thresholds for PTS and TTS for sea lions exposed to nonpulsed airborne noise of 172.5 and 159 dB re (20 µPa)
Sea otters may be more resistant to the effects of sound disturbance and human activities than other marine mammals. For example, observers have noted no changes from southern sea otters in regard to their presence, density, or behavior in response to underwater sounds from industrial noise recordings at 110 dB and a frequency range of 50 Hz to 20 kHz and airguns, even at the closest distance of 0.5 nautical miles (<1
Noise exposure may be influenced by the amount of time sea otters spend at the water's surface. Noise at the water's surface can be attenuated by turbulence from wind and waves more quickly compared to deeper water, reducing potential noise exposure (Greene and Richardson 1988, Richardson et al. 1995). Additionally, turbulence at the water's surface limits the transference of sound from water to air. A sea otter with its head above water will be exposed to only a small fraction of the sound energy traveling through the water beneath it. The average amount of time that sea otters spend above the water each day while resting and grooming varies between males and females and across seasons (Esslinger et al. 2014, Zellmer et al. 2021). For example, female sea otters foraged for an average of 8.78 hours per day compared to male sea otters, which foraged for an average of 7.85 hours per day during the summer months (Esslinger et al. 2014). Male and female sea otters spend an average of 63 to 67 percent of their day at the surface resting and grooming during the summer months (Esslinger et al. 2014). Few studies have evaluated foraging times during the winter months. Garshelis et al. (1986) found that foraging times increased from 5.1 hours per day to 16.6 hours per day in the winter; however, Gelatt et al. (2002) did not find a significant difference in seasonal foraging times. It is likely that seasonal variation is determined by seasonal differences in energetic demand and the quality and availability of prey sources (Esslinger et al. 2014). These findings suggest that the large portion of the day sea otters spend at the surface may help limit sea otters' exposure during noise-generating operations.
Sea otter sensitivity to industrial activities may be influenced by the overall level of human activity within the sea otter population's range. In locations that lack frequent human activity, sea otters appear to have a lower threshold for disturbance. Sea otters in Alaska exhibited escape behaviors in response to the presence and approach of vessels (Udevitz et al. 1995). Behaviors included diving or actively swimming away from a vessel, sea otters on haulouts entering the water, and groups of sea otters disbanding and swimming in multiple different directions (Udevitz et al. 1995). Sea otters in Alaska were also observed to avoid areas with heavy boat traffic, in the summer, and return to these areas during seasons with less vessel traffic (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984). In Cook Inlet, sea otters drifting on a tide trajectory that would have taken them within 500 m (0.3 mi) of an active offshore drilling rig were observed to swim in order to avoid a close approach of the drilling rig despite near-ambient noise levels (BlueCrest 2014).
Individual sea otters in the coastal waters of the GOA will likely show a range of responses to noise from pile-driving activities. Some sea otters will likely show startle responses, change direction of travel, dive, or prematurely surface. Sea otters reacting to pile-driving activities may divert time and attention from biologically important behaviors, such as feeding and nursing pups. Sea otter responses to disturbance can result in energetic costs, which increases the amount of prey required by sea otters (Barrett 2019). This increased prey consumption may impact sea otter prey availability and cause sea otters to spend more time foraging and less time resting (Barrett 2019). Some sea otters may abandon the project area and return when the disturbance has ceased. Based on the observed movement patterns of sea otters (
The reactions of wildlife to disturbance can range from short-term behavioral changes to long-term impacts that affect survival and reproduction. When disturbed by noise, animals may respond behaviorally (
These examples illustrate direct effects on survival and reproductive success, but disturbances can also have indirect effects. Response to noise disturbance is considered a nonlethal stimulus that is similar to an antipredator response (Frid and Dill 2002). Sea otters are susceptible to predation, particularly from killer whales and eagles, and have a well-developed antipredator response to perceived threats. For example, the presence of a harbor seal (
Although an increase in vigilance or a flight response is nonlethal, a tradeoff occurs between risk avoidance and energy conservation. An animal's reactions to noise disturbance may cause stress and direct an animal's energy away from fitness-enhancing activities such as feeding and mating (Frid and Dill 2002; Goudie and Jones 2004). For example, southern sea otters in areas with heavy recreational boat traffic demonstrated changes in behavioral time budgeting, showing decreased time resting and changes in haulout patterns and distribution (Benham 2006; Maldini et al. 2012). Chronic stress can also lead to
Changes in behavior resulting from anthropogenic disturbance can include increased agonistic interactions between individuals or temporary or permanent abandonment of an area (Barton et al. 1998). Additionally, the extent of previous exposure to humans (Holcomb et al. 2009), the type of disturbance (Andersen et al. 2012), and the age or sex of the individuals (Shaughnessy et al. 2008; Holcomb et al. 2009) may influence the type and extent of response in individual sea otters.
Vessel collisions with marine mammals can result in death or serious injury. Wounds resulting from vessel strike may include massive trauma, hemorrhaging, broken bones, or propeller lacerations (Knowlton and Kraus 2001). An animal may be harmed by a vessel when the vessel runs over the animal at the surface, the animal hits the bottom of a vessel while the animal is surfacing, or the animal is cut by a vessel's propeller.
Vessel strike has been documented as a cause of death across all three stocks of northern sea otters in Alaska. Since 2002, the Service has conducted 1,433 sea otter necropsies to determine cause of death, disease incidence, and the general health status of sea otters in Alaska. Vessel strike or blunt trauma was identified as a definitive or presumptive cause of death in 65 cases (4 percent) (USFWS 2020). In most of these cases, trauma was determined to be the ultimate cause of death; however, there was a contributing factor, such as disease or biotoxin exposure, which incapacitated the sea otter and made it more vulnerable to vessel strike (USFWS 2014 a, b, c).
Vessel speed influences the likelihood of vessel strikes involving sea otters. The probability of death or serious injury to a marine mammal increases as vessel speed increases (Laist et al. 2001, Vanderlaan and Taggart 2007). Sea otters spend a considerable portion of their time at the water's surface (Esslinger et al. 2014). They are typically visually aware of approaching vessels and can move away if a vessel is not traveling too quickly. Mitigation measures to be applied to vessel operations to prevent collisions or interactions are included below in the rule portion of this document under proposed § 18.149 Mitigation.
Sea otters exhibit behavioral flexibility in response to vessels, and their responses may be influenced by the intensity and duration of the vessel's activity. As noted above, sea otter populations in Alaska were observed to avoid areas with heavy vessel traffic but return to those same areas during seasons with less vessel traffic (Garshelis and Garshelis 1984). Sea otters have also shown signs of disturbance or escape behaviors in response to the presence and approach of survey vessels including sea otters diving and/or actively swimming away from a vessel, sea otters on haulouts entering the water, and groups of sea otters disbanding and swimming in multiple different directions (Udevitz et al. 1995).
Additionally, sea otter responses to vessels may be influenced by the sea otter's previous experience with vessels. Groups of southern sea otters in two locations in California showed markedly different responses to kayakers approaching to within specific distances, suggesting a different level of tolerance between the groups (Gunvalson 2011). Benham (2006) found evidence that the sea otters exposed to high levels of recreational activity may have become more tolerant than individuals in less-disturbed areas. Sea otters off the California coast showed only mild interest in vessels passing within hundreds of meters and appeared to have habituated to vessel traffic (Riedman 1983, Curland 1997). These findings indicate that sea otters may adjust their responses to vessel activities depending on the level of activity. Vessels will not be used extensively or over a long duration during the proposed work; therefore, we do not anticipate that sea otters will experience changes in behavior indicative of tolerance or habituation.
Physical and biological features of habitat essential to the conservation of sea otters include the benthic invertebrates that sea otters eat and the shallow rocky areas and kelp beds that provide cover from predators. Important sea otter habitat in the project area includes coastal areas within the 40-m (131-ft) depth contour where high densities of sea otters have been detected.
Industrial activities, such as pile driving, may generate in-water noise at levels that can temporarily displace sea otters from important habitat and impact sea otter prey species. The primary prey species for sea otters are sea urchins (
Several studies have addressed the effects of noise on invertebrates (Tidau and Briffa 2016, Carroll et al. 2017). Behavioral changes, such as an increase in lobster (
While these studies provide evidence of deleterious effects to invertebrates as a result of increased sound levels, Carroll et al. (2017) caution that there is a wide disparity between results obtained in field and laboratory settings. In experimental settings, changes were observed only when animals were housed in enclosed tanks and many were exposed to prolonged bouts of continuous, pure tones. We would not expect similar results in open marine
Noise-generating activities that interact with the seabed can produce vibrations, resulting in the disturbance of sediment and increased turbidity in the water. Although turbidity is likely to have little impact on sea otters and prey species (Todd et al. 2015), there may be some impacts from vibrations and increased sedimentation. For example, mussels (
The proposed specified activities will occur near marine subsistence harvest areas used by Alaska Natives from areas surrounding the USCG facilities in Kodiak, Sitka, Ketchikan, Valdez, Cordova, Juneau, Petersburg, and Seward.
Table 3 shows the numbers of sea otters taken by subsistence hunting between 2017 and 2021 in the communities in which the specified activities are proposed.
Subsistence harvest of sea otters around Kodiak Island takes place primarily in Ouzinkie, Kodiak, and Port Lions with totals of 422, 192, and 130 sea otters taken, respectively, from 2017 through 2021. Subsistence harvest also occurs in Akhiok, Larsen Bay, and Old Harbor, with a total of 26 sea otters taken in those 3 communities over the same time period.
Of the communities on the Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof Islands, most subsistence harvest of sea otters occurs in Sitka. From 2017 through 2021, subsistence hunters took 956 sea otters in Sitka, averaging 191 per year. A combined total of 304 sea otters were taken during that time from Port Alexander, Angoon, Hoonah, and Pelican, with an average of 61 sea otters harvested per year from all those communities combined.
The majority of sea otter harvests in the Ketchikan area occur in the communities on Prince of Wales Island. From 2017 to 2021, Coffman Cove, Craig, Hydaburg, and Klawock harvested a total of 772 sea otters. During that time, 137 otters were taken for subsistence use in Ketchikan. Subsistence harvest of sea otters also occurs in Metlakatla, though there were no documented takes between 2017 and 2019 and 57 total between 2020 and 2021.
The subsistence use of sea otters in Valdez and Cordova has averaged 19 and 56 per year, respectively, from 2017 through 2021. In the surrounding area, Tatitlek has harvested an average of 6 sea otters per year for a total of 32 during that time.
Among Juneau and the surrounding communities, Hoonah takes the most sea otters by subsistence hunting. From 2017 through 2021, subsistence users in Hoonah took 275 otters, averaging 55 per year. In comparison, 140 sea otters were harvested in Juneau during that time. Angoon and Haines also take sea otters for subsistence, but in much smaller numbers. Angoon took 6 sea otters between 2017 and 2021, and all were harvested in 2018; Haines took 10 total during that time period, averaging 2 per year.
The majority of subsistence sea otter hunting in the Petersburg area takes place in the neighboring communities of Kake and Wrangell. Petersburg averaged 18 sea otters taken per year between 2017 and 2021. Kake had a total of 612 and averaged 122 annually, and Wrangell totaled 211 and averaged 42 per year over that timeframe.
No subsistence harvest of sea otters has been documented in Seward since 2017. The nearby community of Chenega Bay has no documented harvest of sea otters since 2018, and only six sea otters were harvested in 2017.
As all work sites are active USCG facilities, the proposed project does not overlap with current subsistence harvest areas. Construction activities will not preclude access to hunting areas or interfere in any way with individuals wishing to hunt. Furthermore, most USCG facilities are within developed areas and city limits, where firearm use is prohibited. Despite no conflict with subsistence use being anticipated, the Service will be conducting outreach with potentially affected communities to see whether there are any questions, concerns, or potential conflicts regarding subsistence use in those areas. If any conflicts are identified in the future, USCG will develop a plan of
Below we provide definitions of three potential types of take of sea otters. The Service does not anticipate and is not authorizing lethal take or take by Level A harassment as a part of the proposed rule; however, the definitions of these take types are provided for context and background:
The Service has identified the following sea otter behaviors as indicating possible Level B harassment:
• Swimming away at a fast pace on belly (
• Repeatedly raising the head vertically above the water to get a better view (spyhopping) while apparently agitated or while swimming away;
• In the case of a pup, repeatedly spyhopping while hiding behind and holding onto its mother's head;
• Abandoning prey or feeding area;
• Ceasing to nurse and/or rest (applies to dependent pups);
• Ceasing to rest (applies to independent animals);
• Ceasing to use movement corridors;
• Ceasing mating behaviors;
• Shifting/jostling/agitation in a raft so that the raft disperses;
• Sudden diving of an entire raft; or
• Flushing animals off a haulout.
This list is not meant to encompass all possible behaviors; other behavioral responses may equate to take by Level B harassment. Relatively minor changes in behavior such as increased vigilance or a short-term change in direction of travel are not likely to disrupt biologically important behavioral patterns, and the Service does not view such minor changes in behavior as indicative of a take by Level B harassment. It is also important to note that, depending on the duration, frequency, or severity of the above-described behaviors, such responses could constitute take by Level A harassment.
We assumed all animals exposed to underwater sound levels that meet the acoustic exposure criteria defined above in
The project can be divided into five major components: rock socket drilling, vibratory hammering, pile cutting or clipping, power washing, and pile driving using an impact driver. Each of these components will generate a different type of in-water noise. Vibratory hammering, pile cutting, and power washing will produce nonimpulsive or continuous noise; impact driving will produce impulsive noise; and down-the-hole rock socket drilling is considered to produce both impulsive and continuous noise (NMFS 2020).
The level of sound anticipated from each project component was established using recorded data from several sources listed in tables 4 through 11. The NMFS Technical Guidance and User Spreadsheet (NMFS 2018, 2020) was used to determine the distance at which sound levels would attenuate to Level A harassment thresholds, and empirical data from the proxy projects were used to determine the distance at which sound levels would attenuate to Level B harassment thresholds (table 2). The weighting factor adjustment included in the NMFS user spreadsheet accounts for sound created in portions of an organism's hearing range where they have less sensitivity. We used the weighting factor adjustment for otariid pinnipeds as they are the closest available physiological and anatomical proxy for sea otters. The spreadsheet also incorporates a transmission loss coefficient, which accounts for the reduction in sound level outward from a sound source. We used the NMFS-recommended transmission loss coefficient of 15 for coastal pile-driving activities to indicate simple spread (NMFS 2020).
Sound levels for all sources are unweighted and given in dB re 1 µPa. Nonimpulsive sounds are in the form of mean maximum root mean square (RMS) sound pressure level (SPL) as it is more conservative than cumulative sound exposure level (SEL) or peak SPL for these activities. Impulsive sound sources are in the form of SEL for a single strike.
To determine the number of sea otters that may experience in-water sounds >160 dB re 1µPa, we applied two different methods driven by the available survey data. For sites in Southeast Alaska (Sitka, Ketchikan, Petersburg, and Juneau; figures 2 through 5 in the supplemental figures document available at
For Kodiak, Seward, Valdez, and Cordova (figures 6 through 9 in the supplemental figures document available at
For all locations, we assumed that the different types of activities would occur sequentially and that the total number of days of work in a year would equal the sum of the number of days required to complete each type of activity planned for that year. While it is possible that on some days more than one type of activity will take place, which would reduce the number of days of exposure within a year, we cannot know this information in advance. As such, the estimated number of days and, therefore, exposures per year is the maximum possible for the planned work. Where the number of exposures expected per day was zero to three or more decimal places (
No Level A harassment (
We estimate that 25 takes of 5 Southwest Alaska sea otters by Level B harassment, 255 takes of 77 Southcentral Alaska sea otters by Level B harassment, and 700 takes of 115 Southeast Alaska sea otters by Level B harassment will occur due to USCG's proposed dock construction activities. In order to conduct this analysis and estimate the potential amount of take by Level B harassment, several critical assumptions were made.
Level B harassment is equated herein with behavioral responses that indicate harassment or disturbance. A portion of animals likely respond in ways that indicate some level of disturbance but not to any biologically significant behaviors.
For sites in Southeast Alaska, sea otter density was calculated using a Bayesian hierarchical model created by Eisaguirre et al. (2021), which includes assumptions that can be found in the original publication. For sites in Southwest and Southcentral Alaska, sea otter densities were taken from surveys and analyses conducted by Cobb (2018) and Weitzman and Esslinger (2015). Methods and assumptions for each of these surveys can be found in the original publications.
Sound level estimates for construction activities were generated using sound source verification from recent pile-driving activities in a number of locations within and beyond Alaska. Environmental conditions in these locations, including water depth, substrate, and ambient sound levels are similar to those in the project location, but not identical. Further, estimation of ensonification zones were based on sound attenuation models using a simple spreading loss model. These factors may lead to actual sound values differing slightly from those estimated here.
Finally, the pile-driving activities described here will also create in-air noise. Because sea otters spend over half of their day with their heads above water (Esslinger et al. 2014), they will be exposed to an increase in air noise from construction equipment. However, we have calculated Level B harassment with the assumption that an individual may be harassed only one time per 24-hour period, and underwater sound levels will be more disturbing and extend farther than in-air noise. Thus, while sea otters may be disturbed by noise both in air and underwater, we have relied on the more conservative underwater estimates.
USCG will conduct pile driving and marine construction activities over the GOA during a period of 5 years following the effective date of the final rule. A summary of total numbers of estimated takes by Level B harassment during the duration of the project by season and take category is provided in table 12.
In a single year, we estimate five instances of take by Level B harassment of one northern sea otter from the Southwest Alaska stock due to behavioral responses or TTS associated with noise exposure. Over the 5-year duration of these proposed ITRs, we estimate 25 instances of take by Level B harassment of 5 northern sea otters from the Southwest Alaska stock due to behavioral responses or TTS associated with noise exposure. Although multiple instances of harassment of otters are possible, these events are likely to result in only temporary changes in behavior. As such, these events are unlikely to have significant consequences for the health, reproduction, or survival of affected animals and, therefore, would not rise to the level of an injury or Level A harassment.
In a single year, we estimate 223 instances of take by Level B harassment of 45 northern sea otters from the Southcentral Alaska stock due to behavioral responses or TTS associated with noise exposure. Over the 5-year duration of these proposed ITRs, we estimate 255 instances of take by Level B harassment of 77 northern sea otters from the Southcentral Alaska stock due to behavioral responses or TTS associated with noise exposure. Although multiple instances of harassment of otters are possible, these events are likely to result in only temporary changes in behavior. As such, these events are unlikely to have significant consequences for the health, reproduction, or survival of affected animals and, therefore, would not rise to the level of an injury or Level A harassment.
In a single year, we estimate 140 instances of take by Level B harassment of 23 northern sea otters from the Southeast Alaska stock due to behavioral responses or TTS associated with noise exposure. Over the 5-year duration of these proposed ITRs, we estimate 700 instances of take by Level B harassment of 115 northern sea otters from the Southeast Alaska stock due to behavioral responses or TTS associated with noise exposure. Although an estimated 700 instances of harassment of 115 otters are possible, these events are likely to result in only temporary changes in behavior. As such, these events are unlikely to have significant consequences for the health, reproduction, or survival of affected animals and, therefore, would not rise to the level of an injury or Level A harassment.
Sea otters exposed to sound from the specified activities are likely to respond with temporary behavioral modification or displacement. The specified activities could temporarily interrupt the feeding, resting, and movement of sea otters. Because activities will occur during a limited amount of time and in a localized region, the impacts associated with the project are likewise temporary and localized. The anticipated effects are primarily short-term behavioral reactions and displacement of sea otters near active operations.
Sea otters that encounter the specified activity may exert more energy than they would otherwise due to temporary
With the adoption of the mitigation measures proposed in USCG's request and required by this proposed ITR, anticipated take was reduced. Those mitigation measures are further described below.
To assess whether the authorized incidental taking would be limited to “small numbers” of marine mammals, the Service uses a proportional approach that considers whether the estimated number of marine mammals to be subjected to incidental take is small relative to the population size of the species or stock. More specifically, the Service compares the number of animals anticipated to be taken in each year contemplated by the ITR with the population estimate applicable to each of those years. Here, predicted levels of take were determined based on estimated density of sea otters in the project area and ensonification zones developed using empirical evidence from similar geographic areas. We estimate that the USCG projects may annually result in the incidental take of approximately:
• 1 sea otter from the Southwest Alaska stock, representing 0.000 percent of the best available estimate of that stock (USFWS 2020) (1 ÷ 51,382 ≉ 0.00000);
• 45 sea otters from the Southcentral Alaska stock, representing 0.208 percent of the best available estimate that stock (Esslinger et al. 2021) (77 ÷ 21,617 = 0.00208); and
• 23 sea otters from the Southeast Alaska stock, representing 0.087 percent of the best available estimate of that stock (Eisaguirre et al. 2021) (23 ÷ 26,347 = 0.000873).
We note ongoing litigation concerning a separate, recently issued ITR in which plaintiffs assert that the Service's “small numbers” analysis must aggregate the number of animals anticipated to be taken in each year contemplated by the ITR and compare that multiyear number to the population estimate applicable to 1 year. While we disagree with this approach, for the sake of providing the applicant with regulatory certainty pending resolution of that litigation, we further analyze the “small numbers” question using this alternative approach and estimate the incidental take of:
• 5 sea otters from the Southwest Alaska stock, representing 0.011 percent of the best available estimate of that stock (USFWS 2020) (5 ÷ 51,382 = 0.00010);
• 77 sea otters from the Southcentral Alaska stock, representing 0.356 percent of the best available estimate that stock (Esslinger et al. 2021) (77 ÷ 21,617 = 0.00356); and
• 115 sea otters from the Southeast Alaska stock, representing 0.437 percent of the best available estimate of that stock (Eisaguirre et al. 2021) (115 ÷ 26,347 = 0.004363).
We propose a finding that any incidental take by harassment resulting from the specified activities cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the sea otter through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival and will, therefore, have no more than a negligible impact on the Southwest, Southcentral, and Southeast Alaska stocks of northern sea otters. In making this finding, we considered the best available scientific information, including the biological and behavioral characteristics of the species, the most recent information on species distribution and abundance within the area of the specified activities, the current and expected future status of the stock (including existing and foreseeable human and natural stressors), the potential sources of disturbance caused by the project, and the potential responses of marine mammals to this disturbance. In addition, we reviewed USCG-provided materials, information in our files and datasets, published reference materials, and species experts.
Sea otters are likely to respond to proposed activities with temporary behavioral modification or temporary displacement. These reactions are not anticipated to have consequences for the long-term health, reproduction, or survival of affected animals. Most animals will respond to disturbance by moving away from the source, which may cause temporary interruption of foraging, resting, or other natural behaviors. Affected animals are expected to resume normal behaviors soon after exposure with no lasting consequences. Each sea otter is estimated to be exposed to construction noise for between 1 and 10 days per year, resulting in repeated exposures. However, injuries (
The total number of animals affected and severity of impact is not sufficient to change the current population dynamics at the stock scale. Although the specified activities may result in approximately 25 incidental takes of 5 sea otters from the Southwest Alaska stock, 255 incidental takes of 77 sea otters from the Southcentral Alaska stock, and 700 incidental takes of 115 otters from the Southeast Alaska stock, we do not expect this level of harassment to affect annual rates of recruitment or survival or result in adverse effects on the stock.
Our proposed finding of negligible impact applies to incidental take associated with the proposed activities as mitigated by the avoidance and minimization measures identified in USCG's mitigation and monitoring plan and applied in the rule portion of this document in proposed § 18.149 Mitigation, below. These mitigation measures are designed to minimize interactions with and impacts to sea otters. These measures and the monitoring and reporting procedures are required for the validity of our finding and are a necessary component of the proposed ITRs. For these reasons, we propose a finding that the 2022-2027 USCG project will have a negligible impact on the Southeast, Southcentral,
We find that the mitigation measures required by this proposed ITR will effect the least practicable adverse impacts on the stocks from any incidental take likely to occur in association with the specified activities. In making this finding, we considered the biological characteristics of sea otters, the nature of the specified activities, the potential effects of the activities on sea otters, the documented impacts of similar activities on sea otters, and alternative mitigation measures.
In evaluating what mitigation measures are appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses, we considered the manner and degree to which the successful implementation of the measures are expected to achieve this goal. We considered the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range), the likelihood that the measures will be effective if implemented, and the likelihood of effective implementation. We also considered the practicability of the measures for applicant implementation (
To reduce the potential for disturbance from acoustic stimuli associated with the activities, USCG has proposed mitigation measures, including the following:
• Using the smallest diameter piles practicable while minimizing the overall number of piles;
• Conducting activities that may produce in-water sound as close to low tide as possible;
• Development of a marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan;
• Establishment of shutdown and monitoring zones;
• Visual mitigation monitoring by designated Protected Species Observers (PSOs);
• Site clearance before startup;
• Soft-start procedures; and
• Shutdown procedures.
The proposed project will not preclude access to harvest areas or interfere with the availability of sea otters for harvest. Additionally, the USCG facilities are located in developed areas and largely within areas where firearm use is prohibited. We therefore propose a finding that USCG's anticipated harassment will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of any stock of northern sea otters for taking for subsistence uses. In making this finding, we considered the timing and location of the proposed activities and the timing and location of subsistence harvest activities in the area of the proposed project.
The purposes of the monitoring requirements are to document and provide data for assessing the effects of specified activities on sea otters; to ensure that take is consistent with that anticipated in the small numbers, negligible impact, and subsistence use analyses; and to detect any unanticipated effects on the species. Monitoring plans include steps to document when and how sea otters are encountered and their numbers and behaviors during these encounters. This information allows the Service to measure encounter rates and trends and to estimate numbers of animals potentially affected. To the extent possible, monitors will record group size, age, sex, reaction, duration of interaction, and closest approach to the project activity.
As proposed, monitoring activities will be summarized and reported in a formal report each year. USCG must submit a final monitoring report to us no later than 90 days after the expiration of the LOA. We will base each year's monitoring objective on the previous year's monitoring results. We will require an approved plan for monitoring and reporting the effects of pile driving and marine construction activities on sea otters prior to issuance of an LOA. We will require approval of the monitoring results for continued operation under the LOA.
We find that these proposed monitoring and reporting requirements to evaluate the potential impacts of planned activities will ensure that the effects of the activities remain consistent with the rest of the findings.
If you wish to comment on these proposed regulations or the associated draft environmental assessment, you may submit your comments by any of the methods described in
We are required by Executive Orders 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must: (a) Be logically organized; (b) use the active voice to address readers directly; (c) use common, everyday words and clear language rather than jargon; (d) be divided into short sections and sentences; and (e) use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in
We have prepared a draft environmental assessment in accordance with the NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321
Under the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2)), all Federal agencies are required to ensure the actions they authorize are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any threatened or endangered species or result in
It is our responsibility to communicate and work directly on a Government-to-Government basis with federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes and organizations in developing programs for healthy ecosystems. We seek their full and meaningful participation in evaluating and addressing conservation concerns for protected species. It is our goal to remain sensitive to Alaska Native culture, and to make information available to Alaska Natives. Our efforts are guided by the following policies and directives:
(1) The Native American Policy of the Service (January 20, 2016);
(2) the Alaska Native Relations Policy (currently in draft form);
(3) Executive Order 13175 (January 9, 2000);
(4) Department of the Interior Secretarial Orders 3206 (June 5, 1997), 3225 (January 19, 2001), 3317 (December 1, 2011), and 3342 (October 21, 2016);
(5) the Alaska Government-to-Government Policy (a departmental memorandum issued January 18, 2001); and
(6) the Department of the Interior's policies on consultation with Alaska Native Tribes and organizations.
We have evaluated possible effects of the proposed activities on federally recognized Alaska Native Tribes and organizations. The Service has determined that, due to this project's locations and activities, the Tribal organizations and communities across the Gulf of Alaska, as well as relevant Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act corporations, will not be impacted by this project. Regardless, we will be reaching out to them to inform them of the availability of these proposed regulations and offer them the opportunity to consult.
We invite continued discussion, either about the project and its impacts or about our coordination and information exchange throughout the ITR process.
Executive Order 12866 provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) will review all significant rules for a determination of significance. OMB has designated this proposed rule as not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of Executive Order 12866 while calling for improvements in the nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. Executive Order 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this proposed rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
OIRA bases its determination of significance upon the following four criteria: (a) Whether the rule will have an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy or adversely affect an economic sector, productivity, jobs, the environment, or other units of the government; (b) whether the rule will create inconsistencies with other Federal agencies' actions; (c) whether the rule will materially affect entitlements, grants, user fees, loan programs, or the rights and obligations of their recipients; and (d) whether the rule raises novel legal or policy issues.
Expenses will be related to, but not necessarily limited to: the development of requests for LOAs; monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting activities conducted during pile driving and marine construction operations; development of activity- and species-specific marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plans; and coordination with Alaska Natives to minimize effects of operations on subsistence hunting. Realistically, costs of compliance with this proposed rule, if finalized, are minimal in comparison to those related to actual pile driving and marine construction operations. The actual costs to develop the petition for promulgation of regulations and LOA requests do not exceed $200,000 per year, short of the “major rule” threshold that would require preparation of a regulatory impact analysis.
We have determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2), the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act. The proposed rule is also not likely to result in a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, or government agencies or have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic or export markets.
We have determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not have a significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed rule, if finalized, does not have takings implications under Executive Order 12630 because it authorizes the nonlethal, incidental, but not intentional, take of sea otters by marine construction and pile driving and, thereby, exempts the USCG from civil and criminal liability as long as they operate in compliance with the terms of their LOAs. Therefore, a takings implications assessment is not required.
This proposed rule, if finalized, does not contain policies with federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. The MMPA gives the Service the authority and responsibility to protect sea otters.
In accordance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1501
The Departmental Solicitor's Office has determined that this proposed rule, if finalized, will not unduly burden the judicial system and meets the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This proposed rule contains existing and new information collections. All information collections require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
In accordance with the PRA and its implementing regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on our proposal to revise OMB Control Number 1018-0070. 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.
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, and in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on any aspect of this proposed information collection, including:
(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; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this proposed rulemaking are a matter of public 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 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.
While this proposed rule pertains only to the incidental taking of northern sea otters, this information collection includes requirements associated with the incidental taking of polar bears, Pacific walruses, and northern sea otters in Alaska. The Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
This is a nonform collection. Respondents must comply with the regulations at 50 CFR 18.27, which outline the procedures and requirements for submitting a request. Specific regulations governing authorized incidental take of marine mammal activities are contained in 50 CFR part 18, subparts J (incidental take of polar bears and Pacific walruses in the Beaufort Sea) and K (incidental take of northern sea otters in the Cook Inlet). These regulations provide the applicant with a detailed description of information that we need to evaluate the proposed activity and determine if it is appropriate to issue specific regulations and, subsequently, LOAs. We use the information to verify the findings required to issue incidental take regulations, to decide if we should issue an LOA, and (if an LOA is issued) what conditions should be included in the LOA. In addition, we analyze the information to determine impacts to polar bears, Pacific walruses, northern sea otters, and the availability of those marine mammals for subsistence purposes of Alaska Natives.
The proposed revisions to existing and new reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements identified below require approval by OMB:
(1)
(2) We are also proposing a revision to the previously approved “Onsite Monitoring and Observation Reports” information collection to split it into three separate information collections to more accurately account for burden for the various components under this specific section of the regulations:
a.
• Notify the Service at least 48 hours prior to the onset of activities;
• Provide the Service weekly progress reports of any significant changes in activities and/or locations; and
• Notify the Service within 48 hours after ending of activities.
b.
• Date, time, and location of observation;
• Number of bears;
• Sex and age of bears (if known);
• Observer name and contact information;
• Weather, visibility, sea state, and sea-ice conditions at the time of observation;
• Estimated closest distance of bears from personnel and facilities;
• Industry activity at time of sighting;
• Possible attractants present;
• Bear behavior;
• Description of the encounter;
• Duration of the encounter; and
• Mitigation actions taken.
c.
• All information specified for an observation report;
• A complete detailed description of the incident; and
• Any other actions taken.
In addition to the revisions described above, we are bringing the following existing regulatory requirements contained in part 18 that were not previously approved by OMB under the PRA into compliance:
(1)
• The type of activity and where and when the activity will occur (
• A food, waste, and other “bear attractants” management plan;
• Personnel training policies, procedures, and materials;
• Site-specific walrus and polar bear interaction risk evaluation and mitigation measures;
• Polar bear avoidance and encounter procedures; and
• Polar bear observation and reporting procedures.
(2)
(3)
(4)
We also propose to renew the existing reporting and/or recordkeeping requirements identified below:
(1)
• A description of the specific activity or class of activities that can be expected to result in incidental taking of marine mammals.
• The dates and duration of such activity and the specific geographical region where it will occur.
• Based on the best available scientific information, each applicant must also provide:
• The anticipated impact of the activity upon the habitat of the marine mammal populations and the likelihood of restoration of the affected habitat.
• The availability and feasibility (economic and technological) of equipment, methods, and manner of conducting such activity or other means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact upon the affected species or stocks, their habitat, and, where relevant, on their availability for subsistence uses, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance. (The applicant and those conducting the specified activity and the affected subsistence users are encouraged to develop mutually agreeable mitigating measures that will meet the needs of subsistence users.)
• Suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species through an analysis of the level of taking or impacts and suggested means of minimizing burdens by coordinating such reporting requirements with other schemes already applicable to persons conducting such activity.
• Suggested means of learning of, encouraging, and coordinating research opportunities, plans, and activities relating to reducing such incidental taking from such specified activities, and evaluating its effects.
• Applicants must develop and implement a site-specific (or umbrella plan addressing site-specific considerations), Service-approved marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of mitigation measures and the effects of activities on marine mammals and the subsistence use of these species.
• Applicants must also provide trained, qualified, and Service-approved onsite observers to carry out monitoring and mitigation activities identified in the marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan.
This information is necessary so that we can anticipate the impact of the activity on the species or stocks and on the availability of the species or stocks for subsistence uses. Under requirements of the MMPA, we cannot authorize a take unless the total of all takes will have a negligible impact on the species or stocks and, where appropriate, will not have an
(2)
• Copies of all observation reports submitted under the LOA;
• A summary of the observation reports;
• A summary of monitoring and mitigation efforts including areas, total hours, total distances, and distribution;
• Analysis of factors affecting the visibility and detectability of walruses and polar bears during monitoring;
• Analysis of the effectiveness of mitigation measures;
• Analysis of the distribution, abundance, and behavior of walruses and/or polar bears observed; and
• Estimates of take in relation to the specified activities.
(3)
(4)
(5)
Holders of an LOA seeking to carry out onshore activities during the denning season (November-April) must conduct two separate surveys for occupied polar bear dens in all denning habitat within 1.6 km (1 mi) of proposed activities using aerial infrared (AIR) imagery. Further, all denning habitat within 1.6 km (1 mi) of areas of proposed seismic surveys must be surveyed three separate times with AIR technology.
Flight crews will record and report environmental parameters including air temperature, dew point, wind speed and direction, cloud ceiling, and percent humidity, and a flight log will be provided to the Service within 48 hours of the flight.
Send your written comments and suggestions on this information collection by the date indicated in
For a list of the references cited in this proposed rule, see Docket No. FWS-R7-ES-2022-0025, available at
On July 19, 2022, Shannon Estenoz, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks, approved this action for publication. On August 9, 2022, Shannon Estenoz authorized the undersigned to sign this document electronically and submit it to the Office of the Federal Register for publication as an official document of the Department of the Interior.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Imports, Indians, Marine mammals, Marine construction, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Service proposes to amend part 18, subchapter B of chapter 1, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.
16 U.S.C. 1361
Regulations in this subpart apply to the nonlethal incidental, but not intentional, take, as defined in § 18.3 and under section 3 of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 1371
(a) The specified geographic region encompasses areas within 2 kilometers (km) (~1.25 miles (mi)) of eight USCG facilities within the USCG Civil Engineering Unit, Juneau Area of Responsibility. These facilities are: Base Kodiak, Moorings Seward, Moorings Valdez, Moorings Cordova, Moorings Sitka, Station Juneau, Moorings Petersburg, and Base Ketchikan.
(b) The geographic area of these incidental take regulations (ITRs) includes all Alaska State waters within this area as well as all adjacent rivers, estuaries, and coastal lands where sea otters may occur.
Regulations in this subpart are effective until [DATE 5 YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE FINAL RULE].
(a) To incidentally take sea otters pursuant to the regulations in this subpart, USCG must apply for and obtain an LOA in accordance with the regulations in § 18.27(f) and this section. USCG must submit the request for an LOA to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) Alaska Region Marine Mammals Management Office (MMM), MS 341, 1011 East Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503, at least 30 days prior to the start of the proposed activity.
(b) The request for an LOA must include the following information:
(1) An operational plan for the activity;
(2) A digital geospatial file of the project footprint; and
(3) A site-specific marine mammal monitoring and mitigation plan that specifies the procedures to monitor and mitigate the effects of the activities on sea otters.
(a) The Service will evaluate each request for an LOA to determine if the proposed activity is consistent with the analysis and findings made for the regulations in this subpart. Depending on the results of the evaluation, we may grant the requested authorization, add further conditions, or deny the request for an LOA.
(b) Once issued, the LOA may be withdrawn or suspended if the project activity is modified in a way that undermines the results of the previous evaluation, if the conditions of the regulations in this subpart are not being substantially met, or if the taking allowed is or may be having more than a negligible impact on the affected stocks of sea otters or an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of sea otters for subsistence uses.
(c) The Service will make decisions concerning withdrawals of an LOA, either on an individual or class basis, only after notice and opportunity for public comment in accordance with § 18.27(f)(5). The requirement for notice and public comment will not apply should we determine that an emergency exists that poses a significant risk to the well-being of the species or stocks of sea otters.
(a) An LOA allows for the nonlethal, incidental, but not intentional take by Level B harassment of sea otters during activities specified in § 18.142 within the Gulf of Alaska ITR region described in § 18.143.
(b) Each LOA will set forth:
(1) Permissible methods of incidental take;
(2) Means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact (
(3) Requirements for monitoring and reporting.
(c) Issuance of the LOA(s) must be based on a determination that the level of take will be consistent with the findings made for the total allowable take under the regulations in this subpart.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, prohibited taking is described in § 18.11 as well as: intentional take, lethal incidental take of sea otters, and any other take that fails to comply with this subpart or with the terms and conditions of an LOA.
(b) If project activities cause unauthorized take, the applicant must take the following actions:
(1) Cease activities immediately (or reduce activities to the minimum level necessary to maintain safety) and report the details of the incident within 48 hours to the Service MMM at 1-800-362-5148 (business hours); and
(2) Suspend further activities until the Service has reviewed the circumstances, determined whether additional mitigation measures are necessary to avoid further unauthorized taking, and notified the applicant that project activities may resume.
(a)
(1) Implement policies and procedures to avoid interactions with and minimize to the greatest extent practicable adverse impacts on sea otters, their habitat, and the availability of these marine mammals for subsistence uses.
(2) Develop avoidance and minimization policies and procedures,
(3) Cooperate with the Service's MMM Office and other designated Federal, State, and local agencies to monitor and mitigate the impacts of pile driving and marine construction activities on sea otters.
(4) Allow Service personnel or the Service's designated representative to board project vessels or visit project worksites for the purpose of monitoring impacts to sea otters and subsistence uses of sea otters at any time throughout project activities so long as it is safe to do so.
(5) Designate trained and qualified protected species observers (PSOs) to monitor for the presence of sea otters, initiate mitigation measures, and monitor, record, and report the effects of the activities on sea otters. The applicant is responsible for providing training to PSOs to carry out mitigation and monitoring.
(6) Have an approved mitigation and monitoring plan on file with the Service MMM and onsite that includes the following information:
(i) The type of activity and where and when the activity will occur (
(ii) Personnel training policies, procedures, and materials;
(iii) Site-specific sea otter interaction risk evaluation and mitigation measures;
(iv) Sea otter avoidance and encounter procedures; and
(v) Sea otter observation and reporting procedures.
(b)
(1) Construction activities must be conducted using equipment that generates the lowest practicable levels of underwater sound within the range of frequencies audible to sea otters.
(2) During all pile-installation activities, regardless of predicted sound levels, a physical interaction shutdown zone of 20 m (66 ft) must be enforced. If a sea otter enters the shutdown zone, in-water activities must be delayed until either the animal has been visually observed outside the shutdown zone or 15 minutes have elapsed since the last observation time without redetection of the animal.
(3) If the impact driver has been idled for more than 30 minutes, an initial set of three strikes from the impact driver must be delivered at reduced energy, followed by a 1-minute waiting period, before full-powered proofing strikes.
(4) In-water activity must be conducted in daylight. If environmental conditions prevent visual detection of sea otters within the shutdown zone, in-water activities must be stopped until visibility is regained.
(5) All in-water work along the shoreline must be conducted during low tide when the site is dewatered to the maximum extent practicable.
(c)
(1) Vessels must remain at least 500 m from rafts of sea otters unless safety is a factor. Vessels must reduce speed and maintain a distance of 100 m (328 ft) from all sea otters unless safety is a factor.
(2) Vessels must not be operated in such a way as to separate members of a group of sea otters from other members of the group and must avoid alongshore travel in shallow water (<20 m) whenever practicable.
(3) When weather conditions require, such as when visibility drops, vessels must adjust speed accordingly to avoid the likelihood of injury to sea otters.
(4) Vessel operators must be provided written guidance for avoiding collisions and minimizing disturbances to sea otters. Guidance will include measures identified in paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
(a) Operators must work with PSOs to apply mitigation measures and must recognize the authority of PSOs, up to and including stopping work, except where doing so poses a significant safety risk to personnel.
(b) Duties of PSOs include watching for and identifying sea otters, recording observation details, documenting presence in any applicable monitoring zone, identifying and documenting potential harassment, and working with operators to implement all appropriate mitigation measures.
(c) A sufficient number of PSOs will be available to meet the following criteria: 100 percent monitoring of exclusion zones during all daytime periods of underwater noise-generating work; a maximum of 4 consecutive hours on watch per PSO; a maximum of approximately 12 hours on watch per day per PSO.
(d) All PSOs will complete a training course designed to familiarize individuals with monitoring and data collection procedures. A field crew leader with prior experience as a sea otter observer will supervise the PSO team. Initially, new or inexperienced PSOs will be paired with experienced PSOs so that the quality of marine mammal observations and data recording is kept consistent. Resumes for candidate PSOs will be made available for the Service to review.
(e) Observers will be provided with reticule binoculars (10x42), big-eye binoculars or spotting scopes (30x), inclinometers, and range finders. Field guides, instructional handbooks, maps, and a contact list will also be made available.
(f) Observers will collect data using the following procedures:
(1) All data will be recorded onto a field form or database.
(2) Global positioning system data, sea state, wind force, and weather will be collected at the beginning and end of a monitoring period, every hour in between, at the change of an observer, and upon sightings of sea otters.
(3) Observation records of sea otters will include date; time; the observer's locations, heading, and speed (if moving); weather; visibility; number of animals; group size and composition (adults/juveniles); and the location of the animals (or distance and direction from the observer).
(4) Observation records will also include initial behaviors of the sea otters, descriptions of project activities and underwater sound levels being generated, the position of sea otters relative to applicable monitoring and mitigation zones, any mitigation measures applied, and any apparent reactions to the project activities before and after mitigation.
(5) For all sea otters in or near a mitigation zone, observers will record the distance from the vessel to the sea otter upon initial observation, the duration of the encounter, and the distance at last observation in order to monitor cumulative sound exposures.
(6) Observers will note any instances of animals lingering close to or traveling with vessels for prolonged periods of time.
(a) Operators must notify the Service at least 48 hours prior to commencement of activities.
(b) Monthly reports will be submitted to the Service MMM for all months during which noise-generating work takes place. The monthly report will contain and summarize the following information: dates, times, weather, and sea conditions (including the Beaufort Scale's sea state and wind force conditions) when sea otters were
(c) A final report will be submitted to the Service within 90 days after the expiration of each LOA. It will include the following:
(1) A summary of monitoring efforts (hours of monitoring, activities monitored, number of PSOs, and, if requested by the Service, the daily monitoring logs).
(2) A description of all project activities, along with any additional work yet to be done. Factors influencing visibility and detectability of marine mammals (
(3) A description of the factors affecting the presence and distribution of sea otters (
(4) A description of changes in sea otter behavior resulting from project activities and any specific behaviors of interest.
(5) A discussion of the mitigation measures implemented during project activities and their observed effectiveness for minimizing impacts to sea otters. Sea otter observation records will be provided to the Service in the form of electronic database or spreadsheet files.
(d) All reports must be submitted by email to
(e) Injured, dead, or distressed sea otters that are not associated with project activities (
(f) Operators must notify the Service upon project completion or end of the work season.
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of virtual business meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Minnesota Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a virtual business meeting via Webex at 2:00 p.m. CT on Wednesday, September 14, 2022. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Committee's project on policing practices in the state.
The meeting will take place on Wednesday, September 14, 2022, from 2:00 p.m.-3:00 p.m. CT.
David Barreras, DFO, at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the conference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference details found through registering at the web link above. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Liliana Schiller at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of web briefing.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Florida Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a web briefing at 10:00 a.m. ET on Wednesday, September 14, 2022, to hear testimony regarding the civil rights implications of recent legislative changes to Florida's election laws.
The briefing will take place via Webex on Wednesday, September 14, 2022, from 10:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m. ET.
Link to Join (Audio/Visual):
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the conference link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind, and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at (800) 877-8339 and providing the Service with the conference details found through registering at the web link above. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are also entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Liliana Schiller at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice; cancellation of web briefing.
The Commission on Civil Rights published a notice in the
Melissa Wojnaroski, DFO, at
On April 12, 2022, CoLinx, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within FTZ 148, in Crossville, Tennessee.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of completion of panel review.
In accordance with Rules 78 and 80 of the NAFTA
Vidya Desai, United States Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, 202-482-5438.
Article 1904 of NAFTA provides a dispute settlement mechanism for binational panel reviews of trade remedy determinations issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of Canada, and the Government of Mexico. On June 27, 2022, the Binational Panel issued a Final Decision and Order affirming the U.S. Department of Commerce's determination. The Notice of Final Panel Action was then issued the eleventh day thereafter on July 8, 2022. Accordingly, the Notice of Completion of Panel Review is being issued pursuant to Rule 80 of the NAFTA
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is amending the final results of the administrative review of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on crystalline silicon photovoltaic cells, whether or not assembled into modules (solar cells), from the People's Republic of China (China), covering the period of review (POR) January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019, to correct ministerial errors.
Applicable August 15, 2022.
Robert Copyak, 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) 482-3642.
Commerce issued the
A ministerial error, as defined in section 751(h) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), includes “errors in addition, subtraction, or other arithmetic function, clerical errors resulting from inaccurate copying, duplication, or the like, and any other type of unintentional error which the administering authority considers ministerial.”
Commerce determines that, in accordance with section 751(h) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(f), it made the following ministerial errors in the
As a result of correcting the ministerial errors described above, Commerce determines the following net countervailable subsidy rates for the POR, January 1, 2019, through December 31, 2019:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed for these amended final results in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce shall determine and U.S. Customs and Border Protections (CBP) shall assess, CVDs on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the amended final results of this review.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of these amended final results of this review in the
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce also intends to instruct CBP to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for the companies subject to this review. For all non-reviewed companies, we will instruct CBP to 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 deposits, effective upon publication of these amended final results, 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 a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these amended final results of review in accordance with sections 751(h) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.224(e).
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 submitted by the Gulf of Maine Research Institute contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and 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 August 30, 2022.
You may submit written comments by the following method:
•
Claire Fitz-Gerald, Fishery Policy Analyst,
The Gulf of Maine Research Institute (GMRI) submitted a complete application for an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) to pilot a third-party dockside monitoring (DSM) program in support of maximized retention electronic monitoring (MREM) for the Northeast multispecies fishery. The groundfish sector MREM program currently operates under an EFP and NMFS administers an accompanying DSM program to collect catch information. MREM will be implemented in regulation as part of Amendment 23 to the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan during fishing year 2022. Measures implementing Amendment 23 were published in a proposed rule on February 28, 2022 (87 FR 11014). Amendment 23 was approved on behalf of the Secretary of Commerce on April 12, 2022; it will be implemented through a final rule in 2022, although the timing is uncertain. Amendment 23 aims to improve the reliability and accountability of catch reporting in the commercial groundfish fishery.
NMFS will continue to administer the DSM program while we finalize program standards and requirements, after which we will transition the program in an industry-funded model and sectors will contract directly with third-party providers for DSM services. GMRI intends to support this transition by administering a DSM pilot program with contracted third-party providers to achieve two main objectives: To provide increased DSM capacity; and explore innovative alternatives to the existing DSM program. If approved, this EFP would exempt participants from the MREM DSM regulation included in the Amendment 23 proposed rule at 50 CFR 648.11(l)(10)(i)(D). The EFP would exempt vessels in the MREM program from the requirement to participate in either an independent third-party DSM program approved by NMFS or the DSM program operated by NMFS. We intend to align issuance of this EFP, if approved, with the implementation of Amendment 23. Given this, we are notifying the public of our intent to issue the EFP and soliciting comments now even though we have yet to publish the final rule with implementing regulations for Amendment 23.
Under the EFP, GMRI and its contracted third-party providers would provide additional DSM capacity for fishing year 2022 by overseeing some offloads for MREM vessels. GMRI and its contracted third-party providers would coordinate with the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) to deploy DSM services as needed, and would collect data required under the MREM program. In particular, the DSM program is responsible for: Verifying that the fish hold is empty after offload; independently recording dealer-reported weights; and collecting biosamples with an emphasis on sub-legal groundfish. GMRI and its contracted third-party providers would give the information collected to NEFSC for data entry and quality assurance and control.
The DSM pilot program would also explore innovative alternatives to existing protocols to collect catch information, and provide support to sectors, fishermen, and dealers. For example, innovations may include, but are not limited to, alternative program designs (
The third-party DSM EFP would start when Amendment 23 is implemented and would operate through the remainder of fishing year 2022 (
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year as well as modifications resulting from changes to the regulations for the DSM program included in the Amendment 23 final rule. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 14, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Angela Duncan, 571-372-7574,
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 14, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Angela Duncan, 571-372-7574,
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at
Pentagon Force Protection Agency (PFPA), Department of Defense (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by September 14, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Angela Duncan, 571-372-7574,
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Ms. Duncan at
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (OASD(HA)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 14, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Defense Health Agency, 7700 Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, VA 22042, Terry McDavid, 703-681-3645.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health Affairs (OASD(HA)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by October 14, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Defense Health Agency, 7700 Arlington Blvd., Falls Church, VA 22042, Terry McDavid, 703-681-3645.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Detroit District, is reviewing an application pursuant to section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 and section 404 of the Clean Water Act for a Department of the Army (DA) permit by Enbridge Energy, Limited Partnership (Enbridge) (File LRE-2010-00463-56-A19) to construct a tunnel (the Line 5 Tunnel Project) that would house a replacement segment of Enbridge's Line 5 pipeline crossing the Straits of Mackinac (Straits) in Lake Michigan. The primary Federal involvement associated with the proposed action is the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of
To ensure consideration, all comments regarding the proposed EIS scope should be received by the Detroit District by October 14, 2022.
Written comments regarding the proposed EIS scope should be addressed to: Line 5 Tunnel EIS, 16501 Shady Grove Road, P.O. Box 10178, Gaithersburg, MD 20898. Comments may also be submitted electronically at:
For information about this project, to be included on the mailing list for future updates and public meeting announcements, or to receive a copy of the Draft EIS when it is issued, visit
The USACE, Detroit District, intends to prepare an EIS for the proposed Line 5 Tunnel Project. As part of the DA permit application review, the Detroit District issued a Public Notice on May 15, 2020, and held a Public Hearing on December 7, 2020. The purpose of the notice and hearing was to seek comments and information to better enable the Detroit District to make a reasonable decision on factors affecting the public interest. All comments received to date will be considered by the Detroit District during EIS preparation.
The USACE's decision will be to issue, issue with modification, or deny the DA permit for the proposed action. The EIS will assess the potential social, economic, cultural, and environmental impacts of the proposed project and is intended to be sufficient in scope to address Federal, State, and local requirements, and cultural, environmental, socioeconomic, and Tribal factors related to the proposed action and permit review.
1.
The USACE will coordinate its review under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (section 106) with its NEPA process, pursuant to 36 CFR 800.8(a) and will use the EIS scoping process to facilitate consultation under Section 106. The USACE invites all interested parties to provide comments on identification of and potential effects to historic properties during the EIS scoping period. In addition, individuals and organizations with a demonstrated interest in the project may request to participate as a consulting party in the USACE's Section 106 review. The USACE will determine whether to grant such requests.
2.
3.
4.
The tunnel is being pursued in accordance with the “Tunnel Agreement” that was executed by Enbridge and the State of Michigan on December 19, 2018. That Agreement was entered in furtherance of Public Act 359, through which the State of Michigan established the Authority and delegated to it the right to acquire, construct, maintain, improve, repair, and manage a utility tunnel across the Straits. The State of Michigan also granted an easement for the proposed tunnel in December 2018. The 1953 easement for the existing dual pipelines crossing of the Straits was revoked on November 13, 2020, by Michigan Governor Whitmer and the Michigan Department of Natural Resources. To date, Enbridge continues to operate Line 5 through the Straits.
The proposed tunnel would cross below the lakebed of the Straits, connecting Point La Barbe in Michigan's Upper Peninsula to McGulpin Point in Michigan's Lower Peninsula, in Mackinac and Emmet Counties, respectively. The distance between these two land points is approximately 3.6 miles and represents the shortest distance between Michigan's Upper and Lower Peninsulas. The tunnel would extend as near as practicable to Enbridge's existing Line 5 North Straits Facility located on the north side of the Straits to an opening point as near as practicable to Enbridge's existing Line 5 Mackinaw Station located on the south side of the Straits.
Except for the entrance points on either side of the Straits, the tunnel would be constructed entirely within the bedrock at depths between 30 feet and 370 feet beneath the lakebed of the Straits. Once complete, the proposed tunnel's inside diameter would be approximately 21 feet. The tunnel would be constructed using a tunnel-boring machine. Pre-cast concrete segmental lining would be installed as the tunnel is constructed, and the space outside the tunnel's concrete lining would be filled with low-permeability grout. The tunnel would provide secondary containment, which is intended to minimize the potential for leakage of fluids from Line 5 into the lakebed or the Straits. Tunnel construction activities would result in removal of approximately 364,000 cubic yards of material from underneath the lakebed. The material would be transported to offsite upland disposal sites.
A shallow launch portal between 400 and 1,000 feet long, 40 to 60 feet wide, and 50 to 80 feet deep would be constructed in uplands within the southern work area (McGulpin Point) and would serve as the entry point for the tunnel-boring machine. A circular shaft 70 feet in diameter and 150 feet deep would be constructed in uplands at the tunnel-boring machine exit point in the northern work area (Point La Barbe). The construction area within the proposed limits of disturbance would be covered in gravel fill. Temporary construction facilities in uplands would include stormwater ponds, spoil storage and management areas, a construction water treatment plant, materials storage and staging areas, office and parking facilities, and a power substation and generator. Permanent facilities constructed in uplands would include stormwater ponds, outfall structures, access drives, and a ventilation building at each end of the tunnel. Remaining areas within the limits of disturbance would be revegetated.
The proposed project would involve placement of fill into a total of approximately 0.13 acre of wetlands, including 0.10 acre of permanent impact and 0.03 acre of temporary impact. The purposes of the fill include: construction of two outfall structures (0.02 acre wetland impact), widening Boulevard Drive to the south and east of the work area for construction equipment access (0.08 acre), and providing access to an upland materials staging area (0.03 acre). After completion of construction, the fill in this 0.03-acre area would be removed, and the area would be seeded with emergent wetland seed mix. Two water intake structures for construction of the tunnel would be installed offshore on each side of the Straits. A discharge pipe would be connected to the southern intake, which would be used intermittently to discharge treated process water into the Straits. Each intake structure would be marked with a surface buoy. The offshore intake structures and discharge pipe would be removed upon completion of tunnel construction.
A new 30-inch pipeline would be installed within the tunnel and connected to the existing portions of the Line 5 pipeline. Upon completion, Enbridge proposes to decommission the existing submerged Line 5 dual pipelines crossing the Straits by purging, cleaning, and abandoning them in place.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Take notice that on August 8, 2022, pursuant to sections 1(4), 1(6), 3, 6, 13(1), and 15(1) of the Interstate Commerce Act (ICA), 49 U.S.C. App. 1(4), 1(6), 3, 6, 13(1), and 15(1); Rule 206 of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.206 (2021); and Rules 343.1(a) and 343.2(c) of the Commission's Procedural Rules Applicable to Oil Pipeline Proceedings, 18 CFR 343.1(a) and 343.2(c) (2021), TransMontaigne Partners LLC and TransMontaigne Operating Company LP (collectively TransMontaigne or Complainants) filed a formal complaint against Colonial Pipeline Company, (Colonial or Respondent) challenging the lawfulness of Colonial's denial of In-Transit storage privileges associated with TransMontaigne's Collins, Mississippi terminal/storage facility and the corresponding rate structure and terms and conditions of service, all as more fully explained in the complaint.
The Complainant certifies that copies of the complaint were served on the contacts listed for Respondent in the Commission's list of Corporate Officials.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. The Respondent's answer and all interventions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. The Respondent's answer, motions to intervene, and protests must be served on the Complainants.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
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:
On April 30, 2021, the Village of Enosburg Falls, Vermont (Village) filed a relicense application for the 975-kilowatt Enosburg Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2905 (project). The project is located on the Missisquoi River in Franklin County, Vermont. The project does not occupy federal land.
In accordance with the Commission's regulations, on June 2, 2022, Commission staff issued a notice that the project was ready for environmental analysis (REA Notice). Based on the information in the record, including comments filed on the REA Notice, staff does not anticipate that licensing the project would constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Therefore, staff intends to prepare an Environmental Assessment (EA) on the application to relicense the project.
The EA will be issued and circulated for review by all interested parties. All comments filed on the EA will be analyzed by staff and considered in the Commission's final licensing decision.
The application will be processed according to the following schedule. Revisions to the schedule may be made as appropriate.
Any questions regarding this notice may be directed to John Baummer at (202) 502-6837 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Chaparral Springs, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is August 29, 2022.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
On August 1, 2022, the Village of Enosburg Falls, Vermont submitted to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) a copy of its application for a Clean Water Act section 401(a)(1) water quality certification filed with the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation (Vermont DEC), in conjunction with the above captioned project. Pursuant to 40 CFR 121.6 and section 4.34(b)(5) of the Commission's regulations,
If Vermont DEC fails or refuses to act on the water quality certification request on or before the above date, then the agency certifying authority is deemed waived pursuant to section 401(a)(1) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1341(a)(1).
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
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:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
EPA is required under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), as amended by the Frank R. Lautenberg Chemical Safety for the 21st Century Act, to make information publicly available and to publish information in the
Comments identified by the specific case number provided in this document must be received on or before September 14, 2022.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0132, and the specific case number for the chemical substance related to your comment, through the
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
This document provides the receipt and status reports for the period from 7/1/2022 to 07/31/2022. The Agency is providing notice of receipt of PMNs, SNUNs and MCANs (including amended notices and test information); an exemption application under 40 CFR part 725 (Biotech exemption); TMEs, both pending and/or concluded; NOCs to manufacture a new chemical substance; and a periodic status report on new chemical substances that are currently under EPA review or have recently concluded review.
EPA is also providing information on its website about cases reviewed under the amended TSCA, including the section 5 PMN/SNUN/MCAN and exemption notices received, the date of receipt, the final EPA determination on the notice, and the effective date of EPA's determination for PMN/SNUN/MCAN notices on its website at:
Under the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), 15 U.S.C. 2601
Any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose, or to manufacture or process a chemical substance in a non-exempt manner for a use that EPA has determined is a significant new use, is required by TSCA section 5 to provide EPA with a PMN, MCAN or SNUN, as appropriate, before initiating the activity. EPA will review the notice, make a risk determination on the chemical substance or significant new use, and take appropriate action as described in TSCA section 5(a)(3).
TSCA section 5(h)(1) authorizes EPA to allow persons, upon application and under appropriate restrictions, to manufacture or process a new chemical substance, or a chemical substance subject to a significant new use rule (SNUR) issued under TSCA section 5(a)(2), for “test marketing” purposes, upon a showing that the manufacture, processing, distribution in commerce, use, and disposal of the chemical will not present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This is referred to as a test marketing exemption, or TME. For more information about the requirements applicable to a new chemical go to:
Under TSCA sections 5 and 8 and EPA regulations, EPA is required to publish in the
No.
1.
2.
In the past, EPA has published individual notices reflecting the status of TSCA section 5 filings received, pending or concluded. In 1995, the Agency modified its approach and streamlined the information published in the
For the PMN/SNUN/MCANs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period, Table I provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the notices screened by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the notice that indicates whether the submission is an initial submission, or an amendment, a notation of which version was received, the date the notice was received by EPA, the submitting manufacturer (
As used in each of the tables in this unit, (S) indicates that the information in the table is the specific information provided by the submitter, and (G)
In Table II of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as CBI) on the NOCs that have passed an initial screening by EPA during this period: The EPA case number assigned to the NOC including whether the submission was an initial or amended submission, the date the NOC was received by EPA, the date of commencement provided by the submitter in the NOC, a notation of the type of amendment (
In Table III of this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent such information is not subject to a CBI claim) on the test information that has been received during this time period: The EPA case number assigned to the test information; the date the test information was received by EPA, the type of test information submitted, and chemical substance identity.
If you are interested in information that is not included in these tables, you may contact EPA's technical information contact or general information contact as described under
Federal Maritime Commission.
Request for Information.
The Federal Maritime Commission seeks public comment on whether congestion of the carriage of goods has created an emergency situation causing a substantial, adverse effect on the competitiveness and reliability of the international ocean transportation supply system. Information received in response to this request will help inform the Commission's decision on whether an emergency situation exists, and whether to issue an emergency order to address any such situation.
Submit comments on or before September 14, 2022.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. 22-19, by email to:
•
William Cody, Secretary; Phone: (202) 523-5908; Email:
On June 16, 2022, the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022 (“OSRA 2022”) became law.
If the Commission determines that cargo congestion has created an emergency situation, it may issue an order requiring any common carrier or marine terminal operator to share directly with relevant shippers, rail carriers, or motor carriers information relating to cargo throughput and availability. Such information sharing among industry participants is to improve the efficient transportation, loading, and unloading of cargo to or from (1) any inland destination or point of origin, (2) any vessel, or (3) any point on a wharf or terminal.
Any Commission-issued emergency order must be tailored in terms of duration and geographic scope; consider the likely burdens on common carriers and marine terminal operators; and consider the likely benefits on congestion relating to the purposes of the Shipping Act stated in 46 U.S.C. 40101.
An emergency order issued under OSRA 2022 would remain in effect for a period of not longer than 60 days and may be renewed by a unanimous vote of the Commission. The authority to issue an emergency order under Section 18 of OSRA 2022 terminates 18 months after the date of enactment of the Act.
A common carrier or marine terminal operator subject to a Commission-issued emergency order may file a petition for exception from one or more requirements of the emergency order. Petitions for exception must be based on a showing of undue hardship or other condition rendering compliance with such a requirement impracticable. Not later than 21 days from the petition filing date, the Commission is required to determine whether to grant the petition.
Section 18 of OSRA 2022 requires that, not later than 60 days after the effective date of the Act, the Commission must issue a request for information seeking public comment regarding specific criteria—namely, (1) whether congestion of the carriage of goods has created an emergency situation of a magnitude such that there exists a substantial, adverse effect on the competitiveness and reliability of the international ocean transportation supply system, (2) whether an emergency order under Section 18 would alleviate such an emergency situation, and (3) the appropriate scope of such an emergency order, if applicable.
At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the demand for worldwide ocean transportation services decreased significantly as lockdowns were imposed globally and people were hesitant to engage in normal economic activities. Accordingly, ocean common carriers cancelled many voyages, and the supply of ocean transportation services decreased.
Within a few months, however, U.S. consumer spending shifted markedly. Spending on services decreased significantly, while consumer spending on goods increased considerably—leading to a renewed and increased demand for ocean transportation services. Carriers responded with increases in vessel capacity, however this rapid shift in cargo volumes driven by consumer demand led to bottlenecks throughout the U.S. supply chain system. In particular, increased container dwell times at marine terminals led to inefficiencies, including delays in vessel berthing and motor carrier services at U.S. ports.
Over the last 2 years, there have been a variety of strategies employed by industry participants to reduce congestion throughout the U.S. ocean transportation system. For example, some carriers have diverted vessel services away from the most congested port areas in an effort to alleviate severe cargo congestion at major U.S. ports. This shift, however, has often resulted in increased congestion at previously non- or less-congested U.S. port areas or regions. Total U.S. port congestion, measured by the number of containers on ships waiting to berth, average ship waiting time at key U.S. ports, and container dwell time have all decreased in recent months. Relevant metrics, however, remain higher than pre-pandemic levels.
In view of these factors and consistent with the requirements set out in Section 18 of OSRA 2022, the Commission is seeking public comments on the following:
(1) Whether congestion of the carriage of goods has created an emergency situation of a magnitude such that there exists a substantial, adverse effect on the competitiveness and reliability of the international ocean transportation supply system. If so, please explain why and provide examples or data to support your view. If not, please explain why and provide examples or data to support your view;
(2) Whether an emergency order pursuant to Section 18 of OSRA 2022 would alleviate or improve such an emergency situation—and if so, why, and if not, why not; and
(3) The appropriate scope (duration and geographic) of such an emergency order, if the Commission were to issue such an order and the basis for that scope.
Your comments must be written and in English. To ensure that your comments are correctly filed in the docket, please include the docket number of this document in your comments.
You may submit your comments via email to the email address listed above under
The Commission will provide confidential treatment for identified confidential information to the extent allowed by law. If your comments contain confidential information, you must submit the following by email to the address listed above under
• A transmittal letter requesting confidential treatment that identifies the specific information in the comments for which protection is sought and demonstrates that the information is a trade secret or other confidential research, development, or commercial information.
• A confidential copy of your comments, consisting of the complete filing with a cover page marked “Confidential-Restricted,” and the confidential material clearly marked on each page.
• A public version of your comments with the confidential information excluded. The public version must state “Public Version—confidential materials excluded” on the cover page and on each affected page and must clearly indicate any information withheld.
The Commission will consider all comments received before the close of business on the comment closing date indicated above under
You may read the comments received by the Commission at the Commission's Electronic Reading Room at
By the Commission.
The Comptroller General's Advisory Council on Government Auditing Standards will hold a meeting on Wednesday, September 21, 2022, from 10:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. to discuss updates and revisions to the Government Auditing Standards. The meeting will be virtual and is open to the public.
The agenda, discussion materials and teleconference information for the virtual meeting will be available at
Questions concerning the meeting may be emailed to
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting and request for comment.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the CDC announces the following meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BSC, NIOSH), National Firefighter Registry Subcommittee. This meeting is open to the public via virtual meeting, limited only by the number of web conference seats (500 web conference seats are available). Time will be available for public comment.
The meeting will be held on September 6, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:45 p.m., EDT.
Written comments must be received on or before August 30, 2022.
If you wish to attend the meeting, please register at the NIOSH website at
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2022-0096; NIOSH-232, by either of the methods listed below. Do not submit comments for the docket by email. CDC does not accept comments for the docket by email.
•
•
Emily J.K. Novicki, M.A., M.P.H., Designated Federal Officer, BSC, NIOSH, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop V24-4, Atlanta, Georgia, 30329-4027; Telephone: (404) 498-2581; Email:
The Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health provides advice to the Director, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, on NIOSH research and prevention programs. The Board also provides guidance on the Institute's research activities related to developing and evaluating hypotheses, systematically documenting findings, and disseminating results. In addition, the Board evaluates the degree to which the activities of NIOSH: (1) conform to those standards of scientific excellence appropriate for Federal scientific institutions in accomplishing objectives
The agenda is posted on the NIOSH website at
Written comments received by August 30, 2022, will be provided to the Subcommittee prior to the meeting.
The Director, Strategic Business Initiatives Unit, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice; establishment of a public docket; request for comments.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is announcing the establishment of a docket to solicit comments on the content of Appendix A in the July 2018 guidance for industry entitled “ANDA Submissions—Amendments to Abbreviated New Drug Applications Under GDUFA” (ANDA Amendments Guidance). We are soliciting comments on the content of Appendix A. The Agency is taking this action to fulfill the Agency's commitment described in section IX.B. of the GDUFA Reauthorization Performance Goals and Program Enhancements Fiscal Years 2023-2027 Commitment Letter (GDUFA III Commitment Letter).
Either electronic or written comments must be submitted by October 14, 2022.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
• Mail/Hand Delivery/Courier (for written/paper submissions): Dockets Management Staff (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Martha Nguyen, Office of Generic Drugs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1676, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3471.
On July 9, 2012, the President signed the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA I) into law. GDUFA must be reauthorized every 5 years so FDA can continue to assess and collect GDUFA fees, and was most recently authorized in the FDA Reauthorization Act of 2017, Public Law 115-52 (GDUFA II) on August 18, 2017, for fiscal years 2018-2022. In a joint effort in anticipation of GDUFA reauthorization in 2022, the Agency and representatives from the generic drug industry negotiated the draft agreement reflected in the GDUFA III Commitment Letter.
In the GDUFA III Commitment Letter, FDA agreed to issue a
With this notice, FDA is seeking comments on the examples of major deficiencies listed in Appendix A of the ANDA amendments guidance, as well as comment on how any proposed revisions to that list could be beneficial to industry in understanding ANDA amendment classification.
This notice contains no new collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces that the Advisory Committee on Infant and Maternal Mortality (ACIMM) has scheduled a public meeting. Information about ACIMM and the agenda for this meeting can be found on the ACIMM website at
• September 13, 2022, 9 a.m.-4 p.m. Central Time (CT);
• September 14, 2022, 9 a.m.-5 p.m. CT; and
• September 15, 2022, 9 a.m.-12 p.m. CT.
This meeting will be conducted in-person at Mystic Lake Center, 2400 Mystic Lake Blvd. NW, Prior Lake, MN 55372. The meeting will also be held via webinar.
Vanessa Lee, MPH, Designated Federal Official, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Room 18N84, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 301-443-0543; or
The ACIMM is authorized by section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a), as amended. The Committee is governed by provisions of Public Law 92-463, as amended, (5 U.S.C. App. 2), which sets forth standards for the formation and use of Advisory Committees.
The ACIMM advises the Secretary of HHS on department activities, partnerships, policies, and programs directed at reducing infant mortality, maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, and improving the health status of infants and women before, during, and after pregnancy. The Committee provides advice on how to coordinate federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governmental efforts designed to improve these outcomes, as well as influence similar efforts in the private and voluntary sectors. With its focus on underlying causes of the disparities and inequities seen in birth outcomes for women and infants, the Committee also advises the Secretary of HHS on the health, social, economic, and environmental factors contributing to the inequities and proposes structural, policy, and/or systems level changes.
The agenda for the September 13-15, 2022, meeting is being finalized and may include the following topics: infant and maternal mortality among American Indian/Alaska Native (AI/AN) women and infants; indigenous health; and federal program updates. In addition to these topics, it is expected that there will be a discussion of recommendations by the ACIMM to the Secretary of HHS on improving birth outcomes among AI/AN mothers and infants, and then a vote on whether to send the recommendations forward to the Secretary of HHS. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate.
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide written or oral comments. Requests to submit a written statement or make oral comments to the ACIMM should be sent to Vanessa Lee, using the email address above, at least 3 business days prior to the meeting. Public participants may submit written statements in advance of the scheduled meeting by emailing
Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance or some reasonable accommodation should notify Vanessa Lee at the contact information listed above at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.
Notice.
The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) is issuing this notice pursuant to section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic (FD&C) Act. On August 9, 2022, the Secretary determined pursuant to his authority under section 564 of the FD&C Act that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad that involves monkeypox virus.
On the basis of this determination, he also declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of vaccines for use against monkeypox virus pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under that section.
The determination and declaration are valid August 9, 2022.
Dawn O'Connell, Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response, Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response, Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20201, Telephone (202) 205-2882 (this is not a toll-free number).
Under Section 564 of the FD&C Act, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), acting under delegated authority from the Secretary of HHS, may issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) authorizing: (1) the emergency use of an unapproved drug, an unapproved or uncleared device, or an unlicensed biological product; or (2) an unapproved use of an approved drug, approved or cleared device, or licensed biological product. Before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist justifying the authorization based on one of four determinations: (1) A determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk
Based on any of these four determinations, the Secretary of HHS may then declare that circumstances exist that justify the EUA, at which point the Commissioner of Food and Drugs may issue an EUA if the criteria for issuance of an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act are met.
The ASPR requested that the Secretary issue the determination and declaration to allow the Department to take measures based on information currently available about monkeypox virus. The determination of a public health emergency or a significant potential for a public health emergency, and the declaration that circumstances exist justifying emergency use of vaccines by the Secretary of HHS, as described below, enable the Commissioner of Food and Drugs to issue an EUA for vaccines for emergency use under section 564 of the FD&C Act.
On August 9, 2022, pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, I determined that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad that involves monkeypox virus.
Also on August 9, 2022, on the basis of my determination that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect, national security or the health and security of United States citizens living abroad and that involves monkeypox virus, I declared that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of vaccines pursuant to section 564 of the FD&C Act, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under that section.
Notice of the EUAs issued by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs pursuant to this determination and declaration will be provided promptly 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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
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 a meeting of the HEAL (Helping to End Addiction Long-Term) Multi-Disciplinary Working Group.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to participate and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the 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 program documents and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the program documents, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
The meeting agenda will be available on the HEAL Initiative website:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting of the Board of Scientific Counselors, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke.
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual intramural programs and projects conducted by the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (Committee) will meet to discuss matters relating to activities directly involved with, or in support of, the exploration of offshore mineral and energy resources, to the extent that such matters are within the jurisdiction of the United States Coast Guard. The meeting will be open to the public.
The meeting will be held at the American Bureau of Shipping conference facility located at 1701 City Plaza Drive, Spring, Texas 77389. Attendees at the meeting will be required to follow COVID-19 safety guidelines promulgated by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which may include the need to wear masks. CDC guidance on COVID protocols can be found here:
The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee is committed to
Lieutenant Commander Kimberly Gates, Alternate Designated Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee, 2703 Martin Luther King Jr Ave. SE, Stop 7509, Washington, DC 20593-7509, telephone 202-372-1455 or
Notice of this meeting is given pursuant to the
The agenda for the September 14, 2022 meeting is as follows:
(1) Call to order.
(2) Roll call and determination of quorum.
(3) Adoption of previous meeting minutes and agenda.
(4) Opening remarks.
(5) Update from the Shell AUGER Subcommittee.
(6) New business.
(7) Public comment period.
(8) Closing remarks/plans for next meeting.
(9) Adjournment of meeting.
A copy of all meeting documentation will be available at:
During the September 14, 2022 meeting, a public comment period will be held from approximately 4:30 p.m. to 5 p.m. CDT. Speakers are requested to limit their comments to 3 minutes. Please note that this public comment period may start before 4:30 p.m. CDT if all other agenda items have been covered and may end before 5 p.m. CDT if all of those wishing to comment have done so.
Please contact the individual listed in the
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until September 14, 2022.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, Telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
In the context of the Uniting for Ukraine parole process, biographic information about the beneficiary provided on the Form I-134 may be used for security screening and advance travel authorization by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Prior to the transmission of this biographic information to CBP for this purpose, the beneficiary must confirm electronically the accuracy of the biographic information provided on their behalf by the Form I-134 respondent/supporter.
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed revision of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until October 14, 2022.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0053 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0016. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice.
As required by Section 8(q) of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937, this
Miguel A. Fontánez, Director, Housing Voucher Financial Management Division, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, Office of Public and Indian Housing, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 4222, Washington, DC 20410-8000, telephone number 202-402-2934. (This is not a toll-free number). Hearing- or speech-impaired individuals may call TTY number 1 (800) 877-8337.
This Notice provides the methodology used to determine the CY 2021 administrative fee rates by area, which HUD uses to determine administrative fees for the HCV, Mainstream, and Moderate Rehabilitation programs, including the Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy programs. The HCV program is the federal government's major program for assisting very low-income families, the elderly, and the disabled to afford decent, safe, and sanitary housing in the private market. Mainstream Vouchers are tenant-based vouchers serving households that include a non-elderly person with a disability, available to PHAs through a competitive Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO), and noncompetitively through CARES Act authorization. The Moderate Rehabilitation program provides project-based rental assistance for low-income families. The program was repealed in 1991 and no new projects are authorized for development. Assistance is limited to properties previously rehabilitated pursuant to a Housing Assistance Payment (HAP) contract between an owner and a PHA.
For CY 2021, in accordance with the 2021 Consolidated Appropriations Act (Pub. L. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182), administrative fees are determined
In the attached table, two fee rates are provided for each PHA. The first rate, Column A, applies to the first 7,200 voucher unit months leased in CY 2021. The second rate, Column B, applies to all remaining voucher unit months leased in CY 2021. In years prior to 2010, Column C applied to all voucher unit months leased in dwelling units owned by the PHA. For CY 2021, as in recent years, there are no Column C administrative fee rates. Fees for leasing PHA-owned units are determined in the same manner as for all other voucher leasing using the same Column A and Column B rates as for all other voucher leasing.
In some cases, the fee rates calculated for CY 2021 are lower than those established for CY 2020. In these cases, the affected PHAs are held harmless at the CY 2020 fee rates.
The fee rates for each PHA generally cover the fees for areas in which the PHA has the greatest proportion of its participants, based on Public Housing Information Center (PIC) data submitted by the PHA. In some cases, PHAs have participants in more than one fee area. If such a PHA chooses, the PHA may request HUD establish a blended fee rate proportionately to all areas in which participants are located. Once a blended rate is established, it is used to determine the PHA's fee eligibility for all months in CY 2021. The 2021 HCV Funding Implementation Notice described how to apply for blended fee rates and the deadline date for submitting such requests. The notice can be accessed through the following link:
PHAs operating over large geographic areas, defined as multiple counties, may request a higher administrative fee rate if eligible under the criteria described in the CY 2019 Implementation Notice. The 2021 HCV Funding Implementation Notice described when to apply for higher fee rates and the deadline date for such requests. Higher administrative fee rates differ from blended administrative fee rates in how they are calculated. Requests for higher administrative rates must clearly demonstrate that the PHA's published rate cannot cover their projected expenses. Next, a breakeven rate is calculated to ensure the PHA receives sufficient funds to cover their expenses while also ensuring the administrative fee reserves do not grow.
This notice identifies the monthly per-voucher-unit fee rates to be used to determine PHA administrative fee eligibility for the programs identified in this notice. These fee rates remain posted on the Department's website at:
Direct questions concerning this notice should be directed to the PHA's assigned representative at the Financial Management Center or the Financial Management Division at
In cases where an MTW Agency has an alternative formula for calculating HCV administrative fees in Attachment A of its MTW Agreement, HUD calculates the HCV administrative fees in accordance with the MTW Agreement provision.
Office of the Deputy Secretary, Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of delegation of authority.
Through this notice, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development delegates to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research all authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research by the Secretary in the Delegation of Authority for the Office of Policy Development and Research published on August 30, 2011, with the exception of the authority to issue and waive regulations.
Delegation authority effective August 4, 2022.
Todd M. Richardson, General Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8100; Washington, DC 20410-6000 or telephone number 202-402-5706 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
On August 30, 2011 (76 FR 53934), the Secretary delegated authority over the Department's research agenda to the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research in the Delegation of Authority for the Office of Policy Development and Research. Through the notice published in this issue of the
Accordingly, the Deputy Secretary delegates as follows:
The Deputy Secretary of HUD delegates concurrently to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research all authority and powers delegated to the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research as published in Section A of the Delegation of Authority for the Office of Policy Development and Research published in the
1. Undertake programs of research, study, testing, and demonstration relating to the mission and programs of the Department under Title V of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1970 (12 U.S.C. 1701z-1).
2. Administer programs related to policy development and research as assigned by the Secretary, including the following programs:
a. The Community Development Work Study Program, under section 107(c) of Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5307(c));
b. The Community Outreach Partnership Center Program, within the Community Outreach Partnership Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 5307 note), and section 107 of the Housing Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5307(b)(3));
c. The Historically Black Colleges and Universities Program, under section 107(b)(3) of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (42 U.S.C. 5307(b)(3));
d. The Hispanic-Serving Institutions Assisting Communities Program, as provided for in annual HUD appropriations acts (
e. The Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities program as provided for in annual HUD appropriations acts (
f. The Tribal Colleges and Universities program, as provided for in annual appropriations acts (
g. The Doctoral Dissertation Research Grant Program, as provided for in annual HUD appropriations acts (
h. The Emergency Homeowners' Loan Program within the Emergency Homeowners' Relief Act, as amended (12 U.S.C. 2701
3. Execute concurrent authority to carry out the duties and responsibilities authorized to the Secretary of HUD by Section 42(d)(5)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code.
The authority delegated in this Notice does not include the authority to issue and waive regulations.
The Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research are authorized to redelegate to employees of HUD any of the authority delegated to them in this notice, with the exception of the authority to issue and waive regulations.
This delegation supersedes all previous redelegations to the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research and the General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, including the Redelegation of Authority for the Office of Policy Development and Research published on May 18, 2012 (77 FR 29848).
Office of the Deputy Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, HUD.
Notice of order of succession.
In this notice, the Deputy Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development designates the Order of Succession for the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research. This Order of Succession supersedes all prior Orders of Succession for the Office of Policy Development and Research, including the Order of Succession published in the
August 4, 2022.
Todd M. Richardson, General Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Policy Development and Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8100, Washington, DC 20410-6000 or telephone number 202-402-5706 (this is not a toll-free number). Persons with hearing or speech impairments may access this number through TTY by calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 (this is a toll-free number).
The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development is issuing this Order of Succession of officials authorized to perform the duties and functions of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research when, by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the Office. This Order of Succession is subject to the provisions of the Vacancy Reform Act of 1998 (5 U.S.C. 3345-3349d). This publication supersedes all prior Orders of Succession for the Office of Policy Development and Research, including the Order of Succession published on July 13, 2018 (83 FR 32676). Accordingly, the Deputy Secretary of HUD designates the following Order of Succession:
Subject to the provision of the Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998, during any period when, by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office, the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research is not available to exercise the powers or perform the duties of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research, the following officials within the Office of Policy Development and Research are hereby designated to exercise the powers and perform the duties of the Office, including the authority to waive regulations:
(1) Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary;
(2) General Deputy Assistant Secretary;
(3) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Economic Affairs;
(4) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Research, Evaluation, and Monitoring; and
(5) Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy Development.
These officials shall perform the functions and duties of the Office in the order specified herein, and no official shall serve unless all the other officials, whose position titles precede his or hers in this order, are unable to act by reason of absence, disability, or vacancy in office. No individual who is serving in an office listed in an acting capacity shall, by virtue of so acting, act as Assistant Secretary for Policy Development and Research pursuant to this Order.
This Order of Succession supersedes any prior Orders of Succession for the Office of Policy Development and Research, including the Order of Succession published on July 13, 2018 (83 FR 32676).
U.S. Geological Survey, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is requesting approval of an existing collection in use without an OMB number.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 14, 2022.
Send your comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to U.S. Geological Survey, Information Collections Officer, 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive MS 159, Reston, VA 20192; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Gordon Tribble by email at
In accordance with the PRA of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity 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 soliciting comments on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is the collection necessary to the proper functions of the USGS; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the USGS enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the USGS minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use 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 personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, nor is a person is 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
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before October 14, 2022.
Send your written comments on this information collection request (ICR) by mail to Darrin King, Information Collection Clearance Officer, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Attention PRA Office, 440 W 200 S #500, Salt Lake City, UT 84101; or by email to
To request additional information about this ICR, contact KC Craven 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
We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of 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; and
(4) How the agency might 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 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, notwithstanding any other provision of law, 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
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA); Bureau of Land Management, Interior (DOI).
Request for information; Extension of comment period.
On July 15, 2022, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), United States Forest Service (Forest Service), and the United States Department of the Interior (DOI), Bureau of Land Management (BLM), published in the
The end of the comment period for the document entitled “Request for Information (RFI) on Federal Old-growth and Mature Forests” published July 15, 2022 (87 FR 42493), is extended from August 15, 2022, until August 30, 2022.
A webinar was held on Microsoft Teams web conferencing software on July 21, 2022. The webinar was recorded. Webinar presentation materials and the webinar recording, along with other information about this effort are posted to:
Jamie Barbour, Assistant Director, Ecosystem Management Coordination, (503) 708-9138,
The purpose of the July 15, 2022 RFI (87 FR 42493) is to inform the public and gather feedback on potential future implementation efforts associated with provisions of Executive Order (E.O.) 14072: Strengthening the Nation's Forests, Communities, and Local Economies, issued April 22, 2022. The information received through the RFI
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), Interior.
Notice of availability; record of decision (ROD) supplements.
BOEM announces the availability of two supplements to the joint ROD on the final environmental impact statement (FEIS) for the construction and operations plan (COP) submitted by Vineyard Wind 1 LLC (Vineyard Wind 1). The joint ROD included the decisions of the Department of the Interior (DOI), the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the Vineyard Wind 1 Offshore Wind Energy Project. In the joint ROD, the USACE adopted the FEIS to support its permitting actions under the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (RHA) and Clean Water Act (CWA). The ROD supplements pertain only to the USACE sections of the joint ROD. They correct clerical errors and clarify a statement. The ROD supplements are available on BOEM's website at
Jessica Stromberg, Acting Chief, Environment Branch for Renewable Energy, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, 45600 Woodland Road, VAM-OREP Sterling, Virginia 20166, (703) 787-1730, or
Vineyard Wind 1 plans to construct, operate, maintain, and eventually decommission an 800-megawatt wind energy facility on the Outer Continental Shelf offshore Massachusetts (the Project). The Project and associated export cables would be developed within the range of design parameters outlined in the Vineyard Wind 1 COP, subject to applicable mitigation measures. The Project is located approximately 14 miles southeast of Martha's Vineyard and a similar distance southwest of Nantucket. The approved COP allows the installation of up to 84 wind turbine generators (WTGs) and one or two offshore substations or electrical service platforms. The WTGs would be located in water depths ranging from approximately 37 to 49 meters (121 to 161 feet). The approved COP proposed one export cable landfall near the town of Barnstable, Massachusetts, and onshore construction and staging at the New Bedford Marine Commerce Terminal.
As documented in the joint ROD, after carefully considering the FEIS alternatives, including comments from the public on the draft and supplemental EISs, DOI decided to approve the COP for Vineyard Wind 1, NMFS decided to adopt BOEM's FEIS and issue a final incidental harassment authorization to Vineyard Wind 1, and USACE decided to adopt BOEM's FEIS and issue a Department of the Army (DA) permit pursuant to section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) and section 10 of the RHA (33 U.S.C. 403). The DA permit authorizes Vineyard Wind 1 to discharge fill below the high tide line of waters of the United States and to perform work and place structures below the mean high-water mark of navigable waters of the United States.
Subsequent to the issuance of the joint ROD and prior to the issuance of the DA permit, USACE issued a ROD supplement correcting several clerical errors regarding the Project's offshore export cable corridor length and the total acreage of transmission-cable scour protection to be authorized under the DA permit.
Following the issuance of the DA permit, USACE issued a second ROD supplement. That supplement corrected a clerical error that had resulted in a portion of USACE's public interest determination being cut off mid-sentence and clarified an incorrect statement in the “General Public Interest Review” section of the USACE portion of the joint ROD.
The USACE portion of the joint ROD included this incorrect statement: “While Vineyard Wind is not authorized to prevent free access to the entire wind development area, due to the placement of the turbines it is likely that the entire 75,614 acre area will be abandoned by commercial fisheries due to difficulties with navigation.” The second ROD supplement clarified that this statement was based solely upon comments of interested parties submitted to BOEM during the public comment period for the draft environmental impact statement as summarized in appendix K to the FEIS. The statement was not based upon any separate or independent USACE or other agency evaluation or study. Accordingly, the statement does not represent the USACE position regarding the accessibility of the wind development area to commercial fisheries due to difficulties of navigation that may or may not result from the placement of the WTGs.
Both ROD supplements are available on BOEM's website at
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint entitled
Katherine M. Hiner, Acting Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Google LLC on August 9, 2022. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain audio players and components thereof. The complainant names as respondent: Sonos, Inc. of Santa Barbara, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondent's alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3634”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint
Katherine M. Hiner, Acting Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of Google LLC on August 9, 2022. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain audio players and components thereof. The complainant names as respondent: Sonos, Inc. of Santa Barbara, CA. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist orders and impose a bond upon respondent's alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3634”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting 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 60 days until October 14, 2022.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2500, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone: (703) 305-0289.
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:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Robert Houser, Assistant Director, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.206, Washington, DC 20530.
Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Executive Office for Immigration Review, Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting 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 60 days until October 14, 2022.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Lauren Alder Reid, Assistant Director, Office of Policy, Executive Office for Immigration Review, 5107 Leesburg Pike, Suite 2500, Falls Church, VA 22041, telephone: (703) 305-0289.
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:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Executive Office for Immigration Review, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
If additional information is required contact: Robert Houser, Assistant Director, Policy and Planning Staff, Justice Management Division, United States Department of Justice, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, Suite 3E.206, Washington, DC 20530.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
September 14, 2022, 10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m. Eastern.
The meeting will be held in a hybrid format, with some Advisory Committee members participating in person and others participating virtually. For members of NSF and the external community, livestreaming links will be available through the following page:
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
September 16, 2022; 11:00 a.m.-4:00 p.m.
Registration for the virtual meeting will be available two weeks prior to the meeting date. Both the agenda and the registration link will be located on the Polar AC website at:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Invoice Submissions by Contractors for NRC Contracts/Orders.”
Submit comments by September 14, 2022. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
David C. Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0210 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Invoice Submissions by Contractors for NRC Contracts/Orders.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Determination of the successful completion of inspections, tests, and analyses.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has determined that specified inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that specified acceptance criteria are met for the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (VEGP), Units 3 and 4.
Determinations of the successful completion of inspections, tests, and analyses for VEGP Units 3 and 4 are effective on the dates indicated in the NRC staff's verification evaluation forms for the inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC).
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0252 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:
•
•
•
Cayetano Santos, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-7270, email:
Southern Nuclear Operating Company, Inc. (hereafter called SNC or the licensee) has submitted ITAAC closure notifications (ICNs) under section 52.99(c)(1) of title 10 of the
2.1.02.02a (13), 2.1.02.05a.i (19), 2.1.02.07b (26), 2.1.02.11a.i (46), 2.1.02.11b.i (48), 2.1.02.11c.i (51), 2.1.02.11c.ii (52), 2.1.02.13c (65), 2.1.03.03 (72), 2.1.03.06.i (75), 2.1.03.09b (83), 2.1.03.12 (87), 2.2.01.05.i (98), 2.2.01.06b (103), 2.2.01.09 (110), 2.2.01.10c (113), 2.2.01.11a.iv (117), 2.2.02.05a.i (126), 2.2.02.06b (133), 2.2.02.07b.i (138), 2.2.02.07f.i (145), 2.2.02.10c (153), 2.2.03.02a (159), 2.2.03.05a.i (165), 2.2.03.07b (172), 2.2.03.08c.x (195), 2.2.03.08c.xiii (198), 2.2.03.10 (206), 2.2.03.11a.i (207), 2.2.03.11b.i (209), 2.2.03.11c.i (212), 2.2.03.11c.ii (213), 2.2.04.05a.i (226), 2.2.04.07b (233), 2.2.04.12a.iii (250), 2.2.05.05a.i (259), 2.2.05.06a (263), 2.2.05.07a.i (265), 2.2.05.07c (270), 2.3.02.06b (296), 2.3.04.04.ii (331), 2.3.04.10 (337), 2.3.05.02.i (340), 2.3.06.02a (355), 2.3.06.07b (368), 2.3.07.06a (399), 2.3.09.02a (421), 2.3.09.02b (422), 2.3.09.03.ii (424), 2.3.09.04b (428), 2.3.10.07a.ii (444), 2.3.11.03b (454), 2.3.11.03c (455), 2.3.13.06b (467), 2.3.19.02a (486), 2.3.29.04 (491), 2.4.02.02a (497), 2.4.02.02b (498), 2.5.01.02a (506), 2.5.02.02.i (522), 2.5.02.05a (527), 2.5.02.06a.i (529), 2.5.02.06a.ii (530), 2.5.02.06c.i (532), 2.5.02.08a.ii (540), 2.5.02.08b.ii (543), 2.5.02.09d (548), 2.5.03.02 (555), 2.5.04.02.i (557), 2.5.04.03 (560), 2.6.01.02.i (579), 2.6.01.03a (582), 2.6.01.04d (587), 2.6.01.04e (588), 2.6.02.02a (593), 2.6.02.02b (594), 2.6.02.02c (595), 2.6.03.02.i (597), 2.6.03.04a (601), 2.6.03.04c (603), 2.6.03.04i (609), 2.6.03.07 (616), 2.6.04.02a (622), 2.6.04.02c (624), 2.6.05.02.ii (629), 2.6.09.05c (646), 2.6.09.06 (647), 2.6.09.08 (650), 2.6.09.13a (652), 2.6.09.13c (654), 2.6.09.15a (655), C.2.6.09.07 (667), C.2.6.09.08a (668), 2.7.01.14 (700), 2.7.02.03a (703), 2.7.05.02.i (719), 2.7.06.03.i (726), 3.1.00.03 (735), 3.2.00.01e (744), 3.2.00.05 (752), 3.2.00.07 (756), 3.2.00.09 (758), 3.3.00.02a.i.b (761), 3.3.00.05b (785), 3.3.00.05c (786), 3.3.00.07aa (789), 3.3.00.07ab (790), 3.3.00.07ac (791), 3.3.00.07ba (792), 3.3.00.07bb (793), 3.3.00.07bc (794), 3.3.00.07c.i.a (795), 3.3.00.07c.i.b (796), 3.3.00.07c.ii.a (797), 3.3.00.07c.ii.b (798), 3.3.00.07d.i (799), 3.3.00.07d.ii.a (800), 3.3.00.07d.ii.b (801), 3.3.00.07d.ii.c (802), 3.3.00.07d.iii.a (803), 3.3.00.07d.iii.b (804), 3.3.00.07d.iii.c (805), 3.3.00.08 (813), 3.3.00.14 (820), 3.3.00.16 (821), 3.3.00.17 (822), 3.5.00.01.i (823), 3.5.00.06 (831), E.3.9.01.01.01 (845), E.3.9.03.00.02 (848), 2.2.05.09c (877), and 2.3.10.11a (878).
2.1.02.08d.v (36), 2.2.01.07.i (107), 2.2.01.11a.i (114) 2.2.03.09a.ii (202), 2.3.04.11 (338), 2.3.10.02a (431), 2.5.02.08b.i (542), 3.2.00.02 (745), 3.3.00.02b (770), and 3.3.00.02f (774).
The ITAAC for VEGP Unit 3 are in Appendix C of the VEGP Unit 3 combined license (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A106). The ITAAC for VEGP Unit 4 are in Appendix C of the VEGP Unit 4 combined license (ADAMS Accession No. ML14100A135).
Since the last
The NRC staff has determined that the specified inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed, and that the specified acceptance criteria are met. The documentation of the NRC staff's determination is in the ITAAC Closure Verification Evaluation Form (VEF) for each ITAAC. The VEF is a form that represents the NRC staff's structured process for reviewing ICNs and IPCNs.
Each ICN presents a narrative description of how the ITAAC was completed. The NRC's ICN review process involves a determination on whether, among other things: (1) each ICN provides sufficient information, including a summary of the methodology used to perform the ITAAC, to demonstrate that the inspections, tests, and analyses have been successfully completed; (2) each ICN provides sufficient information to demonstrate that the acceptance criteria of the ITAAC are met; and (3) any NRC inspections for the ITAAC have been completed and any ITAAC findings associated with that ITAAC have been closed. The NRC's review process for IPCNs is similar to that for ICNs but focuses on how the licensee addressed the new, material information giving rise to the IPCN.
The NRC staff's determination of the successful completion of these ITAAC for VEGP Unit 3 is final because the NRC has found pursuant to 10 CFR 52.103(g) that the acceptance criteria in the VEGP Unit 3 combined license are met (87 FR 48201; August 8, 2022). As such, the licensee is allowed to operate VEGP Unit 3 in accordance with the terms and conditions of the license. In accordance with 10 CFR 52.103(h), the ITAAC in the VEGP Unit 3 licensee no longer constitute regulatory requirements.
The NRC staff's determination of the successful completion of these ITAAC for VEGP Unit 4 is based on information available at this time and is subject to the licensee's ability to maintain the condition that the acceptance criteria are met. If the NRC staff receives new information that suggests the NRC staff's determination on any of these ITAAC is incorrect, then the NRC staff will determine whether to reopen that ITAAC (including withdrawing the NRC staff's determination on that ITAAC). The NRC staff's determination will be used to support a subsequent finding, pursuant to 10 CFR 52.103(g), at the end of construction that all acceptance criteria in the combined license are met. The ITAAC closure process is not finalized for these ITAAC until the NRC makes an affirmative finding under 10 CFR 52.103(g). Any future updates to the status of these ITAAC can be found by selecting the link “ITAAC Status Report” on the NRC's website:
This notice fulfills the NRC staff's obligations under 10 CFR 52.99(e)(1) to publish a notice in the
A complete list of the review status for VEGP Unit 3 ITAAC, including the submission date and ADAMS accession number for each ICN and IPCN received, the ADAMS accession number for each VEF, and the ADAMS accession numbers for the inspection reports associated with these specific ITAAC can be found by selecting the link “ITAAC Status Report” at the NRC's website
A complete list of the review status for VEGP Unit 4 ITAAC, including the submission date and ADAMS accession number for each ICN and IPCN received, the ADAMS accession number for each VEF, and the ADAMS accession numbers for the inspection reports associated with these specific ITAAC, can be found by selecting the link “ITAAC Status Report” at the NRC's website
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing NUREG-0090, Volume 44, “Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2021.” The report describes those events that the NRC or an Agreement State identified as abnormal occurrences (AOs) during fiscal year (FY) 2021, based on the criteria defined by the Commission. The report describes six events at Agreement State-licensed facilities and two events at NRC-licensed facilities.
NUREG-0090, Volume 44, is available August 15, 2022.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0142 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:
•
•
•
Kerstun Norman, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5883, email:
Section 208 of the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended (Pub. L. 93-438), defines an “abnormal occurrence” as an
This report describes six events involving Agreement State licensees and two events involving NRC licensees. Seven of the AOs occurred at medical facilities and the other event occurred at the National Institute of Standards and Technology Center for Neutron Research.
The NRC identified no events at NRC-licensed facilities during FY 2021 that met the guidelines for inclusion in Appendix B, “Other Events of Interest.”
No events met the guidelines for inclusion in Appendix C, “Updates of Previously Reported Abnormal Occurrences.”
Agreement States are the 39 U.S. States that currently have entered into formal agreements with the NRC pursuant to Section 274 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), to regulate certain quantities of AEA-licensed material at facilities located within their borders.
The Federal Reports Elimination and Sunset Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-68) requires that AOs be reported to Congress annually. The full report, NUREG-0090, Volume 44, “Report to Congress on Abnormal Occurrences: Fiscal Year 2021,” is also available electronically at the NRC's public website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “NRC Form 314 Certificate of Disposition of Materials.”
Submit comments by October 14, 2022. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David C. Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0089 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? Please explain your answer.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? Please explain your answer.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a virtual meeting of the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee will be held on Thursday, September 15, 2022, as authorized under the Federal Advisory Committee Act. There will be no in-person gathering for this meeting. The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is composed of a Chair, five representatives from labor unions holding exclusive bargaining rights for Federal prevailing rate employees, and five representatives from Federal agencies.
The virtual meeting will be held on September 15, 2022, beginning at 10:00 a.m. (ET).
The meeting will convene virtually.
Ana Paunoiu, 202-606-2858, or email
Entitlement to membership on the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is provided for in 5 U.S.C. 5347.
The Committee's primary responsibility is to review the Prevailing Rate System and other matters pertinent to establishing prevailing rates under subchapter IV, chapter 53, 5 U.S.C., as amended, and from time to time advise the Office of Personnel Management.
Annually, the Chair compiles a report of pay issues discussed and concluded recommendations. These reports are available to the public. Reports for calendar years 2008 to 2020 are posted at
The public is invited to submit material in writing to the Chair on Federal Wage System pay matters felt to be deserving of the Committee's attention. Additional information on these meetings may be obtained by contacting the Committee at Office of Personnel Management, Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, Room 7H31, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606-2858.
This meeting is open to the public, with an audio option for listening. This notice sets forth the agenda for the meeting and the participation guidelines.
The following information must be provided when registering:
• Name.
• Agency and duty station.
• Email address.
• Your topic of interest.
Members of the press, in addition to registering for this event, must also RSVP to
A confirmation email will be sent upon receipt of the registration. Audio teleconference information for participation will be sent to registrants the morning of the virtual meeting.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order (“Order”) under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940
Applicants request an order to amend a previous order granted by the Commission that permits certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
Rand Capital Corporation, Rand Capital Management, LLC, Rand Capital Sub LLC, Callodine Capital Management, LP, Callodine Credit Management, LLC, Callodine Strategic Credit, LLC, Bluearc Mezzanine Partners I, L.P., Callodine Asset Based Loan Fund II, LP, Callodine Perpetual ABL Fund, LP, Callodine Capital Fund, LP, Callodine Capital Offshore Fund, Ltd., Callodine Capital Master Fund, LP, Callodine BDC Income Fund, LP, Callodine Equity Income Fund, LP, Callodine Strategic Credit Fund II, LP, Thorofare, LLC, Thorofare Asset Based Lending Fund IV, L.P., Thorofare Asset Based Lending REIT Fund IV, LLC, Thorofare Asset Based Lending Fund V, L.P. and Thorofare Asset Based Lending REIT Fund V, LLC.
The application was filed on June 13, 2022, and amended on August 4, 2022.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Bruce R. MacNeil, Senior Counsel, or Kaitlin C. Bottock, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' first amended and restated application, dated August 4, 2022, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at, at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, August 18, 2022.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to extend, to April 24, 2023, the implementation date of the amendments to FINRA Rule 4210 (Margin Requirements) pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036, other than the amendments pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036 that were implemented on December 15, 2016. The proposed rule change would not make any changes to the text of FINRA rules.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On October 6, 2015, FINRA filed with the Commission proposed rule change SR-FINRA-2015-036, which proposed to amend FINRA Rule 4210 to establish margin requirements for (1) To Be Announced (“TBA”) transactions, inclusive of adjustable rate mortgage (“ARM”) transactions; (2) Specified Pool Transactions; and (3) transactions in Collateralized Mortgage Obligations (“CMOs”), issued in conformity with a program of an agency or Government-Sponsored Enterprise (“GSE”), with forward settlement dates, as defined more fully in the filing (collectively, “Covered Agency Transactions”). The Commission approved SR-FINRA-2015-036 on June 15, 2016 (the “Approval Date”).
Pursuant to Partial Amendment No. 3 to SR-FINRA-2015-036, FINRA announced in
Industry participants sought clarification regarding the implementation of the requirements pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036. Industry participants also requested additional time to make system changes necessary to comply with the requirements, including time to test the system changes, and requested additional time to update or amend margining agreements and related documentation. In response, FINRA made available a set of Frequently Asked Questions & Guidance
Industry participants requested that FINRA reconsider the potential impact of certain requirements pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036 on smaller and mid-sized firms. Industry participants also requested that FINRA extend the implementation date pending such reconsideration. In response to these concerns, FINRA further extended the implementation date of the requirements of SR-FINRA-2015-036, other than the risk limit determination requirements, most recently to October 26, 2022 (the “October 26, 2022 implementation date”),
The SEC, pursuant to delegated authority, approved the Proposed Amendments on January 20, 2022;
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the Commission waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing. The operative date will be the date of filing of the proposed rule change.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. FINRA believes that extending the October 26, 2022 implementation date to April 24, 2023, pending the stay, will help to provide clarity to industry participants and to promote stability in the Covered Agency Transaction market, thereby benefiting all parties.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission believes that waiving the 30-day operative delay is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest because the proposal to extend the implementation date of the amendments to Rule 4210 pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036 (other than the amendments pursuant to SR-FINRA-2015-036 that were implemented on December 15, 2016) does not raise any new or novel issues and will reduce any potential uncertainty in the Covered Agency Transaction market. Therefore, the Commission hereby waives the 30-day operative delay requirement and designates the proposed rule change as operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2022-023 and should be submitted on or before September 6, 2022.
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. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to amend its fee schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“BZX Equities”) by eliminating the Supplemental Incentive Program under Footnote 1 (Add/Remove Volume Tiers). The Exchange proposes to implement these changes effective August 1, 2022.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
The Exchange's Fee Schedule sets forth the standard rebates and rates applied per share for orders that provide and remove liquidity, respectively. Currently, for orders in securities priced at or above $1.00, the Exchange provides a standard rebate of $0.00160 per share for orders that add liquidity and assesses a fee of $0.0030 per share for orders that remove liquidity. For orders in securities priced below $1.00, the Exchange does not provide a rebate or assess a fee for orders that add liquidity and assesses a fee of 0.30% of total dollar value for orders that remove liquidity. Additionally, in response to the competitive environment, the Exchange also offers tiered pricing, which provides Members with opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or lower fees where certain volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels, which provides increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying more stringent criteria.
Pursuant to footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently offers three Supplemental Incentive Program tiers—one tier each for Fee Codes B
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that eliminating the Supplemental Incentive Program under Footnote 1 is reasonable because the Exchange is not required to maintain this program or provide additional rebates. Orders yielding fee codes B, V, or Y have other opportunities to obtain enhanced rebates, such as via the Add Volume Tiers or the Single MPID Investor Tier.
As noted above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Exchange is only one of 16 equity venues to which market participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market. It is also only one of several maker-taker exchanges. Competing equity exchanges offer similar rates and tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds. Specifically, the Exchange notes that relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Particularly, the proposed elimination of the Supplemental Incentive Program does not impose a burden on intramarket competition that is not in furtherance of the Act in that the elimination of the tier applies to all Members equally and all Members will continue to have an opportunity to receive enhanced rebates or reduced fees offered under other tiers. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the remaining tiers will continue to incentivize Members to submit additional liquidity to the Exchange and to increase their order flow on the Exchange generally, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market and promoting price discovery and market quality on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all Members by providing more trading opportunities and encourages Members to send additional orders to the Exchange, thereby contributing to robust levels of liquidity, which benefits all market participants.
The Exchange believes the proposal to eliminate the Supplemental Incentive Program does not impose a burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change represents a significant departure from pricing currently offered by the Exchange or pricing offered by other equities exchanges. Members may opt to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of Members or competing venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than 16% of the market share.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Equity 7, Section 114(f) (“Pricing Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Equity 7, Section 114(f) applicable to the Designated Liquidity Provider (“DLP”)
The Exchange proposes to amend Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) to revise the monthly performance criteria related to the specific rebates provided under Equity 7, Section 114(f)(5). Specifically, the Exchange is adding a fifth MQM that concerns auction quality requirements (“Auction Quality Requirements”). In order for a DLP to qualify for a DLP Standard Rebate, it will need to meet 4 of 5 of the Standard MQMs in the assigned exchange-traded product (“ETP”) as measured by Nasdaq to qualify for the Standard Rebate (rather than the current 4 of 4 of the Standard MQMs). In order for a DLP to qualify for an Enhanced Rebate, a DLP will need to meet all 5 Enhanced MQMs in the assigned ETP as measured by Nasdaq to qualify for the Enhanced Rebate. The current MQMs are measured on average in the assigned ETP during regular market hours, however, the Auction Quality Requirements will be measured each auction against the metrics set forth below.
The Auction Quality Requirement for the Standard Rebate requires that the auction price must be within 350 basis points (opening) and 100 basis points (closing) of the first reference price within 30 seconds prior to the market open (opening) and within 120 seconds prior to the market close (closing). The Auction Quality Requirement for the Enhanced Rebate requires that the auction price must be within 150 basis points (opening) and 50 basis points (closing) of the first reference price
The Exchange also proposes to amend Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) to revise the monthly performance criteria related to secondary DLPs (“Secondary DLPs”). Specifically, the current MQM says that the Secondary DLP qualifies for Secondary DLP Rebates in ETPs if it meets any 2 of the 4 Enhanced MQMs. This will be revised to say that it must meet 2 of the Enhanced MQMs, excluding the Auction Quality Requirements metric. In essence, this means this MQM will remain unchanged.
This proposal amends Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) for certain of the MQMs tied to the rebates applicable for DLPs in Nasdaq-listed securities. The Exchange believes that these changes will encourage DLPs to monitor orders leading up to the auctions and participate in the auctions for Nasdaq-listed securities. As previously discussed, the revision to the monthly performance criteria related to Secondary DLPs in Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) is being made simply to maintain the status quo of the MQMs for Secondary DLPs.
Nasdaq is proposing these changes to encourage DLPs to maintain better market quality leading up to and at the time of the opening and closing auctions for Nasdaq-listed securities, as well as to remain competitive with NYSE Arca, Inc. (“Arca”) and Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe”),
The Exchange believes that its proposals are consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that amending Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) to revise the monthly performance criteria related to the specific rebates provided under Equity 7, Section 114(f)(5) by better aligning the behavior required to qualify for rebates with the nature of the rebates provided is reasonable because the Exchange must from time to time assess the effectiveness of the incentives it provides to market participants in return for the beneficial behavior required to receive the incentive.
The MQM will be changed from the current requirement to meet all 4 of 4 of the Standard MQMs to qualify for the Standard Rebate to needing to meet 4 of 5 of the Standard MQMs in the assigned ETP as measured by Nasdaq to qualify for the Standard Rebate. Additionally, the MQM will be changed from the current requirement to meet all 4 of 4 of the Enhanced MQMs to qualify for the Enhanced Rebate to needing to meet all 5 of 5 of the Enhanced MQMs in the assigned ETP as measured by Nasdaq to qualify for the Enhanced Rebate.
The Exchange believes that the Auction Quality Requirements for the Standard Rebate and the Enhanced Rebate, as discussed above, are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange believes that the Auction Quality Requirement thresholds for the Standard Rebate are very achievable for DLPs, while the Auction Quality Requirement thresholds for the Enhanced Rebate are within reach for most DLPs.
The Exchange believes that the proposed revisions to the MQMs for Primary and Secondary DLPs are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange will apply the same criteria to all DLPs so that they can qualify for rebates that are available to all qualifying members and that reward meaningful quote quality and liquidity in ETPs. The Exchange also believes that the proposed revisions to the MQMs for Primary and Secondary DLPs are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory among Exchange members because any member may become a market maker and take the steps necessary to also become a DLP, including meeting the proposed minimum criteria under Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4).
The Exchange also believes these changes are an equitable allocation and are not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange is proposing these changes to the DLP Program to encourage DLPs to maintain better market quality leading up to and at the time of the opening and closing auctions for Nasdaq-listed securities, as well as to remain competitive with Arca and Cboe,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend Equity 7, Section 114(f)(4) to address Secondary DLPs is reasonable because it simply maintains the status quo of the MQMs for Secondary DLPs.
The Exchange also believes that amending the DLP Program as proposed is an equitable allocation of rebates and is not unfairly discriminatory because it will allocate its rebates fairly among its market participants (
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 notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem rebates (this includes the related MQMs) or fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its rebates (this includes the related MQMs) and fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own rebates (this includes the related MQMs) and fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which rebate (this includes the related MQMs) and fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
In this instance, the Exchange is proposing to modify certain of the MQMs to qualify for the incentives provided to market makers for participation in the DLP program in an effort to improve the program by providing more targeted measurements to improve and increase market quality in all ETPs.
The Exchange uses incentives, such as the rebates of the DLP program, to incentivize market participants to improve the market. The Exchange must, from time to time, assess the effectiveness of incentives (and related MQMs) and adjust them when they are not as effective as the Exchange believes they could be. Moreover, the Exchange is ultimately limited in the amount of rebates it may offer. The proposed amended MQMs are reflective of such an analysis.
The Exchange notes that participation in the DLP program is entirely voluntary and, to the extent that registered market makers determine that the MQMs and related rebates are not in line with the level of market-improving behavior the Exchange requires, a DLP may elect to deregister as such with no penalty.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes place an unnecessary burden on competition and, in sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market makers, it is likely that the Exchange will lose participation in the DLP program as a result. Thus, the Exchange does not believe that the proposal represents a burden on competition among Exchange members, or that the proposal will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX Options”) proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule to (1) eliminate the Step Up Mechanism (“SUM”) Auction Pricing Tier and (2) modify the Automated Improvement Mechanism (“AIM”) Tier 2, effective August 1, 2022.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 options venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 17% of the market share and currently the Exchange represents only approximately 7% of the market share.
The Exchange's Fees Schedule sets forth standard rebates and rates applied per contract. For example, the Exchange provides standard rebates ranging from $0.01 up to $0.21 per contract for Customer orders in both Penny and Non-Penny Securities. Additionally, in response to the competitive environment, the Exchange also offers tiered pricing, which provides Members with opportunities to qualify for higher rebates or reduced fees where certain volume criteria and thresholds are met. Tiered pricing provides an incremental incentive for Members to strive for higher tier levels, which provides increasingly higher benefits or discounts for satisfying increasingly more stringent criteria.
For example, the Exchange currently offers two tiers related to Customer volume under proposed footnote 9 (Automated Improvement Mechanism (“AIM”) Tier) applicable to orders yielding fee code “BC”, which fee code is appended to Customer Agency orders executed in AIM. Orders yielding fee code BC are currently provided a standard rebate of $0.06 per contract. The AIM Tiers currently provide enhanced rebates between $0.11 and $0.14 per contract for qualifying orders that yield fee code BC where a Member meets the respective tier's volume threshold. Under AIM Tier 2, a Member will receive an enhanced rebate of $0.14 per contract on such orders where it has an ADV
The Exchange also offers Members an opportunity to receive an additional rebate under footnote 3 of the Fee Schedule (Step Up Mechanism (“SUM”) Auction Pricing Tier). Under the SUM Response Tier, the Exchange provides an additional rebate of $0.05 per contract for any order submitted in response to, and executed against, an order subject to the SUM Auction.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can
The Exchange believes the proposed reduction in rebate amount under AIM Tier 2 for orders yielding fee code BC is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes that the proposed change to AIM Tier 2 is reasonable because it continues to provide an enhanced rebate (albeit at a lower amount), which the Exchange believes is still commensurate with the current criteria. The proposed rule change is equitable and unfairly discriminatory as the amended rebate amount applies uniformly to all Members' respective qualifying Customer orders. The Exchange believes that AIM Tier 2 continues to benefit all Members by contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem. Indeed, the Exchange believes AIM Tier 2 will continue to incentivize increased Customer order flow and overall order flow to the Exchange's Book, which creates more trading opportunities, which, in turn attracts Market-Makers. A resulting increase in Market-Maker activity may facilitate tighter spreads, which may lead to an additional increase of order flow from other market participants. Increased overall order flow benefits all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, potentially providing even greater execution incentives and opportunities, offering additional flexibility for all investors to enjoy cost savings, supporting the quality of price discovery, promoting market transparency, and improving investor protection.
The Exchange believes that eliminating the SUM Auction Pricing Tier under Footnote 3 is reasonable because the Exchange is not required to maintain this program or provide additional rebates. Members may still have other opportunities to obtain enhanced rebates, such as via the Customer Volume Tiers or Market-Maker Volume Tiers.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Indeed, the Exchange notes the proposed change to AIM Tier 2 will apply to all Members equally in that all Members will continue to be eligible for AIM Tier 2, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the tier's criteria and receive the enhanced rebate (albeit at a slightly lower amount) on their qualifying orders if such criteria is met. Also, as stated above, the proposal to eliminate the SUM Auction Pricing Tier will also apply to all Members, in that, such Tier will not be available for any Member. The Exchange does not believe the proposed changes burden competition as all Members will continue to have an opportunity receive enhanced rebates or reduced fees offered under various tiers, including AIM Tier 2, which tiers are generally designed to increase the competitiveness of EDGX and attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange, providing for additional execution opportunities for market participants and improved price transparency. Greater overall order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency benefit all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
The Exchange also believes the proposed rule change does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues they may participate on and direct their order flow, including 15 other options exchanges. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 17% of the market share. Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of order flow. Indeed, participants can readily choose to send their orders to other exchanges if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. As noted above, the Exchange believes that the proposed fee changes are comparable to that of other exchanges offering similar functionality. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.” The fact that this market is competitive has also long been recognized by the courts. In
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
LTSE proposes a rule change to: (i) amend the Annual Listing Fee applicable for Companies renewing their listing for calendar year 2023, and (ii) make a minor clarifying change to the Initial Listing Fee provisions.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is filing this proposed rule change to amend Rule 14.601 to reduce the Annual Listing Fee for any listed Company
Upon listing its Primary Equity Securities on LTSE, a Company is assessed an Initial Listing Fee in accordance with LTSE Rule 14.601(a)(1). The amount of the Initial Listing Fee is set forth in the fee schedule in LTSE Rule 14.601(a)(3) and is based on the market capitalization of the Company when it lists on the Exchange.
For each subsequent year that a Company remains listed on the Exchange, it is assessed an Annual Listing Fee. The Annual Listing Fee for a Company's Primary Equity Securities also is based on the Company's market capitalization. Specifically, the Annual Listing Fee for an upcoming calendar year is calculated on December 1 (or such date of listing if after December 1), and is based on the company's Form 10-Q and Form 10-K filings over the prior four fiscal quarters. Thus, the Annual Listing Fee is calculated from filings covering the fourth quarter of the prior calendar year and the first three quarters of the current calendar year. Where a Company does not have Form 10-Q and Form 10-K filings for the prior four fiscal quarters, its Annual Listing Fee is calculated in the same manner as its Initial Listing Fee (but not
In light of the recent market dislocation as discussed below, LTSE is reducing its Annual Listing Fee by 40 percent for any listed Company renewing its listing for calendar year 2023. This fee reduction will apply only to a Company that will be assessed an Annual Listing Fee in 2022 for purposes of remaining listed on LTSE for calendar year 2023.
To better reflect the temporary divergence in the Initial Listing Fee and Annual Listing Fee, LTSE is creating two separate fee schedules.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to temporarily reduce the Annual Listing Fee in light of the recent significant market dislocation. The broad-based market dislocation in the first half of 2022 has led stocks to some of their largest declines in many decades.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed temporary reduction in its Annual Listing Fee will have any adverse impact on the amount of funds available for its regulatory program.
In addition, the proposed rule change would make a minor clarifying change to paragraph (a)(1)(iv) to provide that the reference to prorating the Initial Listing Fee is based on the number of remaining trading days after listing on the Exchange in that calendar year. Since the Initial Listing Fee covers only the calendar year in which a Company initially lists on the Exchange, the phrase “remaining trading days after listing on the Exchange” was always intended to refer to the number of remaining trading days in the calendar year of listing; the proposed rule change now makes that explicit.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the temporary reduction of the Annual Listing Fee for remaining listed on the Exchange for calendar year 2023 represents an equitable allocation of charges among issuers and is non unfairly discriminatory in that it applies a consistent 40% fee reduction to the Annual Listing Fee for all Companies listed on the Exchange, or any company that becomes listed on the Exchange in 2022, which will then be assessed an Annual Listing Fee in 2022 to remain listed in calendar year 2023. LTSE further believes that the proposed rule change is reasonable and appropriate in view of the highly competitive market for listings and the disruptions faced by Companies as a result of the recent market dislocation. The benefits to a Company, its shareholders and stakeholders from pursuing long-term value creation were discussed extensively in the background and rationale for LTSE's Long-Term Policies.
Additionally, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market for the listing of Primary Equity Securities. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. A temporary reduction in Annual Listing Fee contributes to the competitive marketplace. The Exchange believes therefore that the proposed rule change supports an open market and the national market system, and is consistent with the public interest.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed clarifying text regarding the Initial Listing Fees is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it merely clarifies the meaning of an existing rule, with further clarity being in the public interest.
LTSE does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change would establish a temporary reduction in the Annual Listing Fee.
The market for listing services is highly competitive. Each listing exchange has established a fee schedule that applies to issuers seeking to list securities, or keep their securities listed, on its exchange. Issuers have the option to list their securities on these alternative venues based on the fees charged and the value provided by each listing. Because issuers have a choice to list their securities on a different national securities exchange, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing proposal 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 June 17, 2022, BOX Exchange LLC (the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission is extending the 45-day time period for Commission action on the proposed rule change. The Commission finds that it is appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
FINRA is proposing to make technical and other non-substantive changes within FINRA rules.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On May 18, 2022, the SEC announced the immediate effectiveness of amendments to the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (“Industry Code”) to permit persons with sexual assault claims and sexual harassment claims to elect not to enforce predispute arbitration agreements in cases that relate to those disputes.
In File No. SR-FINRA-2022-012, FINRA amended FINRA Rule 13201 to provide, among other things, that sexual assault claims and sexual harassment claims would be administered in the forum under FINRA Rule 13802.
In addition, the proposed rule change would make technical, non-substantive changes to the Industry Code and the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (“Customer Code”). The proposed rule change would update FINRA Rules 12100(aa) and 13100(x) by correcting a typographical error in the name of the Commodities Future Trading Commission, from “Commodities” to “Commodity.” The proposed rule change also would update FINRA Rules 12301(b) and 13301(b) by deleting a duplicate word, the second “the” in the first sentence of these rules. In addition, the proposed rule change would update FINRA Rule 13303(b) to insert a phrase that was inadvertently omitted. Under FINRA Rule 13303(b), when a third party is added to a claim, the respondent must serve the party with the answer and all documents previously served by any party or sent to the parties by the Director of FINRA Dispute Resolution Services. The current rule inadvertently omits “parties by the” in the second sentence. Thus, the proposed rule change would insert this phrase for clarity and consistency with other FINRA rules.
Finally, FINRA would update the citation in FINRA Rule 5122(c)(12) for the definition of “commodity pool operator” under the Commodity Exchange Act from Section 1a(5) to Section 1a(11) to reflect the reorganization of the defined terms in the Commodity Exchange Act.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness and has requested that the SEC waive the requirement that the proposed rule change not become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, so FINRA can implement the proposed rule change immediately.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Exchange Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. The proposed rule change brings clarity and consistency to FINRA rules without adding any burden on firms.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Exchange Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Exchange Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-FINRA-2022-022 and should be submitted on or before September 6, 2022.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend FINRA Rule 3110 (Supervision) to adopt a voluntary, three-year remote inspection pilot program to allow member firms to elect to fulfill their obligation under Rule 3110(c) (Internal Inspections) by conducting inspections of some or all branch offices and locations remotely without an on-site visit to such office or location, subject to specified terms.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any
Beginning many years ago, SEC staff and FINRA have interpreted FINRA rules to require member firms to conduct on-site inspections of branch offices and unregistered offices (
FINRA notes that firms are turning to new and innovative regulatory tools such as artificial intelligence, natural language processing, and robotics process automation, among others, to strengthen their compliance programs.
The COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated the use of a wide variety of compliance and workplace technology as many government and private employers, including member firms, were driven to adopt a broad remote work environment by quickly moving their employees out of their usual office setting to an alternative worksite such as a private residence. Insights obtained from member firms and other industry representatives through various pandemic-related initiatives and other industry outreach have led FINRA to carefully consider whether some processes and rules, including the manner in which a firm may satisfy its Rule 3110(c) obligations, should be modernized.
To address the operational challenges in conducting on-site inspections during the pandemic, FINRA adopted temporary Rule 3110.17, effective since November 2020, to provide member firms the option to conduct inspections of their branch offices and non-branch locations remotely, subject to specified terms therein.
The responsibility of firms to supervise their associated persons is a critical component of broker-dealer regulation.
As part of that supervisory system, Rule 3110(c) requires a member to review, at least annually, the businesses in which it engages for purposes of detecting and preventing violations of, and achieving compliance with, applicable securities laws and regulations. The review must include periodic inspections of each office and examination of customer accounts to detect and prevent irregularities and abuses. The inspection requirement is a longstanding supervisory obligation that in its early form had addressed the inspection requirement for an OSJ only.
Currently, Rule 3110(c) sets forth three main requirements for conducting internal inspections. First, an inspection of an office or location must occur on a designated frequency. The periodicity of the required inspection varies depending on the classification of the location or the nature of the activities that take place: OSJs and supervisory branch offices must be inspected at least annually;
Further, Rule 3110.12 (Standards for Reasonable Review) sets out factors that constitute a reasonable review. This provision emphasizes establishing reasonable supervisory procedures and conducting reviews of locations, taking into consideration, among other things, the member's size, organizational structure, scope of business activities, number and location of the member's offices, the nature and complexity of the products and services offered by the member, the volume of business done, the number of associated persons assigned to a location, the disciplinary history of registered representatives or associated persons, and any indicators of irregularities or misconduct (
In 2004, the SEC staff similarly provided guidance on supervision principles.
Since the time these in-person guidelines were expressed, developments in technology have enhanced firms' overall and ongoing supervision and monitoring of the activities occurring at branch offices and non-branch locations. In response to these developments, member firms have questioned the historical expectation that firms satisfy the inspection component of Rule 3110(c) solely in a physical, on-site manner.
Even prior to the pandemic, in 2017, FINRA considered a proposal to give firms the option of satisfying the inspection requirement remotely for “qualifying offices” that met specified criteria.
At the outset of the pandemic in the United States, many states issued stay-at-home orders and imposed restrictions on businesses, social activities, and travel in hopes of slowing the spread of COVID-19.
Through comments to the 2017 Proposal,
However, Rule 3110.17 was adopted in the midst of the pandemic, when many offices and locations were closed, and employees carried out their responsibilities from alternative worksites. FINRA recognizes that the pandemic has changed the conventional thinking on where work is conducted and this shift in the workforce landscape will unlikely revert to the model that existed pre-pandemic. As noted above, FINRA believes that adopting a voluntary, three-year remote inspection pilot program, under terms based largely on Rule 3110.17, but with significant safeguards, would allow FINRA the time to collect specified data from member firm pilot participants to evaluate their experiences and inspection findings in a uniform, comparable manner in the context of the emerging hybrid work model. FINRA anticipates that the proposed pilot program will provide broader systemized information to supplement the information obtained through the FINRA examination process in an environment where offices and locations were closed. The information firms will be required to produce as a pilot program participant will help FINRA more accurately assess the overall impacts on firms' supervisory systems to inform FINRA's application of supervisory requirements to the new work environment, including potentially broader reliance on remote inspections.
With Rule 3110.17 operational since November 2020, and the widespread availability and use of technology described above, regulators are being challenged to consider whether on-site inspections by firms should be a necessity and if they continue to be an efficient and effective method for supervising and monitoring associated persons and offices as part of a firm's overall supervisory system.
As FINRA emphasized in the proposed rule change to adopt Rule 3110.17, the responsibility of firms to supervise their associated persons on a day-to-day basis is a critical component of broker-dealer regulation.
Under proposed Rule 3110.18(a), the proposed pilot program would apply to the required inspections of OSJs, branch offices, and non-branch locations under the applicable provisions under Rule 3110(c)(1) for a pilot period of three years starting on the effective date, and expiring on a date that is three years after the effective date. If the proposed pilot program is not extended or Rule 3110.18, as may be amended, is not approved as permanent by the SEC, the proposed supplementary material will automatically sunset on a date that is three years after the effective date. In addition, proposed Rule 3110.18(a) would expressly state that members would not be able to avail themselves of the proposed pilot program after it expires.
As described above, Rule 3110(c)(1) provides that an inspection of an office or location must occur on a designated frequency, and the periodicity of the required inspection varies depending on the classification of the location as an OSJ, branch office or non-branch location. Subject to proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(2) as described below, proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(1) would provide that a member firm may elect to conduct the applicable inspection of an office or location during the pilot period remotely, without necessarily an on-site
FINRA is proposing to exclude some member firms or their offices or locations from participating in the proposed pilot program. The proposed categories of ineligibility are events or activities of a member firm or its associated persons that FINRA believes are more likely to raise investor protection concerns based on the firm's or an associated person's record of specified regulatory or disciplinary events.
Under proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(2)(A), a member firm would be ineligible to conduct remote inspections of any of its offices if any time during the period of the proposed pilot program, the member is or becomes: (1) designated as a Restricted Firm under Rule 4111
In addition, under proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(2)(B), a member firm's office or location would be ineligible for a remote inspection if at any time during the period of the proposed pilot program, an associated person at such office or location is or becomes: (1) subject to a mandatory heightened supervisory plan under the rules of the SEC, FINRA or state regulatory agency (proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(2)(B)(i)); (2) statutorily disqualified, unless such disqualified person has been approved (or is otherwise permitted pursuant to FINRA rules and the federal securities laws) to associate with a member and is not subject to a mandatory heightened supervisory plan under proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(2)(B)(i) or otherwise as a condition to approval or permission for such association (proposed Rule 3110.18(b)(2)(B)(ii)); (3) subject to Rule 1017(a)(7)
A member firm or an office or location subject to one of the categorical restrictions would not be eligible for remote inspections, even if the firm's risk assessment concludes that a remote inspection would be appropriate. A member firm would be required to conduct an on-site inspection of that office or location on the required cycle. FINRA believes the proposed list of ineligibility categories is appropriately derived from existing rule-based criteria that are part of processes to identify firms that may pose greater concern (
As part of an effective supervisory system tailored specifically to the member firm's business and the activities of all its associated persons, a member must establish and maintain written procedures.
Currently, Rule 3110.17(b) expressly provides that consistent with a member's obligation under Rule 3110(b)(1), a member that elects to conduct each of its inspections in the specified calendar years remotely must amend or supplement its written supervisory procedures to provide for remote inspections that are reasonably designed to assist in detecting and preventing violations of and achieving compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable FINRA rules. In addition, under Rule 3110.17(b), reasonably designed procedures for conducting remote inspection of offices or locations should include, among other things, a description of the methodology, including technologies permitted by the member, that may be used to conduct remote inspections. Further, such procedures should include the use of other risk-based systems employed generally by the member firm to identify and prioritize for review those areas that pose the greatest risk of potential violations of applicable securities laws and regulations, and of applicable FINRA rules.
FINRA is proposing to retain the terms of Rule 3110.17(c), without substantive change, in proposed Rule 3110.18(d). Similar to Rule 3110.17(c), proposed Rule 3110.18(d) would expressly reiterate the principle that the requirement to conduct inspections of offices and locations is one part of the member's overall ongoing obligation to have an effective supervisory system, and therefore a member must continue with its reviews of the activities and functions occurring at all offices and locations whether or not the member conducts inspections remotely. In addition, proposed Rule 3110.18(d) would provide that a member's remote inspection of an office or location would be held to the same standards for review applicable to on-site inspections as set forth under Rule 3110.12.
In general, Rule 3110(c)(2) imposes various documentation requirements for inspections, including maintaining a written record of the date upon which each inspection is conducted. Currently, Rule 3110.17(d) requires supplemental documentation by a member that avails itself of the remote inspection option. The member must maintain and preserve a centralized record for each of calendar years specified in the supplementary material that separately identifies: (1) all offices or locations that had inspections that were conducted remotely; and (2) any offices or locations that the member determined to impose additional supervisory procedures or more frequent monitoring, as provided in Rule 3110.17(c). A member's documentation of the results of a remote inspection for an office or location must identify any additional supervisory procedures or more frequent monitoring for that office or location that were imposed as a result of the remote inspection. FINRA is proposing to incorporate, without substantive change, the terms of Rule 3110.17(d) in proposed Rule 3110.18(e), but make two clarifying changes. One change would be to reference that the centralize record must be for each of the “pilot years” (as defined in proposed Rule 3110.18(h)), and the other change would be to clarify that a member's documentation of the results of a remote inspection for an office or location must identify any additional supervisory procedures or more frequent monitoring for that office or location that were imposed as a result of the remote inspection, including whether an on-site inspection was conducted at such office.
As noted above, Rule 3110.17 was adopted in the midst of the pandemic and operationalized in an environment in which many offices and locations were closed to the public. FINRA believes that the formalized, uniform collection of data is critical to allow FINRA to meaningfully assess the effectiveness of remote inspections to help shape potential permanent amendments to Rule 3110(c) that would optimize an inspection program in the evolving workplace environment. FINRA believes having a pilot program for remote inspections with appropriate conditions, limitations and documentation requirements in an environment that is resettling into a hybrid workplace model would provide a clearer picture of the strengths and weaknesses of remote inspections, without compromising investor protection. Proposed Rule 3110.18(f) would impose upon firms a data and information collection requirement as a condition for participating in the pilot program. On a frequency not to exceed quarterly, participating firms would be required to collect and produce to FINRA, in a manner and format determined by FINRA, data consisting of separate counts for OSJs, supervisory branch offices, non-supervisory branch offices, and non-branch locations, consistent with paragraphs (c)(1)(A), (B) and (C) under Rule 3110, for several categories, including: (1) the total number of inspections—on-site and remote—completed during each calendar quarter;
Proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(2) would address the additional data and information requirements for Pilot Year 1 (as defined under proposed Rule 3110.18(h)), if such year covers a period that is less that a full calendar year. In such case, a member that elects to participate in the proposed pilot program would be required to collect the following data and information and provide such data and information to FINRA (in a manner and format FINRA determines) no later than December 31 of such first Pilot Year. For items (1) through (3) below, a member would be required to provide separate counts for OSJs, supervisory branch offices, non-supervisory branch offices, and non-branch locations consistent with paragraphs (c)(1)(A), (B) and (C) under Rule 3110: (1) the number of locations with an inspection completed during the full calendar year of the first Pilot Year; (2) the number of locations in item (1) that were inspected remotely during the full calendar year of the first Pilot Year; and (3) the number of locations in item (1) that were inspected on-site during the full calendar year of the first Pilot Year. This additional data and information would provide FINRA the ability to capture, in the aggregate, complete inspection counts—total number of Rule 3110(c)(1) inspections (remote and on-site)—for the entire calendar year in addition to the more detailed data and information requirements under proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(1).
Proposed Rule 3110.18(f)(3) would also remind firms of the general requirement to establish, maintain and enforce written policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to comply with the data and information collection, and transmission requirements of the proposed pilot program.
Proposed Rule 3110.18(g) would set forth the manner in which a firm would notify FINRA of the firm's election to participate in the proposed pilot program and to withdraw from it. The proposed rule would provide that FINRA may, in exceptional cases and where good cause is shown, waive the applicable timeframes described below for the required opt-in or opt-out notices.
Proposed Rule 3110.18(g) would require a firm, at least five calendar days before the beginning of such Pilot Year, to provide FINRA an “opt-in notice” in the manner and format determined by FINRA. By providing such opt-in notice to FINRA, the firm agrees to participate in the proposed pilot program for the duration of such Pilot Year and to comply with the requirements of Rule 3110.18.
By way of example, a firm that provides FINRA an opt-in notice on June 26 to join Pilot Year 1 that begins on July 1 would be automatically deemed to continue participating in Pilot Year 2 unless the firm provides FINRA the required opt-out notice no later than December 26 of Pilot Year 1. To continue with this example, a firm that was automatically deemed to participate in Pilot Year 2 and determines in mid-Pilot Year 2 that it does not want to automatically continue into Pilot Year 3 could elect to withdraw from Pilot Year 3 if it provides FINRA an opt-out notice at least five calendar days before the end of Pilot Year 2. However, because Pilot Year 2 is already underway, the firm would be required to complete Pilot Year 2 in accordance with proposed Rule 3110.18.
FINRA believes that this proposed operational aspect of the program would not only establish a cohesive process in which firms and FINRA may manage program participation but also lend some continuity in data and information collection that would support FINRA's assessment and evaluation of the experiences of pilot participants.
Proposed Rule 3110.18(h) would set forth the meanings underlying “Pilot Year” to explain the duration of the proposed pilot program. Under proposed Rule 3110.18(h), a “Pilot Year” would mean the following: (1) Pilot Year 1 would be the period beginning on the effective date of the proposed pilot program and ending on December 31 of the same year; (2) Pilot Year 2 would mean the calendar year period following Pilot Year 1, beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31; and (3) Pilot Year 3 would mean the calendar year period following Pilot Year 2, beginning on January 1 and ending on December 31. Finally, if applicable, where Pilot Year 1 covers a period that is less than a full calendar year, then Pilot Year 4 would mean the period following Pilot Year 3, beginning on January 1 and ending on a date that is three years after the effective date.
Proposed Rule 3110.18(i) would address a situation in which a firm fails to satisfy terms of the proposed pilot program. The proposed paragraph would provide that a firm that fails to satisfy the conditions of Rule 3110.18, including the requirement to timely collect and submit the data and information to FINRA as set forth in proposed Rule 3110.18(f), would be ineligible to participate in the pilot program and must conduct on-site inspections of each office and location
Proposed Rule 3110.18 would expressly account for the possibility that the proposed pilot program becomes effective while Rule 3110.17 is in effect to avoid overlapping provisions. Proposed paragraph (j) would provide that if Rule 3110.17 has not already expired by its own terms, it would automatically sunset on the effective date of proposed Rule 3110.18.
Consistent with the principles set forth in prior guidance, FINRA expects members to establish reasonably designed inspection programs. The proposed pilot program for remote inspections does not alter the core obligation of a member firm to establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each associated person that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable FINRA rules.
If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
The terms of the proposed voluntary, three-year remote inspection pilot program, while based largely on the terms of Rule 3110.17, which has been operational since the latter part of 2020 and is set to automatically sunset on December 31, 2022, would include important safeguards that would require individual risk assessments of each office, supplemental written supervisory procedures related to remote inspections, documentation requirements and obligations to share data with FINRA to allow for assessment of the pilot program. The proposed rule change is intended to provide firms that are transitioning to a hybrid work environment the option to conduct remote inspections of their offices and locations, subject to specified conditions, while maintaining effective supervision. FINRA believes that the proposed pilot program would provide FINRA the appropriate amount of time and population sample to better evaluate the use of remote inspections in the unfolding office work environment. FINRA believes the proposed pilot program, with the proposed safeguards and controls, will provide firms more flexibility to adapt to changing work conditions. The proposed pilot program would aid in FINRA's assessment of the effectiveness of a flexible remote inspection option and its utility in an environment that is increasingly moving to hybrid workplace models, without compromising investor protection.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment, as set forth below, to analyze the regulatory need for the proposed rule change, its potential economic impacts, including anticipated costs, benefits, and distributional and competitive effects, relative to the current baseline, and the alternatives FINRA considered in assessing how best to meet FINRA's regulatory objectives.
The proposed pilot program would serve two purposes. First, it would mitigate potential disruptions to the hybrid work arrangements that have developed during the pandemic. In particular, for participating members, the proposed pilot program would limit the increase in aggregate inspection costs, and the resulting incentive to reduce the number and type of work locations, that would occur when temporary relief provided during the pandemic expires.
The proposed pilot program would also allow FINRA to assess the benefits and costs of allowing some element of remote inspection of branch offices and non-branch locations, under specified conditions, in the post-pandemic world. FINRA would obtain information from participating members on certain elements of the risk-based approach that they implement, the type and frequency of inspections, and certain outcomes conditional on the type and frequency of inspections, as well as the type of office or location inspected.
The economic baseline for the proposed rule change includes both current and foreseeable workforce arrangements and business practices, including those that were first developed during the pandemic and have been modified since. In particular, the economic baseline includes the innovations, and investments in communication and surveillance technology, that have supported and continue to support supervision in the remote work environment.
As of April 30, 2022, FINRA's membership included 3,365 firms with 151,463 registered branch offices.
FINRA adopted temporary Rule 3110.17 in late 2020 and the temporary rule has been extended twice since.
As discussed above, absent the proposed rule change, FINRA expects that numerous additional office locations will need to be registered, greatly expanding the number of inspections, and all inspections would then need to be conducted on site. The economic impacts of these changes would be mitigated by the proposed rule change for firms that choose to participate in the pilot program.
Participants in the pilot program would be expected to take a risk-based approach to conducting remote inspections. A firm that does not conduct a remote inspection for an office or location must conduct an on-site inspection of that office or location on the required cycle and remains subject to the other requirements of Rule 3110(c). A firm that chooses to participate in the pilot program (assuming that it is not otherwise ineligible from participating) would also be required to provide FINRA with certain data and other information about the risk-based approach that they implement, the type and frequency of inspections, and certain outcomes conditional on the type and frequency of inspections.
The benefit to firms of choosing to participate in the pilot program, in an improved health environment, would result from limiting the increase in travel costs and lost productivity due to time spent during travel and in the on-site inspection. On-site visits have material costs from travel expenses and additional staff time. A system of risk-based on-site and remote inspections will allow firms to more efficiently deploy compliance resources and to use an on-site component only when appropriate.
Firms as well as investors may benefit if remote inspections provide new flexibility in the design of inspection teams. For example, remote inspections may facilitate the development of specialized inspection staff that are deployed over more inspections, for shorter periods of time, in a targeted way. This option may especially benefit diversified member firms with a variety of product offerings. Remote inspections can also facilitate the use of inspections that target a particular area of focus in a member firm's business across all branches of the member firm.
The proposed rule change may also support the competitiveness of the broker-dealer industry for individuals who seek professional positions in compliance.
Participants in the proposed pilot program would provide FINRA with periodic (not to exceed quarterly) data on the frequency and type of inspections (on-site or remote), counts of findings from inspections subdivided by category of office or location, qualitative information about these findings, and certain information about the written supervisory procedures for remote inspections they are required to have.
Participation in the proposed pilot program is voluntary, and the proposed rule change provides firms with an additional method for complying with certain supervisory requirements without removing other methods of compliance. Eligible pilot participants will therefore participate in the pilot program only if doing so is beneficial to their operations relative to complying with current Rule 3110. The cost of complying with the requirements of the proposed pilot program is a factor in this decision. These costs include conducting risk-based analyses for inspections and providing aggregated data on findings to FINRA. The data request in particular may require more standardization and aggregation of inspection findings than some member firms typically conduct. The data request may also not use the same terms or formats used by compliance officers for reporting and tracking inspection findings. Firms may need to develop new written supervisory procedures and new trainings for compliance staff to ensure that all required data is accurate and compiled and submitted to FINRA in a timely manner. Firms will incur new ongoing costs both for compliance and monitoring for compliance.
Supervision and inspections are intended to identify not only the activities that violate member procedures or FINRA rules but also poor practices that might ultimately allow for such violations. FINRA recognizes that remote inspections may be less likely to identify such practices or activities as on-site inspections. FINRA believes that risks to member firms and investors from remote inspections are mitigated by the proposed requirements to have written supervisory procedures for remote inspections, the proposed requirement to conduct and document risk assessments, the proposed limitations on the firms and locations that would be eligible to participate in the proposed pilot program, and the technology already employed for day-to-day supervision. In addition, FINRA will continue to closely monitor the outcomes of examinations during the pilot program period.
The proposed pilot program would continue for three years. FINRA staff considered alternative durations for the program. FINRA members firms vary by business model and organizational structure, so a shorter program is less likely to yield enough data on inspection findings to allow for meaningful comparisons between on-site and remote inspection regimes across members. In addition, inspections are typically planned by members well ahead of time, so some members may not implement the requirements of the program until well into the duration of the pilot program. It may also help firms and the policy development process if FINRA had enough data to meaningfully evaluate well ahead of the expiration of the pilot program.
FINRA staff also considered a proposed pilot program that would not exclude certain firms, like restricted firms, from participating in the program. These additional restrictions will limit the availability of the pilot program as well as the potential learnings from the program. As a result, the same restrictions may ultimately need to be carried over into any ongoing program of risk-based examinations. The exclusion of such firms, however, should reduce any risk of customer harm from not having on-site inspections.
Written comments were neither solicited nor 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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's transaction credits at Equity 7, Section 118(a), as described further below. The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's schedule of credits, at Equity 7, Section 118. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add (1) a new credit in Tapes A, B and C for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders) and (2) a new credit in Tapes A, B and C for non-displayed midpoint orders (other than Supplemental Orders).
The Exchange currently provides credits to members for displayed quotes/orders (other than Supplemental Orders or Designated Retail Orders). The Exchange is proposing to add a credit of $0.0020 per share executed to Tapes A, B and C. The credit will be available to a member that, through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, (i) increases its shares of liquidity provided in all securities by at least 20% as a percentage of Consolidated Volume during the month relative to the month of July 2022 and (ii) has shares of liquidity provided of least 5 million average daily volume during the month. The Exchange hopes that by proposing the new credit it will incentivize members to increase their liquidity providing activity on the Exchange, which will improve market quality.
The Exchange proposes to provide a new supplemental credit for midpoint orders (excluding buy (sell) orders with midpoint pegging that receive an execution price that is lower (higher) than the midpoint of the NBBO) that provide liquidity to the Exchange. This credit will be in addition to other credits otherwise available to members for adding non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange, but a member's activity will qualify it to receive only one of the supplemental credits at a time, meaning that they are not cumulative. Additionally, members that receive a supplemental credit will be entitled to a combined credit (regular and supplemental) up to a maximum of $0.0027 per share executed.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes to provide a supplemental credit of $0.0001 per share executed for midpoint orders (excluding buy (sell) orders with midpoint pegging that receive an execution price that is lower (higher) than the midpoint of the NBBO) if the member, during the month (i) provides at least 10 million shares of midpoint liquidity per day during the month; and (ii) increases providing liquidity through midpoint orders by 50% or more relative to the member's July 2022 consolidated volume provided through midpoint orders.
The purpose of the new credit is to provide extra incentive to members that provide non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange to do so through midpoint orders, as well as to grow substantially the extent to which they provide midpoint orders to the Exchange relative to a recent benchmark month. The Exchange believes that if such incentives are effective, then any ensuing increase in midpoint liquidity to the Exchange will improve market quality, to the benefit of all participants.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed changes to its schedule of credits are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for equity securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for equity security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of several equity venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Competing equity exchanges offer similar tiered pricing structures to that of the Exchange, including schedules of rebates and fees that apply based upon members achieving certain volume thresholds.
Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to establish new transaction credits, at Equity 7, Section 118(a), because these new credits will encourage the addition of and/or growth in the addition of displayed liquidity and non-displayed midpoint liquidity to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to establish a new $0.0020 per share executed transaction credit, at Equity 7, Section 118(a), for a member that, through one or more of its Nasdaq Market Center MPIDs, (i) increases its shares of liquidity provided in all securities by at least 20% as a percentage of Consolidated Volume during the month relative to the month of July 2022 and (ii) has shares of liquidity provided of least 5 million average daily volume during the month. The new credit will encourage substantial activity on the Exchange, which will improve the overall market quality to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that if the new credit is effective, then liquidity adding activity on the Exchange will increase and market quality will improve for the benefit of all participants.
The Exchange also believes it is reasonable to establish a new supplemental credit of $0.0001 per share executed for midpoint orders (excluding buy (sell) orders with midpoint pegging that receive an execution price that is lower (higher) than the midpoint of the NBBO) if the member, during the month (i) provides at least 10 million shares of midpoint liquidity per day during the month; and (ii) increases providing liquidity through midpoint orders by 50% or more relative to the member's July 2022 consolidated volume provided through midpoint orders. This proposal is reasonable because it will provide extra incentive to members that provide non-displayed liquidity to the Exchange to do so through midpoint orders, as well as to grow substantially the extent to which they provide midpoint orders to the Exchange relative to a recent benchmark month. The Exchange believes that if such incentive is effective, then any ensuing increase in midpoint liquidity to the Exchange will once again improve market quality, to the benefit of all participants.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to exclude from the supplemental credit orders with midpoint pegging which execute at prices less aggressive than the midpoint of the NBBO because such orders already receive price improvements, such that members do not require additional inducements to enter these orders on the Exchange.
The Exchange notes that those market participants that are dissatisfied with the proposal are free to shift their order flow to competing venues that offer more generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Exchange believes its proposal will allocate its charges and credits fairly among its market participants.
The Exchange believes that it is an equitable allocation to establish new transaction credits because the proposal will encourage members to increase the extent to which they add liquidity to the Exchange. To the extent that the Exchange succeeds in increasing the levels of liquidity and activity on the Exchange, then the Exchange will experience improvements in its market quality, which stands to benefit all market participants.
Any participant that is dissatisfied with the proposal is free to shift their order flow to competing venues that provide more generous pricing or less stringent qualifying criteria.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. As an initial matter, the Exchange believes that nothing about its volume-based tiered pricing model is inherently unfair; instead, it is a rational pricing model that is well-established and ubiquitous in today's economy among firms in various industries—from co-branded credit cards to grocery stores to cellular telephone data plans—that use it to reward the loyalty of their best customers that provide high levels of business activity and incent other customers to increase the extent of their business activity. It is also a pricing model that the Exchange and its competitors have long employed with the assent of the Commission. It is fair because it enhances price discovery and improves the overall quality of the equity markets.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt new credits is not unfairly discriminatory because the credits are available to all members. Moreover, the proposal stands to
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 does not believe that its proposal will place any category of Exchange participant at a competitive disadvantage.
As noted above, the Exchange's proposal to add new transaction credits is intended to have market-improving effects, to the benefit of all members. Any member may elect to achieve the levels of liquidity required in order to qualify for the new credits.
The Exchange notes that its members are free to trade on other venues to the extent they believe that the credits are not attractive. As one can observe by looking at any market share chart, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes.
In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its credits and fees to remain competitive with other exchanges and with alternative trading systems that have been exempted from compliance with the statutory standards applicable to exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own credits and fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which credit or fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The proposed new credits are reflective of this competition because, as a threshold issue, the Exchange is a relatively small market so its ability to burden intermarket competition is limited. In this regard, even the largest U.S. equities exchange by volume only has 17-18% market share, which in most markets could hardly be categorized as having enough market power to burden competition. Moreover, as noted above, price competition between exchanges is fierce, with liquidity and market share moving freely between exchanges in reaction to fee and credit changes. This is in addition to free flow of order flow to and among off-exchange venues which comprises more than 40% of industry volume in recent months.
The Exchange's proposal to add new transaction credits are pro-competitive in that the Exchange intends for them to increase liquidity addition activity on the Exchange, thereby rendering the Exchange a more attractive and vibrant venue to market participants.
In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Kentucky (FEMA-4663-DR), dated 07/29/2022.
Issued on 08/06/2022.
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 President's major disaster declaration on 07/29/2022, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications 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 17561 6 and for economic injury is 17562 0.
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 “Dare to Know: Prints and Drawings in the Age of Enlightenment” at the Harvard Art Museums, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 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,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary storage and display in the exhibition “Lost Kingdoms of Ancient China” at the Asian Art Museum, San Francisco, California, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display and storage within the United States as aforementioned are 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,
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 “The Tudors: Art and Majesty in Renaissance England” at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York; the Cleveland Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio; the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, Legion of Honor, San Francisco, California; 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,
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with their foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Bruno Munari: The Child Within” at the Center for Italian Modern 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 Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (USDOT).
Notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact statement.
The FHWA, in coordination with the Idaho Department of Transportation (ITD), is issuing this Notice of Intent (NOI) to solicit comment and advise the public, agencies, and stakeholders that an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for transportation improvements to Interstate 15 (I-15) and United States Highway 20 (US20) in Idaho Falls, Bonneville County, Idaho. Persons and agencies who may be interested in or affected by the proposed project are encouraged to comment on the information in this NOI and the NOI Supplementary Information document. All comments received in response to this Notice of Intent will be considered and any information presented herein, including the preliminary purpose and need, preliminary alternatives and identified impacts, may be revised in consideration of the comments.
Comments on the NOI or the NOI Supplementary Information documents must be received on or before September 14, 2022.
This NOI and the NOI Supplementary Information document are available in the docket referenced above at
•
•
•
•
•
All submissions should include the agency name and the docket number that appears in the heading of this Notice. All comments received will be posted without change to
The Draft EIS will include a summary of the comments received.
For further information and/or to get on the project mailing list, contact Lisa Applebee, Operations Engineer, FHWA Idaho Division, 3050 N Lakeharbor Lane, Boise, ID 83703, (208) 334-9180,
Persons interested in receiving project information can also use the project email address referenced above to be added to the project mailing list.
The FHWA and ITD are committed to public involvement for this project. All public comments received in response to this notice will be considered and potential revisions will be made to the information presented herein as appropriate. The FHWA, as the lead Federal agency, and ITD as joint lead agency/project sponsor, are preparing an EIS to evaluate transportation solutions on I-15 and US20 in Idaho Falls and Bonneville County, Idaho. The EIS will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 4321,
To ensure that a full range of issues are addressed in the EIS and potential issues are identified, comments and suggestions are invited from all interested parties. The FHWA requests comments and suggestions on the purpose and need, potential project alternatives and impacts, and the identification of any relevant information, studies, or analyses of any kind concerning impacts to the quality of the human and natural environment. The purpose of this request is to bring relevant comments, information, and analyses to the attention of FHWA and ITD, as early in the process as possible, to enable the agency to make maximum use of this information in decision making.
The purpose of this project is to address safety, congestion, mobility, and travel time reliability for efficient movement of people, goods, and services on I-15 and US20 in or near Bonneville County and Idaho Falls. Improvements are necessary to address the following needs: unsafe travel conditions caused by substandard weave/merge distances, unacceptable level of service at signalized ramp terminals, and poor pedestrian and bicycle mobility along and across the corridors. The purpose and need may be revised based on comments received during the comment period on this Notice.
The proposed action is to reconfigure portions of I-15 and US20 through Idaho Falls, including reconfiguration of the interchange connecting the two highways at Exit 119.
The FHWA/ITD proposes to evaluate two build alternatives and the no action alternative in the EIS. The first build alternative (E3) moves the existing Exit 119 interchange north approximately 2,000 feet and realigns approximately 3,000 feet of US20. The second build alternative (H2) adds a new I-15/US20 interchange approximately two miles north of the existing Exit 119 interchange and realigns approximately three miles of US20. The No Action Alternative assumes no improvements other than those planned by others or implemented as part of routine maintenance.
Additional information on the alternatives, as well as maps and figures illustrating the project location, are provided in the NOI Supplementary Information document available for review in the docket established for this project and on the project website noted in the
The EIS will evaluate the potential social, economic, and environmental impacts resulting from the implementation of the build alternatives and the no action alternative. During the PEL study, the public and agencies identified which environmental issues and considerations will require the most attention by ITD to minimize project impacts during the environmental review process, as described below.
•
•
•
•
The EIS will evaluate the expected impacts and benefits to the resources identified above as well as the following other resources: land use and right-of-way, farmland, social and community resources, economics, air quality, transportation, traffic noise, ecosystem resources (wildlife and threatened and endangered species), hazardous waste sites, and visual resources. The level of review of the identified resources for the EIS will be commensurate with the anticipated impacts to each resource from the proposed project and will be governed by the statutory or regulatory requirements protecting those resources. The analyses and evaluations conducted for the EIS will identify the potential for impacts; whether the anticipated impacts would be adverse; and the appropriate environmental mitigation measures. Additional information on the expected impacts is provided in the NOI Supplementary Information document available for review in the docket established for this project and on the project website as noted in the
Permits and authorizations anticipated for the project include a USACE Section 404 permit under the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and Section 401 water quality certification (33 U.S.C. 1341). There is a potential that a Land Release Permit may be required from the Federal Aviation Administration under both of the build alternatives. The USACE has agreed to be a Cooperating Agency, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has agreed to be a Participating Agency, and the Federal Aviation Administration has agreed to be a Cooperating Agency.
The FHWA and ITD will prepare evaluations under Section 4(f) of the USDOT Act of 1966, 23 CFR part 774, and Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act of 1965, 54 U.S.C. 200302; will perform consultation under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 54 U.S.C. 300101-307108 concurrently with the NEPA environmental review processes; and will consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, to determine if additional permits or authorizations are required under any of these authorities.
For the Idaho Falls Regional Airport, a short segment of Alternative E3 would encroach into the Runway 17-35 Protection Zone (RPZ), and Alternative H2 would impact a section of the Runway 20-2 RPZ and the navigable airspace to the northeast of the airport. The ITD will coordinate with the airport sponsor and the FAA to assess and mitigate any impacts to airport safety, and facilitate the required airport land release to ensure the airport sponsor's compliance with all applicable FAA grant assurances.
The project schedule will be established as part of the requirements of the environmental review process under 23 U.S.C. 139 and will comply with 40 CFR 1501.10(b)(2), which requires that environmental reviews and authorization decisions for major infrastructure projects occur within two years (from the date of publication of the NOI to the date of issuance of the Record of Decision (ROD), and all necessary authorizations be issued efficiently and in a timely manner, in cooperation with the FHWA. A current draft of the Agency Coordination Plan, the Public Involvement Plan, and a milestone schedule are included with the NOI Supplementary Information document, which is available for review in the docket established for this project and on the project website as noted in the
The anticipated project schedule is outlined below:
Project scoping includes the information developed during the PEL study through agency coordination and public outreach and through coordination activities with resource agencies since the PEL study.
During the PEL study process, resource agencies were consulted regarding potential environmental impacts of the alternatives under consideration and in identifying issues to be addressed during a subsequent NEPA study. In addition, ITD conducted a robust program to involve the community and the public. Public input was requested and received at the following key PEL study milestones:
After the PEL study was published, FHWA and ITD held an early coordination meeting with potential Cooperating and Participating Agencies on June 21, 2021. During the meeting, the agencies reviewed the PEL study findings, including the project purpose and need, the recommended alternatives for NEPA, a summary of key environmental topics, and the study area. The meeting included a discussion
A formal agency scoping meeting will be held October 12, 2022, and public scoping meeting is scheduled for October 18, 2022. Comments will be received from the agencies and the public during a 30-day comment period following the publication of this NOI. Monthly meetings with Cooperating Agencies and periodic meetings with Participating Agencies will be held throughout the environmental review process. The draft Public Involvement Plan and the draft Agency Coordination Plan included with the NOI Supplementary Information document describe how the public and agencies will continue to be engaged during the EIS. The DEIS will be available for public and agency review and comment prior to the DEIS Public Hearing.
The NOI Supplementary Information document includes the draft statement of purpose and need; a description of the alternatives to be considered; the Agency Coordination Plan and permitting timetable; the Public Involvement Plan; and a NEPA Milestone Schedule. With this Notice, FHWA and ITD request and encourage State, Tribal, and local agencies, and the public to review the NOI and NOI Supplementary Information document and submit comments on any aspect of the project. Specifically, agencies and the public are asked to identify and submit potential alternatives for consideration and any information, such as anticipated significant issues or environmental impacts and analyses, relevant to the proposed action for consideration by the lead and cooperating agencies in developing the DEIS. Any information presented herein, including the preliminary purpose and need, preliminary range of alternatives and identification of impacts may be revised after consideration of the comments. Comments must be received by September 14, 2022.
There are several methods to submit comments as described in the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 this notice announces that the information collection request abstracted below is being forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. A
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before September 14, 2022.
The public is invited to submit comments regarding this information collection request, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503. Comments can also be submitted electronically at
Angela Hill by telephone at 202-680-2034, by email at
Title 5, Code of Regulations (CFR) section 1320.8(d), requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies the opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests before they are submitted to OMB for approval. In accordance with this regulation, on March 11, 2022, (87 FR 14097) PHMSA published a
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:
This revision will require operators to submit geospatial data for moderate consequence areas (MCAs), as defined in 49 CFR part 192, and data based on the applicability of 49 CFR 192.710 assessments outside of high consequence areas. This revision would also require operators to submit the data element “specified minimum yield strength” in pounds per square inch gauge in place of submitting data on pipe grade. PHMSA does not expect operators to incur additional burden due to the inclusion of these two new 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
Comments are invited on:
(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.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein. Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2022.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
Notice of actions on special permit applications.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before September 14, 2022.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC.
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), DOT.
List of applications for modification of special permits.
In accordance with the procedures governing the application for, and the processing of, special permits from the Department of Transportation's Hazardous Material Regulations, notice is hereby given that the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety has received the application described herein.
Comments must be received on or before August 30, 2022.
Record Center, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC 20590.
Comments should refer to the application number and be submitted in triplicate. If confirmation of receipt of comments is desired, include a self-addressed stamped postcard showing the special permit number.
Donald Burger, Chief, Office of Hazardous Materials Safety General Approvals and Permits Branch, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4535.
Each mode of transportation for which a particular special permit is requested is indicated by a number in the “Nature of Application” portion of the table below as follows: 1—Motor vehicle, 2—Rail freight, 3—Cargo vessel, 4—Cargo aircraft only, 5—Passenger-carrying aircraft.
Copies of the applications are available for inspection in the Records Center, East Building, PHH-13, 1200 New Jersey Avenue Southeast, Washington DC or at
This notice of receipt of applications for special permit is published in accordance with part 107 of the Federal hazardous materials transportation law (49 U.S.C. 5117(b); 49 CFR 1.53(b)).
Notice.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs (OPIA), Office of Tribal Government Relations (OTGR), is seeking nominations of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment as a member of the Advisory Committee on Tribal and Indian Affairs (“the Committee”) to represent the Indian Health Service, Billings Area.
Nominations for membership on the Committee must be received no later than 5:00 p.m. EST on September 2, 2022.
All nomination packages (Application, should be mailed to the Office of Tribal Government Relations, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Suite 915H (075), Washington, DC 20420 or email us at
Ms. Stephanie Birdwell and David “Clay” Ward, Office of Tribal Government Relations, 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Ste 915H (075), Washington, DC 20420, Telephone (202) 461-7400. A copy of the Committee charter can be obtained by contacting Mr. David “Clay” Ward or by accessing the website managed by OTGR at
In carrying out the duties set forth, the Committee responsibilities include, but not limited to:
(1) Identify for the Department evolving issues of relevance to Indian tribes, tribal organizations and Native American Veterans relating to programs and services of the Department;
(2) Propose clarifications, recommendations and solutions to address issues raised at tribal, regional and national levels, especially regarding any tribal consultation reports;
(3) Provide a forum for Indian tribes, tribal organizations, urban Indian organizations, Native Hawaiian organizations and the Department to discuss issues and proposals for changes to Department regulations, policies and procedures;
(4) Identify priorities and provide advice on appropriate strategies for tribal consultation and urban Indian organizations conferring on issues at the tribal, regional, or national levels;
(5) Ensure that pertinent issues are brought to the attention of Indian tribes, tribal organizations, urban Indian organizations and Native Hawaiian organizations in a timely manner, so that feedback can be obtained;
(6) Encourage the Secretary to work with other Federal agencies and Congress so that Native American Veterans are not denied the full benefit of their status as both Native Americans and Veterans;
(7) Highlight contributions of Native American Veterans in the Armed Forces;
(8) Make recommendations on the consultation policy of the Department on tribal matters;
(9) Support a process to develop an urban Indian organization confer policy to ensure the Secretary confers, to the maximum extent practicable, with urban Indian organizations; and
(10) With the Secretary's written approval, conduct other duties as recommended by the Committee.
(1) At least one member of each of the 12 service areas of the Indian Health Service is represented in the membership of the Committee nominated by Indian tribes or tribal organization.
(2) At least one member of the Committee represents the Native Hawaiian Veteran community nominated by a Native Hawaiian Organization.
(3) At least one member of the Committee represents urban Indian organizations nominated by a national urban Indian organization.
(4) Not fewer than half of the members are Veterans, unless the Secretary determines that an insufficient number of qualified Veterans were nominated.
(5) No member of the Committee may be an employee of the Federal Government. In accordance with Public Law 116-315, the Secretary determines the number and terms of service for members of the Committee, which are appointed by the Secretary, except that a term of service of any such member may not exceed a term of two years. Additionally, a member may be reappointed for one additional term at the Secretary's discretion.
(1) Diversity in professional and personal qualifications;
(2) Experience in military service and military deployments (please identify your Branch of Service and Rank);
(3) Current work with Veterans;
(4) Committee subject matter expertise; and
(5) Experience working in large and complex organizations.
Nominations should be type written (one nomination per nominator). Nomination package should include: (1) a letter of nomination that clearly states
The individual selected for appointment to the Committee shall be invited to serve a two-year term. All members will receive travel expenses and a per diem allowance in accordance with the Federal Travel Regulations for any travel made in connection with their duties as members of the Committee.
The Department makes every effort to ensure that the membership of its Federal advisory committees is fairly balanced in terms of points of view represented and the committee's function. Every effort is made to ensure that a broad representation of geographic areas, males & females, racial and ethnic minority groups, and Veterans with disabilities are given consideration for membership. Appointment to this Committee shall be made without discrimination because of a person's race, color, religion, sex (including gender identity, transgender status, sexual orientation, and pregnancy), national origin, age, disability, or genetic information. Nominations must state that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Committee and appears to have no conflict of interest that would preclude membership. An ethics review is conducted for each selected nominee.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (“Customer Code”) and the Code of Arbitration Procedure for Industry Disputes (“Industry Code”) (together, “Codes”) to modify the current process relating to the expungement of customer dispute information.
The proposed rule change would amend the Codes to impose requirements on expungement requests (a) filed by an associated person during an investment-related, customer-initiated arbitration (“customer arbitration”), or filed by a party to the customer arbitration on behalf of an associated person (“on-behalf-of request”), or (b) filed by an associated person separate from a customer arbitration (“straight-in request”). Specifically, the proposed rule change would: (1) require that a straight-in request be decided by a three-person panel that is randomly selected from a roster of experienced public arbitrators with enhanced expungement training;
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA 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. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
Over the course of many years, FINRA has adopted a number of rules
FINRA is concerned, however, that the current expungement process is not working as intended—as a remedy that is appropriate only in limited circumstances in accordance with the narrow standards in FINRA rules. As a result, over the past several years, FINRA has taken numerous, meaningful steps to address the concerns that FINRA and other interested parties have identified with the current expungement process
• publishing
• amending FINRA rules to apply minimum fees to requests for expungement of customer dispute information to address concerns about practices to avoid fees that were intended to be applicable to expungement requests;
• in September 2020, filing with the SEC a rule filing to make several significant enhancements to the current expungement process by establishing special arbitration procedures for expungement requests (“2020 Rule Filing”).
On May 28, 2021, following discussions with SEC staff, FINRA withdrew the 2020 Rule Filing from the SEC in order to consider whether modifications to the filing were appropriate in response to concerns raised by SEC staff and commenters.
FINRA believes the proposed amendments discussed below are responsive to the concerns that have been identified with the current expungement process and would help protect the integrity of the Central Registration Depository (“CRD®”), the central licensing and registration system used by the U.S. securities industry and its regulators,
➢
• Requiring that the panel deciding the expungement request issue an award containing expungement relief only if the panel unanimously finds that the information to be expunged is factually impossible, clearly erroneous or false, or that the associated person was not involved in the alleged misconduct.
• Providing state securities regulators with notification of all expungement requests.
• Requiring associated persons to appear at the expungement hearing in person or by video conference.
• Facilitating customer attendance and participation by notifying customers of the time, date and place of any prehearing conferences and the expungement hearing; codifying that customers are entitled to attend and participate in prehearing conferences and the expungement hearing and to be represented, if they choose; and providing customers with access to all relevant documents filed in the arbitration.
• Specifically authorizing the panel to request any documentary, testimonial or other evidence that it deems relevant from the broker-dealer firm or associated person seeking expungement.
• Requiring that the panel provide enough detail in the award to explain its rationale for including expungement relief in the award.
• Precluding an associated person from requesting expungement of customer dispute information if a panel previously considered the merits of, or a court previously denied, a request to expunge the same customer dispute information.
• Prohibiting an associated person who withdraws an expungement request from refiling the request at a later date, thereby preventing “arbitrator shopping.”
➢
• Imposing strict time limits within which associated persons may request expungement—DRS would deny the DRS arbitration forum if the expungement request is made:
more than three years after the date the customer complaint was initially reported in the CRD system (if the customer complaint does not evolve into a customer-initiated arbitration or civil litigation); or
more than two years after the close of the customer-initiated arbitration or civil litigation associated with the customer dispute information.
• Requiring that straight-in requests be filed under the Industry Code against the broker-dealer firm at which the associated person was associated at the time of the events giving rise to the customer dispute.
• Permitting an authorized representative of state securities regulators to attend and participate as a non-party in prehearing conferences and the expungement hearing to the same extent as customers could attend and participate.
• Requiring that all straight-in requests be decided by a three-person panel, randomly selected from a roster of experienced public arbitrators with enhanced expungement training and with no significant ties to the industry (“Special Arbitrator Roster”).
• Prohibiting the parties from: (1) agreeing to fewer than three arbitrators to consider their expungement requests; (2) striking any of the selected arbitrators; (3) stipulating to an arbitrator's removal; or (4) stipulating to the use of pre-selected arbitrators.
➢
• Requiring an associated person named in a customer arbitration to request expungement during that customer arbitration or forfeit the opportunity to request expungement in any subsequent proceeding, thereby ensuring that the panel that hears the full merits of a customer arbitration also reviews a related expungement request.
• Conditioning and limiting the ability of a party to a customer arbitration to request expungement during the customer arbitration on behalf of an associated person who is the subject of a customer arbitration, but unnamed, so that the associated person cannot later claim they were not aware of the prior expungement request made on their behalf.
Prior to discussing each of the proposed amendments, FINRA provides below background information regarding the reporting of customer dispute information to the CRD system and its public disclosure through BrokerCheck®,
FINRA is mandated by federal statute to collect and maintain registration information about broker-dealer firms and their associated persons. To satisfy this statutory responsibility, FINRA operates the CRD system, the central licensing and registration system used by FINRA, the SEC, other self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”), state securities regulators and broker-dealer firms.
In general, the information in the CRD system is reported by registered broker-dealer firms, associated persons and regulatory authorities in response to questions on the uniform registration forms.
Pursuant to rules approved by the SEC and pursuant to its statutory mandate, FINRA makes specific CRD information publicly available through BrokerCheck.
The collection of registration information in the CRD system and the disclosure of the information through BrokerCheck serves three important purposes: (1) allowing investors to obtain information about an associated person or broker-dealer firm with whom they may do business; (2) providing securities regulators with a critical regulatory tool in overseeing the activities of associated persons and in detecting regulatory problems; and (3) providing broker-dealer firms with information for use in making informed employment decisions. The value of the information is dependent on its completeness and accuracy. The absence of accurate information, as well as the presence of clearly inaccurate information, decreases the reliability and hence the value of the disclosure regime.
Sometimes, associated persons seek to remove, or “expunge,” customer dispute information from the CRD system and, thereby, from BrokerCheck. To do this, FINRA rules require that an associated person must obtain an order from a court of competent jurisdiction (1) directing such expungement or (2) confirming an arbitration award containing expungement relief.
As discussed in more detail below, FINRA rules specify a narrow set of
The process of seeking expungement through the DRS arbitration forum originally developed when associated persons who were not found liable in a customer arbitration asked the panel in that same case to expunge the underlying customer dispute from the CRD system. Use of the DRS arbitration forum for expungement subsequently expanded when associated persons began requesting expungement through straight-in requests. Typically, these straight-in requests for expungement are filed after the customer arbitration settles or where a customer complaint has not evolved into a customer arbitration. Straight-in requests present inherent difficulties and panels deciding straight-in requests issue awards containing expungement relief more often than panels deciding expungement requests made in customer arbitrations.
For either type of expungement request initiated in the DRS arbitration forum, an independent arbitrator or a panel of independent arbitrators decides whether the party requesting expungement has established one of the Rule 2080(b)(1) grounds for expungement.
FINRA rules also require the panel to specify in the award which of the Rule 2080(b)(1) grounds serves as a basis for the expungement order and provide a brief written explanation of the reasons for its finding that one or more of the Rule 2080(b)(1) grounds applies to the facts of the case.
These FINRA rules are supplemented with extensive guidance and training provided to DRS's independent arbitrators. DRS has enhanced its expungement training for arbitrators to emphasize the importance of the information in the CRD system and BrokerCheck, and to underscore the arbitrator's important role in maintaining the relevancy and integrity of the information in those systems. DRS requires arbitrators to take mandatory online training on expungement to be eligible to serve as an arbitrator. The training includes materials that arbitrators should review when considering expungement requests, with a particular focus on the Guidance, first published in 2013 and expanded further periodically thereafter.
As stated above, FINRA will expunge customer dispute information from the CRD system only pursuant to a court order. FINRA Rule 2080, which was developed in close consultation with representatives of NASAA and state securities regulators, provides that associated persons seeking expungement of customer dispute information from the CRD system must obtain an order from a court of competent jurisdiction directing expungement relief or confirming an arbitration award that contains expungement relief.
While commenters have raised concerns generally about associated persons' use of the DRS arbitration forum to seek expungement, their concerns have been particularly focused on straight-in requests. Some of these concerns, however, also apply to expungement requests filed in customer arbitrations that settle, where the panel from the customer arbitration then holds a hearing to consider the expungement request.
First, straight-in requests often involve aged customer dispute information reported on the associated person's CRD record a number of years prior to the expungement request.
Second, although the Guidance provides that an arbitrator must ensure the customer has notice and an opportunity to participate in the expungement hearing, customers and their representatives typically do not participate in hearings in straight-in requests and, therefore, the panel may receive information only from the associated person requesting expungement.
Third, the broker-dealer firm named in the straight-in request by the associated person may not have any relevant documents pertaining to the customer dispute because the event occurred while the associated person was employed at a different firm, or the respondent firm may support the expungement request because it has an interest in removing negative information from the associated person's CRD record.
Fourth, associated persons are also making repeated attempts to seek expungement of the same customer dispute information. For example, some associated persons make requests for expungement (by filing straight-in requests) after withdrawing or deciding not to pursue an expungement request made in the customer arbitration, presumably believing that another panel that has not heard the merits of the customer's claim may be more likely to decide expungement in their favor. FINRA is concerned about this practice of “arbitrator shopping,” particularly when associated persons withdraw an original expungement request after the panel has been made aware of evidence that could result in the denial of the expungement request.
FINRA has also observed that persons who are not named as a party in a customer arbitration may attempt to seek expungement (using straight-in requests) after expungement was denied in the customer arbitration to which they were not a party, claiming they were not aware of the expungement request in the customer arbitration.
These “unnamed persons” may seek to expunge customer dispute information from the CRD system by: (1) asking a party to the customer arbitration, usually the firm, to request expungement on their behalf; (2) seeking to intervene in the customer arbitration; (3) initiating a new arbitration in which the unnamed person requests expungement and names the customer or firm as the respondent; or (4) seeking expungement in a court of competent jurisdiction.
As discussed in detail below, the proposed amendments would make significant enhancements to the current expungement process. These enhancements would address the concerns identified by FINRA, the Task Force and other interested parties and provide additional safeguards for ensuring that the information maintained in the CRD system and disclosed through BrokerCheck is accurate and complete.
Under the proposed rule change, an associated person would only be permitted to seek expungement of customer dispute information in the
FINRA Rule 12805 sets forth requirements that arbitrators must meet in order to issue an award containing expungement of customer dispute information under the Customer Code.
Under current practice, an associated person who is named as a respondent in a customer arbitration (“named associated person”) may request expungement at any time during the customer arbitration or separately from the customer arbitration in a straight-in request.
Under the proposed rule change, if a named associated person seeks to expunge customer dispute information associated with the customer's statement of claim, the named associated person must make the expungement request during the customer arbitration.
FINRA is proposing to require that a named associated person request expungement of customer dispute information associated with a customer's statement of claim during the customer arbitration because, if the arbitration closes by award after a hearing, the panel from the customer arbitration will be best situated to decide the related issue of expungement. Requiring the named associated person to request expungement in the customer arbitration increases the likelihood that a panel will have input from all parties and access to all of the evidence, testimony and other documents to make an informed decision on the expungement request.
FINRA recognizes that this requirement could result in some named associated persons filing expungement requests to preserve their ability to make an expungement request, regardless of the potential outcome. FINRA believes, however, that the potential costs that would be incurred by associated persons, arbitrators and the DRS arbitration forum if named associated persons file expungement requests to preserve the ability to request expungement are appropriate given the potential benefit of having customer input and a complete factual record for the panel to decide an expungement request.
The proposed rule change would limit how and when expungement requests may be made during the customer arbitration. Under the proposed rule change, if a named associated person requests expungement during the customer arbitration, the request must be included in the answer or a separate pleading requesting expungement.
Under the proposed rule change, a request for expungement by a named associated person in a customer arbitration must include the applicable filing fee under the Code.
The proposed rule change would also require the named associated person requesting expungement to explain whether expungement of the same customer dispute information was (i) previously requested and, if so (ii) how it was decided.
Under the proposed rule change, if an expungement request fails to include any of the proposed requirements for requesting expungement, the request would be considered deficient and would not be served unless the deficiency is corrected.
FINRA believes these proposed requirements for named associated persons requesting expungement are necessary for the timely consideration and orderly administration of expungement requests as well as to maintain the integrity of the CRD system.
The Codes do not specifically address on-behalf-of requests,
The proposed rule change would codify the ability of a party to the customer arbitration to file an on-behalf-of request during a customer arbitration.
The unnamed person would be required to consent to the on-behalf-of request in writing.
FINRA believes that requiring the submission of the Form would help address the issue of an unnamed person not being made aware of the on-behalf-of request. As discussed above, FINRA is concerned that some associated persons are filing arbitration claims seeking expungement of the same customer dispute information that was the subject of a previous denial by a panel of an on-behalf-of request.
Under the proposed rule change, an on-behalf-of request would be required to include the same elements as a request for expungement by a named associated person during a customer arbitration.
The proposed amendments would require that if a named associated person or a party on behalf of an unnamed person has requested expungement during a customer arbitration and the case closes by award after a hearing, the panel from the customer arbitration must decide the expungement request during the customer arbitration in accordance with Rule 12805(c) and issue its decision on the request in the same award.
Currently, if a named associated person requests expungement, or a party files an on-behalf-of request, and the customer's claim closes by award after a hearing, the panel may consider and decide the expungement request during the customer arbitration and issue its decision in the award. If, however, the party requesting expungement does not raise the issue of expungement during the hearing, the panel may not decide the request and may deem it withdrawn.
Under the proposed rule change, if a named associated person requests expungement or a party files an on-behalf-of request during a customer arbitration and the customer's claim closes by award after a hearing, the panel in the customer arbitration would be required to consider and decide the expungement request and issue its decision in the same award.
The proposed rule change would require the panel to decide the request even if the requesting party withdraws or fails to pursue the request. In this instance, the panel would deny the expungement request with prejudice.
Currently, if a named associated person requests expungement or a party files an on-behalf-of request, the customer arbitration does not close by award after a hearing (
The proposed rule change would provide that if, during a customer arbitration, a named associated person requests expungement or a party files an on-behalf-of request and the customer arbitration closes other than by award or by award without a hearing, the panel from the customer arbitration would not be permitted to decide the expungement
FINRA believes this approach reflects the importance of maintaining the integrity of information in the CRD system. When the customer arbitration closes other than by award or by award without a hearing, the panel selected by the parties in the customer arbitration may not have heard the presentation of the evidence on the merits of the case and, therefore, may not bring to bear any special insights in determining whether to issue an award containing expungement relief. In addition, customers or their representatives have little incentive to attend and participate in an expungement hearing once their case has settled. Requiring that an associated person file the expungement request as a straight-in request under the Industry Code to be heard and decided by a three-person panel that is randomly selected from the Special Arbitrator Roster would strengthen the expungement framework. As discussed in more detail below, while keeping in mind the importance of maintaining the integrity of information in the CRD system, this corps of experienced and specially trained arbitrators would follow the procedures set forth in proposed Rule 13805 to decide whether one or more of three grounds—the same three grounds contained in FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1)—exist in order to issue an award containing expungement relief.
The proposed amendments would prohibit unnamed persons from intervening in a customer arbitration and requesting expungement.
Accordingly, under the proposed rule change, unnamed persons would be prohibited from intervening in a customer arbitration and requesting expungement. Instead, the unnamed person would be able to file the request as a new claim against the member firm at which the person was associated at the time the customer dispute arose under proposed Rule 13805, where a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster would decide the request.
The proposed amendments would also prohibit an associated person from filing a straight-in request against a customer.
Under the proposed rule change, all requests to expunge customer dispute information that is not associated with a customer arbitration would be required to be filed as a straight-in request under proposed Rule 13805.
Under the proposed rule change, an associated person requesting expungement of customer dispute information as a straight-in request under the Industry Code must file a statement of claim in accordance with FINRA Rule 13302 against the member firm at which the person was associated at the time the customer dispute arose, unless the request is ineligible for arbitration under proposed Rule 13805(a)(2).
The requirement that the associated person file the straight-in request against the member firm at which the person was associated at the time the customer dispute arose would help ensure that there is a connection between the respondent firm and the subject matter of the expungement request. For example, the firm at which the person requesting expungement was associated at the time the dispute arose should have knowledge of the dispute and access to documents or other evidence relating to the dispute. In addition, the proposed requirement would help ensure that the panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster would be able to request evidence from the member firm with information that is relevant to the expungement request. If the requisite connection is not present, the Director would be authorized to deny the use of the DRS arbitration forum for the request.
The required contents of a straight-in request would be the same as those required for expungement requests filed under proposed Rule 12805.
If a straight-in request is filed in accordance with proposed Rule 13805, a three-person panel randomly selected from the Special Arbitrator Roster pursuant to proposed Rule 13806 would be required to hold an expungement hearing, decide the expungement request and issue an award.
The proposed rule change would include several requirements to help ensure that arbitrators on the Special Arbitrator Roster have the qualifications and training to decide straight-in requests.
First, arbitrators on the Special Arbitrator Roster would be public arbitrators who are eligible for the chairperson roster.
Second, the public chairpersons must have evidenced successful completion of, and agreement with, enhanced expungement training provided by FINRA.
Third, arbitrators on the Special Arbitrator Roster would also be required to have served as an arbitrator through award on at least four customer arbitrations administered by FINRA or by another SRO in which a hearing was held.
To minimize the potential for influence in the arbitrator selection process by the associated person and member firm, whose interests may be aligned, and to help ensure the development of a more complete factual record, the proposed rule change would require NLSS to select randomly the three public chairpersons from the Special Arbitrator Roster to decide a straight-in request filed by an associated person.
The current process for selecting arbitrators—striking and combining ranked lists—would not be appropriate to use to select arbitrators to decide straight-in requests.
FINRA recognizes that the proposed arbitrator selection process for straight-in requests would also limit the associated person and member firm's input on arbitrator selection for reasons that may be unrelated to whether the arbitrator would potentially be sympathetic to the expungement request, such as their perception of the arbitrator's competence or efficiency. However, the arbitrators on the Special Arbitrator Roster would have the experience, qualifications and training necessary to conduct a fair and impartial expungement hearing in accordance with the proposed rules, and to make their determination based on a complete factual record developed during the expungement hearing. FINRA believes that the higher standards that the arbitrators must meet to serve on the Special Arbitrator Roster should mitigate the impact of the absence of party input on the selection of arbitrators. In addition, associated persons and member firms would still be permitted to challenge any arbitrator for cause.
Currently, Rules 12805 and 13805 do not address when a party would not be permitted to file an expungement request in the DRS arbitration forum.
The Guidance provides that if a panel or a court has issued an award or decision denying an associated person's expungement request, the associated person may not request expungement of the same customer dispute information in another arbitration proceeding. In particular, the Guidance states that arbitrators should ask a party requesting expungement whether an arbitration panel or a court previously denied expungement of the customer dispute information at issue and, if there has been a prior denial, the arbitration panel must deny the expungement request.
The proposed rule change would codify the Guidance by providing that an associated person may not file a request for expungement of customer dispute information if (1) a panel held a hearing to consider the merits of the associated person's expungement request for the same customer dispute information or (2) a court of competent jurisdiction previously denied the associated person's request to expunge the same customer dispute information.
As discussed below, under the proposed amendments, four additional limitations would apply to straight-in requests.
The Guidance provides that an associated person may not file a separate request for expungement of customer dispute information arising from a customer arbitration until the customer arbitration has concluded. The proposed rule change would codify and expand upon this limitation in the Guidance by providing that an associated person may not file a straight-in request under proposed Rule 13805 if the customer arbitration, civil litigation or customer complaint associated with the customer dispute information has not closed.
The proposed rule change would prevent an associated person from filing a straight-in request while a customer arbitration or civil litigation associated with the customer dispute information that is the subject of the straight-in request is pending. It would also prevent potentially inconsistent expungement decisions on related customer dispute information. The proposed rule change would also help ensure that the panel which will decide the straight-in request is able to consider the final factual record from the customer arbitration or civil litigation.
Under the proposed change, an associated person who is named in a customer arbitration must request expungement during the arbitration or forfeit the ability to seek to expunge the customer dispute information associated with the customer's statement of claim in any subsequent proceeding.
FINRA is aware that many straight-in requests are filed many years after the customer arbitration closes or the customer complaint is reported in the CRD system.
Under the proposed rule change, an associated person would be permitted to file a straight-in request within two years of the close of a customer arbitration or a civil litigation associated with the customer dispute information.
A two-year limitation period would allow the associated person sufficient time to determine whether to seek expungement by filing a straight-in request and provide a reasonable amount of time for the associated person to gather the documents, information and other resources required to file the expungement request. In addition, a two-year period would help ensure that the expungement hearing is held close enough in time to the customer arbitration or civil litigation, when information regarding the customer arbitration or civil litigation is available and in a timeframe that could increase the likelihood for the customer to attend and participate if the customer chooses to do so. The two-year time limit may also curtail the common practice of bundling multiple unrelated and aged expungement requests in one straight-in request.
Under the proposed rule change, an associated person would be prohibited from filing a straight-in request to expunge a customer complaint where more than three years have elapsed since the customer complaint was initially reported to the CRD system and there was no customer arbitration or civil litigation associated with the customer dispute information.
The three-year time limitation would help ensure that the expungement hearing is held close in time to the events that gave rise to the customer dispute and increase the likelihood of customer attendance and participation. Three years should also provide sufficient time for firms to complete their investigation of the complaint, for associated persons to develop a sense of whether the complaint may evolve into an arbitration or civil litigation, and for the associated person to gather the necessary resources and determine whether to seek expungement. The three-year time limitation may also curtail requests to expunge customer complaints that are filed many years after first being reported to the CRD system and the bundling of multiple unrelated and aged disclosures in a single expungement request.
As discussed above, the Codes provide that no claim shall be eligible for submission to arbitration where six years have elapsed from the occurrence or event giving rise to the claim.
The proposed amendments would also establish time limits for requests to expunge customer dispute information arising from customer arbitrations and civil litigations that close, and for customer complaints that were initially reported to the CRD system, on or prior to the effective date of the proposed rule change.
Specifically, the proposed amendments would provide that if an expungement request is otherwise eligible under the six-year limitation period of FINRA Rule 13206(a), an associated person would be permitted to file a straight-in request under the Industry Code if: (1) the request for expungement is made within two years of the effective date of proposed rule change, and the disclosure to be expunged is associated with a customer arbitration or civil litigation that closed on or prior to the effective date;
The Codes provide the Director with authority to decline the use of the DRS arbitration forum if the Director determines that “given the purposes of FINRA and the intent of the Code, the subject matter of the dispute is inappropriate, or that accepting the matter would pose a risk to the health or safety of arbitrators, staff, or parties or their representatives.”
To ensure additional safeguards around the expungement process, the proposed rule change would provide the Director with express authority to decline the use of the DRS arbitration forum if an associated person files an expungement request that the Director determines is ineligible for arbitration under proposed Rules 12805 and 13805.
The proposed rule change would also provide the Director with express authority to decline the use of the DRS arbitration forum if the Director determines that the expungement request was not filed under, or considered in the DRS arbitration forum in accordance with, proposed Rules 12805 or 13805.
FINRA Rules 12805 and 13805 currently provide a list of requirements panels must follow in order to issue an award containing expungement relief.
The Codes require a panel that is deciding an expungement request to hold a recorded hearing session (by telephone or in person) regarding the appropriateness of expungement.
The proposed rule change would require the associated person whose information in the CRD system is the subject of the expungement request to appear in person or by video conference at the expungement hearing.
As the associated person is seeking the permanent removal of information from the CRD system, FINRA believes the associated person should be required to appear in person or by video conference at the expungement hearing and be available to respond to questions. Requiring that the associated person's appearance be in person or by video conference would help the panel assess the associated person's credibility, which may be particularly important if the request is unopposed.
The Guidance states that it is important to allow customers and their representatives to participate in the expungement hearing if they wish to do so.
• Allow the customer and their representative to appear at the expungement hearing;
• Allow the customer to testify (telephonically, in person, or other method) at the expungement hearing;
• Allow the representative for the customer or a
• Allow the representative for the customer or a
• Allow the representative for the customer or a
The proposed rule change would codify these provisions of the Guidance. The proposed rule change would make clear that all customers whose customer arbitrations, civil litigations or customer complaints are a subject of the expungement request are entitled to representation and may attend and participate in the expungement hearing.
The proposed rule change would provide that the customer could choose to attend and participate by telephone, in person or by video conference.
The proposed rule change would also specify ways in which the customer must be allowed to attend and participate in the expungement hearing. First, the proposed rule change would provide that customers or customers' representatives must be allowed to introduce evidence during the expungement hearing.
Second, the customers and the customers' witnesses would be allowed to testify at the expungement hearing and be questioned by the customer or customer's representative.
Third, the customer or customer's representative would be permitted to state objections to evidence and cross-examine the associated person or party requesting expungement on behalf of an unnamed person and any other witnesses called during the expungement hearing.
Fourth, the customer or customer's representative would be permitted to present opening and closing arguments if the panel permits any party to present such arguments.
FINRA believes the proposal strikes the right balance of allowing the customer to attend and participate in the hearing and giving the associated person or party requesting expungement on behalf of an unnamed person the opportunity to substantiate arguments in support of the expungement request.
Arbitrators on the panel do not conduct their own research when hearing an arbitration case; instead, they review the materials provided by the parties. If they need more information, they can request it from the parties. In deciding an expungement request, particularly in cases that settle before an evidentiary hearing or in cases where the customer does not attend or participate in the expungement hearing, the panel's role as fact finder is critical. Given this significant role, the panel must ensure that it has all of the information necessary to make a fully informed decision on the expungement request on the basis of a complete factual record.
Thus, the proposed rule change would codify the ability of the panel to request from the associated person, the party requesting expungement on behalf of an unnamed person and the member firm at which the person was associated at the time the customer dispute arose, as applicable, any documentary, testimonial or other evidence that the panel deems relevant to the expungement request.
Current FINRA Rules 12805(b) and 13805(b) provide that, in the event a customer dispute is resolved by settlement, the panel considering the expungement request must review the settlement documents and consider the amount of payments made to any party and any other terms and conditions of the settlement.
In addition, the Guidance encourages arbitrators to inquire and fully consider whether a party conditioned a settlement of a customer dispute upon an agreement not to oppose the request for expungement in cases in which the customer does not attend or participate in the expungement hearing or the requesting party states that a customer has indicated that the customer will not oppose the expungement request. Because conditioned settlements violate FINRA Rule 2081 and may be grounds to deny an expungement request, the proposed rule change would codify the language in the Guidance.
Current FINRA Rules 12805 and 13805 require that, in order to issue an award containing expungement of customer dispute information, the panel must indicate in the arbitration award which of the FINRA Rule 2080 grounds for expungement serves as the basis for its expungement order. Consistent with arbitration cases generally, the panel may award expungement based on a majority decision of the arbitrators.
The proposed rule change would require that the arbitrators agree unanimously to issue an award containing expungement relief.
To further protect the integrity of the information in the CRD system, the proposed amendments would also provide that in order to issue an award containing expungement relief, the unanimous finding must be that one or more of the grounds for expungement enumerated in the proposed rule has been established: (1) the claim, allegation or information is factually impossible or clearly erroneous; (2) the associated person was not involved in the alleged investment-related sales practice violation, forgery, theft, misappropriation or conversion of funds; or (3) the claim, allegation or information is false.
The Codes, which include FINRA Rules 12805 and 13805, govern the processes by which all arbitration cases are administered in the DRS arbitration forum.
Although FINRA is not proposing to amend FINRA Rule 2080 at this time, it is considering whether enhancements to the current expungement process through changes to FINRA Rule 2080 may be warranted.
The panel is currently required to provide a “brief” written explanation of the reasons for its finding that one or more of the grounds for expungement applies to the facts of the case.
The proposed amendments would also instruct the panel that the decision of a customer or an authorized representative of state securities regulators (“authorized representative”) not to attend or participate in the expungement hearing shall not be material to the determination of whether expungement is appropriate.
The proposed rule change would retain the current requirements in FINRA Rules 12805(d) and 13805(d) that address how DRS arbitration forum fees are assessed in expungement hearings. Specifically, the panel must assess against the parties requesting expungement all DRS arbitration forum fees for each hearing session in which the sole topic is the determination of the appropriateness of expungement.
The Guidance suggests that when a straight-in request is filed against a firm, arbitrators order the associated person to provide a copy of the statement of claim to the customers involved in the customer dispute that gave rise to the customer dispute information maintained in the CRD system. This helps ensure that the customers know about the expungement request and have an opportunity to attend and participate in the expungement hearing or provide a position in writing on the associated person's request. The proposed rule change would codify this practice in the Industry Code by requiring that the associated person serve all customers whose customer arbitrations, civil litigations or customer complaints are a subject of the expungement request with a copy of the statement of claim requesting expungement and any answer.
Given the associated person's personal interest in obtaining expungement, FINRA believes that the panel should review all documents that the associated person used to inform the customers about the expungement request as well as any customer responses received. Accordingly, the proposed rule change would require the associated person to file with the panel proof of service for the statement of claim and any answers, copies of all documents provided by the associated person to the customers, and copies of all communications sent by the associated person to the customers and any responses received from the customers.
Customer attendance and participation in expungement hearings helps the panel fully develop a record on which to decide the expungement request. Accordingly, the proposed rule change would require the Director to notify all customers whose customer arbitrations, civil litigations or customer complaints are a subject of the expungement request, of the time, date and place of any prehearing conferences and the expungement hearing.
The Director would include language in the notice to encourage the customer to attend and participate in the expungement hearing. The associated person would be required to provide a current address for the customer,
The Director would also provide the notified customers with access to all documents that are relevant to (a) the expungement request that are filed in the straight-in request and (b) any prior customer arbitration brought by the customer that is a subject of the expungement request.
The proposed rule change would require FINRA to notify state securities regulators, in the manner determined by the Director in collaboration with state securities regulators, of an expungement request within 15 days of receiving an expungement request.
The current expungement process does not include a mechanism to facilitate state securities regulator involvement in expungement hearings in the DRS arbitration forum. The proposed rule change would provide a mechanism for an authorized representative to provide the state securities regulators' position or positions on an expungement request in writing or by attending and participating in the expungement hearing in person or by video conference.
At the same time as providing notification to state securities regulators of a straight-in request, the Director would provide state securities regulators with access to all documents relevant to (a) the expungement request filed in the arbitration requesting expungement relief and (b) any other customer arbitration brought under the Customer Code that is associated with the customer dispute information that is a subject of the expungement request.
If the Director receives notification from an authorized representative no later than 30 days after the last answer is due that the authorized representative intends to attend and participate in the expungement hearing, the Director shall notify the authorized representative of the time, date and place of any prehearing conferences and the expungement hearing.
The authorized representative would not be considered a party to the proceeding and their attendance and participation would be limited to what is authorized by proposed Rule 13805(c)(6).
Allowing an authorized representative to attend and participate in straight-in requests may provide meaningful opposition to the expungement request, which might otherwise be unopposed, and thus help create a more complete factual record for the panel to rely upon to decide the expungement request. NASAA and state securities regulators have a shared interest with FINRA in protecting the integrity of the information contained in the CRD system, as it is a crucial tool in their registration and oversight responsibilities. According to NASAA, “[s]tate securities regulators are often legally obligated to maintain the information in the CRD system as a state record. Much of the information in the CRD system is filed with state securities regulators as part of the registration and qualification process, or filed by state securities regulators themselves. The Uniform Securities Acts, which form the basis of most state securities statutes, generally provide that securities regulators must retain all information filed as part of a registration application or as an amendment to the information filed as part of the application.”
The proposal would not allow an authorized representative to attend or participate in a customer arbitration where expungement has been requested; such attendance or participation could substantially disrupt the customer's case and would be less impactful, as the panel hears the customer's evidence on the merits.
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change strikes the appropriate balance between respecting states' interest in the information in the CRD system and maintaining the integrity of the arbitration process.
Customer arbitrations involving $50,000 or less, called simplified arbitrations, are governed by FINRA Rule 12800. FINRA Rule 12800 provides customers with expedited procedures to make the DRS arbitration forum economically feasible for these smaller claims. Simplified arbitrations are decided on the pleadings and other materials submitted by the parties, unless the customer requests a hearing.
The customer who files a simplified arbitration determines how the claim will be decided. In particular, the customer has the option of having the case decided in one of three ways: (1) without a hearing (referred to as “on the papers”), where the arbitrator decides the case on the pleadings or other materials; (2) in an “Option One” full hearing, in which prehearings and hearings on the merits take place pursuant to the regular provisions of the Code; or (3) in an “Option Two” special proceeding, whereby the parties present their case in a hearing to the arbitrator in a compressed timeframe, so that the hearings last no longer than one day.
Currently, named associated persons and parties requesting expungement on behalf of unnamed persons request expungement during simplified arbitrations. FINRA Rule 12800 does not, however, expressly address how an expungement request should be filed or considered during a simplified arbitration. The proposed rule change would codify an associated person's ability to request expungement when named as a respondent in a simplified arbitration, and for other parties to request expungement on behalf of an unnamed person. The proposed rule change would also establish procedures for requesting and considering expungement requests in simplified arbitrations that are consistent with the expedited nature of these proceedings.
The proposed rule change would permit a named associated person to request expungement, or a party to file an on-behalf-of request, during a simplified arbitration. As discussed in more detail below, unlike in a non-simplified arbitration, if expungement is not requested during the simplified arbitration, the associated person would be permitted to request it as a straight-in request filed under the Industry Code.
Under the proposed rule change, an associated person named as a respondent in a simplified arbitration could request expungement during the arbitration of the customer dispute information associated with the customer's statement of claim, provided the request is eligible for arbitration.
If a named associated person requests expungement during a simplified arbitration, the proposed rule change would require the request to be filed in an answer or a separate pleading requesting expungement.
To limit arbitrator shopping, the arbitrator would be required to decide an expungement request once it is filed by the associated person.
Under the proposed amendments, the requirements for a party to file an on-behalf-of request during a simplified arbitration would be the same as the requirements for a named associated person filing an expungement request during a simplified arbitration. A named party would only be able to file an on-behalf-of request during a simplified arbitration with the consent of the unnamed person.
To limit arbitrator shopping, the arbitrator would be required to decide an on-behalf-of request once it is filed by the requesting party.
If expungement is not requested during the simplified arbitration under proposed Rule 12800(d), the associated person would be able to file a straight-in request under proposed Rule 13805 and have the request decided by a three-person panel randomly selected from the Special Arbitrator Roster.
Due to the expedited nature of simplified arbitrations, FINRA believes that fairness dictates that the associated person have the option to seek expungement separately under the Industry Code and have the expungement request decided by a panel randomly selected from the Special Arbitrator Roster. In simplified arbitrations, there may be less discovery, and the customer can dictate the extent of the evidence presented to the arbitrator. The customer may, for example, determine to have the arbitration decided on the papers. Because there may be less information available for the arbitrator to evaluate an expungement request during a simplified arbitration—even when the simplified arbitration results in an award—the associated person would retain the ability to choose to file the request as a straight-in request under the Industry Code.
If a named associated person or party on behalf of an unnamed person requests expungement during a simplified arbitration, the arbitrator would be required to decide the expungement request, regardless of how the simplified arbitration closes (
Under the proposed rule change, how and when the expungement request is decided would depend on which option the customer selects to decide the simplified arbitration.
If the customer opts not to have a hearing or chooses an Option Two special proceeding, the arbitrator would decide the customer's dispute first and
The arbitrator would decide the customer's dispute first and issue an award to minimize any delays in resolving the customer arbitration and any delays in potential recovery that a customer may be awarded. Further, because the customer arbitration may not be as fully developed when an “on the papers” or special proceeding is requested, the arbitrator would conduct a separate expungement-only hearing to develop the factual record and make a fully informed decision on the expungement request, and could request any documentary, testimonial or other evidence it deems relevant to the expungement request.
If the customer chooses to have a full “Option One” hearing on his or her claim and it closes by award, the arbitrator would be required to consider and decide the expungement request during the customer arbitration and include the decision on the expungement request in the same award as the decision on the customer arbitration.
If the customer arbitration closes other than by award or by award without a hearing, the arbitrator would be required to hold a separate expungement-only hearing to consider and decide the expungement request and issue a separate award containing the decision on the expungement request.
FINRA does not believe that it is necessary for a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster to decide an expungement request if a simplified customer arbitration is decided on the papers, in an Option Two special proceeding, or if the simplified customer arbitration closes other than by award or by award without a hearing. FINRA believes that the public chairpersons who decide simplified arbitrations would be fully capable of making appropriate expungement decisions on the basis of their experience.
If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA notes, however, that it will continue to monitor expungement requests and decisions in simplified arbitrations to determine if such requests should be decided by the Special Arbitrator Roster.
The Director would notify all customers from the simplified arbitration of the separate expungement-only hearing.
FINRA is also proposing to amend the Codes to make non-substantive, technical changes to the rules impacted by the proposed rule change. For example, the proposed rule change would require the renumbering of paragraphs and the updating of cross-references in the rules impacted by the proposed rule change. In addition, the title of Part VIII of the Customer Code would be amended to add a reference to “Expungement Proceedings.” Similarly, the title of Part VIII of the Industry Code would be amended to add a reference to “Expungement Proceedings” and “Promissory Note Proceedings.” FINRA believes the proposed changes to the titles would more accurately reflect the contents of Part VIII of the Customer and Industry Codes. FINRA is also proposing to re-number current FINRA Rule 13806 (Promissory Note Proceedings) as new FINRA Rule 13807, without substantive change to the current rule language and to amend FINRA Rule 13214 to change the cross references from Rules 13806(d)(1) and 13806(f) to Rules 13807(d)(1) and 13807(f), respectively. Finally, FINRA would also amend FINRA Rule 13600 to change the cross reference from Rule 13806(e)(1) to Rule 13807(e)(1).
If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
The proposed rule change seeks to balance the interests of securities regulators in having accurate and relevant information to fulfill their regulatory responsibilities; the interests of investors in having access to accurate and meaningful information about associated persons with whom they may entrust their money; the interests of member firms in having accurate information for use in making informed employment decisions; and the interests of the brokerage community in having a fair process to address inaccurate customer dispute information. The proposed rule change will help ensure that the expungement process works as intended—as a remedy that is appropriate only in limited circumstances in accordance with the narrow standards in FINRA rules.
The current expungement framework has limitations that can make deciding straight-in requests more challenging, particularly if the customer or customer's representative does not attend and participate in the hearing. By having three specially trained and randomly selected arbitrators available to ask questions, request evidence and generally to serve as fact-finders in the absence of customer input, the proposed rule change will help ensure that a more complete factual record is created to support the arbitrators' expungement decision. In addition, the proposed rule change will specifically authorize all panels that consider expungement requests to request any documentary,
To further support the development of a more complete factual record, the proposed rule change will require that the associated person appear at the expungement hearing in person or by video conference. The proposed rule change will also codify the Guidance as rules that arbitrators and parties must follow and facilitate the attendance and participation of customers in all expungement hearings, and by state securities regulators, through an authorized representative, in expungement hearings in straight-in requests. If they attend and participate, customer and authorized representative attendance and participation will provide arbitrators with additional insight to make more informed decisions on expungement requests. In the absence of such input, however, the proposal will clarify that a customer or authorized representative's decision not to attend or participate in the expungement hearing is not evidence that is material to the determination of whether expungement is appropriate.
The proposed rule change will also maintain the integrity of the information in the CRD system by imposing strict time limits on the filing of straight-in requests. The DRS arbitration forum will be denied if the expungement request is made more than two years after the close of the customer arbitration or civil litigation associated with the customer dispute information or three years after the date the customer complaint was initially reported in the CRD system. These changes will ensure that expungement requests are timely filed and will curtail the bundling of multiple aged, and often unrelated, disclosures in a single arbitration.
The proposed rule change will also protect investors and the public interest by requiring arbitrators to unanimously agree to issue an award containing expungement relief, to make their finding for expungement relief based on one or more of three grounds specified in the proposed rule change, to identify the specific grounds on which that relief is based and to provide a more detailed explanation in the award of those grounds.
In addition, the proposed rule change will foreclose a practice that has emerged in the existing expungement process where parties seek expungement after a prior denial by a court or arbitration panel of a request to expunge the same customer dispute information, or where parties withdraw or do not pursue an expungement request and then make another request for expungement of the same customer dispute information before a potentially more favorable fact finder. The proposed rule change imposes procedures and requirements around when and how a party may request expungement, and expressly provides that omission of certain of the requirements will make the expungement request deficient. Further, the proposed rule change provides the Director with express authority to deny the DRS arbitration forum if an expungement request is ineligible for arbitration under the proposed rules or if a request to expunge customer dispute information is not filed under, or considered in accordance with, the requirements of the proposed rules. Thus, FINRA believes the proposed rule change will add tighter controls, additional safeguards and more transparency to the expungement process.
In addition, the process of requesting expungement during a simplified arbitration will be codified to help ensure that customers are aware they can attend and participate in the expungement hearing and how an expungement request will affect (and not affect) their arbitration claims. By expressly incorporating the practice of requesting expungement during simplified proceedings, the proposed amendments add consistency and transparency to the rules and provide more guidance to the arbitrators and the parties requesting expungement.
For these reasons, the proposed rule change represents a significant step towards addressing concerns with the current expungement framework. FINRA believes that these changes will help to maintain the accuracy and integrity of the information in the CRD system and BrokerCheck, while also protecting associated persons from the publication of inaccurate information about them.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment to analyze the regulatory need for the proposed rule change, its potential economic impacts, including anticipated costs, benefits and distributional and competitive effects, relative to the current baseline, and the alternatives FINRA considered in assessing how best to meet FINRA's regulatory objectives.
The proposed rule change would address concerns relating to the expungement process that are not consistent with the regulatory intent to permit expungement in limited circumstances in accordance with the narrow standards in FINRA rules. The concerns include the timing of expungement requests, the resulting impact on customer attendance and participation in expungement hearings, and the ultimate impact on expungement decisions made when customers do not attend or participate and the panel receives information only from the associated person requesting expungement. The concerns also include the selection of arbitrators to hear straight-in requests when the associated person files a statement of claim against a member firm whose interest in expungement might be aligned with the associated person, and requests to expunge the same customer dispute information in multiple proceedings. The proposed rule change would also codify and expand upon the provisions of the Guidance to help ensure that arbitrators and parties are adhering to these procedures for all expungement requests.
The economic baseline for the proposed rule change includes the current provisions under the Codes that address the process for parties to seek expungement relief. The economic baseline includes the recent amendments to the Codes to apply minimum fees to expungement requests.
The customer dispute information contained in the CRD system is submitted by registered securities firms in response to questions on the uniform registration forms.
The information in BrokerCheck can be valuable to current and prospective customers to learn about the conduct of associated persons.
A negative impact on the business and professional opportunities of associated persons may be appropriate and consistent with investor protection, such as when the customer dispute information has merit. A negative impact may be inappropriate, however, if, for example, the customer dispute information is factually impossible, clearly erroneous or false, or the associated person was not involved in the alleged misconduct. Regardless of the merit, associated persons have an incentive to remove customer dispute information from the CRD system and its public display through BrokerCheck.
An associated person, or a party on-behalf-of an unnamed person, typically begins the process to remove customer dispute information from the CRD system by filing an expungement request in the DRS arbitration forum. During the sample period (January 2016 through December 2021), FINRA is able to identify requests to expunge 11,619 customer dispute information disclosures in the DRS arbitration forum.
The 11,619 customer dispute information disclosures consist of 5,143 disclosures (44 percent) that were sought to be expunged during a customer arbitration, and 6,476 disclosures (56 percent) that were sought to be expunged in a straight-in request.
Associated persons often file a straight-in request long after the close of the customer arbitration or civil litigation or the initial reporting of the customer complaint to the CRD system. For example, approximately three-fifths of customer dispute information disclosures that were sought to be expunged in straight-in requests were filed more than six years after the close of a customer arbitration or the initial reporting of the customer complaint.
As of December 2021, 10,156 of the 11,619 customer dispute information disclosures were sought to be expunged in an arbitration that closed.
Overall, 5,443 of the customer dispute information disclosures sought to be expunged resulted in a panel issuing an award containing expungement relief. The 5,443 disclosures reflect 54 percent of the 10,156 disclosures sought to be expunged in arbitrations that closed, and 78 percent of the 6,997 disclosures sought to be expunged in arbitrations where a panel made a decision.
Among the 6,997 disclosures sought to be expunged in arbitrations where a panel made a decision, 1,632 disclosures were sought to be expunged during a non-simplified or simplified customer arbitration, and 5,365 disclosures were sought to be expunged in a straight-in request. A panel awarded expungement for 943 of the 1,632 disclosures (58 percent) sought to be expunged during a customer arbitration. This includes 267 of the 632 disclosures (42 percent) sought to be expunged during a customer arbitration that resolved after a hearing on the merits, and 676 of the 1,000 disclosures (68 percent) sought to be expunged during a customer arbitration not resolved after a hearing on the merits. A panel awarded expungement for 4,500 of the 5,365 disclosures sought to be expunged in a straight-in request (84 percent).
In general, whether an associated person obtains an award containing expungement relief does not appear to be significantly impacted by the number of arbitrators deciding the request. For example, among the 1,632 disclosures sought to be expunged during a non-simplified or simplified customer arbitration, a similar percentage of requests were awarded by a one-person panel (279 of 490 disclosures, or 57 percent) as were awarded by a three-person panel (664 of 1,142 disclosures, or 58 percent). In addition, among the 5,365 disclosures sought to be expunged in straight-in requests, a similar percentage of requests were awarded by a one-person panel (4,035 of 4,821 disclosures, or 84 percent) as were awarded by a three-person panel (465 of 544 disclosures, or 85 percent).
Requests to expunge older customer dispute information also are awarded at a similar rate to requests to expunge more recent customer dispute information. FINRA measures the age of customer dispute information from either the close of the customer arbitration or civil litigation, or, if no customer arbitration or civil litigation, from the initial reporting of the customer complaint to the CRD system (
Factors other than, or in combination with, the number of arbitrators deciding the expungement request or the timing of the expungement request, however, may affect whether an associated person receives an award containing expungement relief. These factors include the merits of the request, the attendance and participation by customers or the availability of documents or information relating to the dispute, and the potential influence of associated persons and member firms on the selection of the panel who decides the request.
As stated above, FINRA will expunge customer dispute information from the CRD system only pursuant to a court order. If the panel awards expungement, then the firm or associated person must confirm the arbitration award in a court of competent jurisdiction and serve the confirmed award on FINRA.
During the sample period, approximately one-third of the 4,717 customer dispute information disclosures (1,447, or 31 percent) that were expunged were submitted to the CRD system. The 1,447 customer dispute information disclosures reflect five percent of the total number of customer dispute information disclosures submitted to the CRD system during the sample period (approximately 31,900). The remaining 3,270 customer dispute information disclosures were submitted to the CRD system prior to the sample period. The number of customer dispute information disclosures expunged during the sample period that were submitted to the CRD system prior to 2016 suggests that associated persons may yet still expunge customer dispute information disclosures submitted to the CRD system during the sample period. The five percent of expunged customer dispute information disclosures should therefore be considered a lower bound for the share of customer dispute information disclosures submitted during the sample period that may ultimately be expunged.
An associated person may seek a court order directing expungement of customer dispute information without first seeking expungement through arbitration (“direct-to-court expungement cases”). During the sample period, associated persons sought expungement of 194 customer dispute information disclosures in direct-to-court expungement cases, or less than 2 percent of the customer dispute information disclosures that were sought to be expunged in the DRS arbitration forum. As of December 2021, court proceedings had concluded for 173 of those disclosures and proceedings remained ongoing for 21 disclosures. One hundred seven of the 173 disclosures (62 percent) were ordered expunged by a court and 66 disclosures (38 percent) were not ordered to be expunged.
The proposed rule change would codify the best practices described in the Guidance.
The proposed rule change would also introduce other changes to the Codes that expand upon or that are not a part of the Guidance. The proposed rule change would restrict when an associated person is permitted to request expungement in the DRS arbitration forum. In general, the proposed rule change would also require a panel from a customer arbitration who decides the underlying customer dispute or a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster to decide an
The proposed rule change would set forth requirements for expungement requests made during customer arbitrations. The proposed rule change would establish different requirements for non-simplified customer arbitrations and simplified customer arbitrations, and for associated persons named or unnamed to a (non-simplified or simplified) customer arbitration.
The proposed rule change would require an associated person named in a non-simplified customer arbitration to request expungement during the customer arbitration of the customer dispute information in the CRD system that is associated with the customer's statement of claim.
The proposed rule change would help ensure that, if possible, the panel that decides a non-simplified customer arbitration, with input from all parties and access to all evidence, testimony and documents, would also decide an expungement request relating to the same underlying dispute. These arbitrators or panels would be best situated to decide the related issue of expungement, and thereby help ensure that expungement awards and the customer dispute information contained in the CRD system reflect the conduct of associated persons.
The proposed rule change would impose time limits on when an expungement request can be filed during a non-simplified customer arbitration.
As described above, during the sample period, associated persons named in a non-simplified customer arbitration sought to expunge 1,622 of the 4,346 disclosures that associated persons sought to expunge in a customer arbitration that closed. The 1,622 disclosures include 1,285 disclosures that were sought to be expunged in a non-simplified customer arbitration that closed other than by award or by award without a hearing. Associated persons who request expungement during a non-simplified customer arbitration (either as a named party or as an unnamed party that consents to an on-behalf-of request) that closes other than by award or by award without a hearing (and would not have their expungement request decided as part of the customer arbitration) would incur additional costs to file and resolve a straight-in request (
The costs to file and resolve a straight-in request following the conclusion of the customer arbitration would be imposed by the proposed rule change if the requests would have otherwise been decided as part of the non-simplified customer arbitration. The costs would not be imposed by the proposed rule change, however, if associated persons would have filed a straight-in request after the close of the non-simplified customer arbitration regardless of the proposed restrictions.
The additional costs for an associated person to file and resolve a straight-in request after the close of a non-simplified customer arbitration (that closes other than by award or by award without a hearing) may reduce the likelihood that parties settle a customer arbitration or the amount for which parties settle. For example, associated persons may factor the cost to resolve a separate straight-in request into the decision to settle or arbitrate. In addition, even if the parties settle the dispute, associated persons may consider the cost to file and resolve a separate straight-in request when determining the amount at which they are willing to settle. The customers to an arbitration which does not settle may incur additional costs to instead arbitrate the claim.
The proposed rule change would not require an unnamed person in a non-simplified customer arbitration, an associated person named in a simplified customer arbitration, or an unnamed person in a simplified customer arbitration to request expungement of the customer dispute information during the arbitration.
The option to wait until after the customer arbitration has concluded to request expungement is not a new benefit created by the proposed rule change, but is instead currently permitted under the Codes. FINRA believes that an unnamed person in a non-simplified customer arbitration, an associated person named to a simplified customer arbitration, or an unnamed person in a simplified customer arbitration should have the option to seek expungement as a straight-in request and have their request decided by a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster.
Associated persons (or parties on behalf of unnamed persons) who are not required and choose not to request expungement during a customer arbitration may incur additional costs to file and resolve a straight-in request. The member firms with which the associated persons were associated at the time the customer dispute arose would also incur additional costs. Any incremental costs from not filing an expungement request during a customer arbitration, however, are not imposed by the proposed rule change. Instead, they are borne at the discretion of the parties who make the determination of when to request expungement, and are similar to the costs they incur under the Codes today.
The proposed time limits to request expungement during a customer arbitration may impose costs on associated persons (or parties on behalf of unnamed persons) who are not required but choose to request expungement.
For customer dispute information reported to the CRD system after the effective date of the proposed rule change, the proposed rule change would require an associated person to file a straight-in request within two years of a customer arbitration or civil litigation closing, or, if there is no customer arbitration or civil litigation, within three years from the initial reporting of the customer complaint to the CRD system.
The proposed time limits may better facilitate customer attendance and participation in the proceedings and the likelihood that the panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster receives testimony and other evidence relevant to deciding an expungement request. In addition, the time limits would help ensure that the expungement hearing is held close in time to the customer arbitration or civil litigation, or the events that led to the customer dispute information disclosure, and foreclose the option of an associated person to choose the timing of a straight-in request to potentially reduce the likelihood of customer attendance and participation. Similar to the other amendments proposed herein, an increase in customer attendance and participation may provide a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster with additional information to decide an expungement request and help ensure the accuracy of the customer dispute information contained in the CRD system and displayed through BrokerCheck.
The proposed time limits, however, may constrain an associated person from filing a straight-in request. Associated persons who would otherwise delay the filing of a straight-in request may incur additional costs to file a straight-in request within the required time limits. Similar to the costs which may result from the proposed time limits to request expungement during a customer arbitration, associated persons who become constrained to file a straight-in request within the proposed time limits may incur indirect costs (as described above).
The proposed time limits to file a straight-in request may also constrain an associated person from seeking expungement of multiple customer dispute information disclosures in the same straight-in request (
Associated persons who become constrained from seeking to expunge multiple customer dispute information disclosures in the same straight-in request because of the proposed time limits and who still seek expungement of all customer dispute information disclosures would be required to file the requests in more than one arbitration. These associated persons would incur additional legal and forum fees for each additional arbitration. The member firm
Associated persons who are waiting until the close of a customer arbitration or civil litigation to seek to expunge multiple customer dispute information disclosures in the same arbitration may consider the anticipated costs to file an additional straight-in request when offering a settlement amount to customers. Associated persons could offer a higher settlement amount reflective of these anticipated costs, and customers may similarly seek to negotiate a higher settlement amount.
Finally, the three-year time limit may increase the likelihood that an associated person seeks expungement of a customer complaint only for the customer then to file a related claim in arbitration. If the associated person were to seek expungement of a customer dispute information disclosure associated with the subsequent customer arbitration, either during the customer arbitration or as a straight-in request, then the associated person would incur the additional costs of the second request. If the associated person seeks expungement as a straight-in request, then the member firm with which the associated person was associated at the time the customer dispute arose would also incur costs associated with the request.
As discussed as part of the Economic Baseline, 6,476 customer dispute information disclosures were sought to be expunged in straight-in requests during the sample period. The following estimates demonstrate that for the majority of these straight-in requests, the request would not have been permitted under the proposed time limits and associated persons would not have been able to include more than one customer dispute information disclosure in the same straight-in request. The estimates, however, do not account for the potential change in the behavior of associated persons—associated persons would have incentive under the proposed amendments to file the straight-in requests within the proposed time limits or otherwise lose the ability to file a request in the forum.
Among the 6,476 customer dispute information disclosures that associated persons sought to expunge in straight-in requests, 2,135 of the disclosures related to a previous (non-simplified or simplified) customer arbitration (of the same underlying dispute). Six-hundred ten of the disclosures (29 percent) were sought to be expunged in straight-in requests filed within the two-year time limit and would have been permitted under the proposed rule change. The remaining 4,341 of the 6,476 disclosures did not relate to a previous (non-simplified or simplified) customer arbitration (of the same underlying dispute). Seven-hundred ninety-eight of the disclosures (18 percent) were sought to be expunged in straight-in requests within three years from the initial reporting of the disclosure to the CRD system and would have been permitted under the proposed rule change.
As discussed above, the expungement of more than one customer dispute information disclosure can be sought in a single arbitration, and the proposed time limits may limit the ability of an associated person to seek expungement of multiple customer dispute information disclosures in the same straight-in request. The 6,476 customer dispute information disclosures sought to be expunged in straight-in requests were made in 3,177 arbitrations. Associated persons included more than one customer dispute information disclosure in 1,384 of the 3,177 straight-in requests (44 percent). In total, associated persons sought the expungement of 4,683 customer dispute information disclosures (72 percent of the 6,476 customer dispute disclosures) in the 1,384 straight-in requests.
Under the proposed time limits, associated persons would not have been able to include all of the customer dispute information disclosures in at least 614 of the 1,384 straight-in requests (44 percent). In 556 of the 614 straight-in requests (91 percent), the associated person included at least one customer dispute information disclosure that was six years or longer from its respective time limit start date. Also, in 374 of the 614 straight-in requests (61 percent), the associated person would not have been able to include in the same straight-in request one or more customer dispute information disclosures that related to a customer arbitration.
The proposed rule change would require that the panel from a non-simplified customer arbitration decide expungement requests during the arbitration if the arbitration closes by award after a hearing.
The proposed rule change may place a panel in a better position to determine whether to award expungement of customer dispute information, and thereby help ensure the accuracy of the customer dispute information contained in the CRD system. In general, the panel that decides a request would either hear the full merits of the customer arbitration or have additional training and qualifications when they may receive information only from the party requesting expungement. Panels from the Special Arbitrator Roster would also be able to request any evidence that they deem relevant from the associated person and member firm at which the associated person was associated at the time the customer dispute arose.
As discussed above, straight-in requests where customers typically do not attend or participate in the expungement hearing often lack appreciable opposition. A panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster, with three arbitrators to ask questions, request evidence, and serve generally as fact finders in the absence of customer input, may help ensure that a complete factual record is created to support a
The proposed rule change would also reduce the potential influence of associated persons and member firms on the selection of the panel that decides a straight-in request. First, parties to the straight-in request would not be permitted to strike or rank any arbitrators randomly selected to create a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster, thereby limiting the ability of an associated person and member firm with which the associated person was associated at the time the customer dispute arose to together select arbitrators who are more likely to award expungement. To the extent that the associated person and the member firm's interests are aligned and both seek to increase the likelihood that an award containing expungement relief is issued, they would together be expected to select arbitrators who may be more likely to award expungement.
Second, an associated person would not be permitted to withdraw a request and seek expungement of the same customer dispute information in a subsequent arbitration.
Among the expungement requests during the sample period, FINRA has identified 282 attempts to expunge a previously withdrawn or denied request to expunge.
Under the proposed rule change, the grounds under which a panel may award expungement would not change.
As discussed as part of the Economic Baseline, 10,156 of the 11,619 customer dispute information disclosures sought to be expunged during the sample period were filed in an arbitration that closed. Among the 10,156 disclosures, 9,030 (89 percent) would have required a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster. The 9,030 disclosures include 5,088 disclosures sought to be expunged during a non-simplified customer arbitration that closed by award without a hearing or other than by award, and 3,942 sought to be expunged in a straight-in request that did not relate to a previous (non-simplified or simplified) customer arbitration.
A panel from a (non-simplified or simplified) customer arbitration would have been required to make a decision on the requests to expunge 1,025 of the 10,156 customer dispute information disclosures (10 percent). The 1,025 disclosures include 499 disclosures that were requested to be expunged during a non-simplified customer arbitration that closed by award after a hearing, 400 requested to be expunged during a simplified customer arbitration, and 126 requested to be expunged in a straight-in request to expunge customer dispute information arising from a previous non-simplified customer arbitration that closed by award after a hearing.
Finally, a panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster, or an arbitrator from a simplified customer arbitration, would have been required to make the decision with respect to the remaining 101 disclosures that associated persons sought to expunge in a straight-in request and that related to customer dispute information arising from a previous simplified customer arbitration. The panel that would have decided the request is dependent on whether an associated person, or a party on-behalf-of an associated person, would have requested expungement during the simplified arbitration.
A three-person panel made expungement decisions in 1,051 customer or industry arbitrations. The panel decision was unanimous in 1,030 of the 1,051 arbitrations (98 percent), but not unanimous in 21 arbitrations (2 percent). In 11 of the 21 arbitrations, or one percent of the 1,051 arbitrations, one of the three arbitrators opposed an expungement decision awarding expungement. These 11 awards would not have been permitted under the proposed rule change. Since unanimous agreement is not currently required, however, current data on unanimous agreement may not reflect the extent to which unanimity would occur once it is required. The extent to which decisions may differ under the proposed rule change is therefore not known.
As discussed above, the proposed rule change may facilitate customer attendance and participation by restricting when a named associated person, or a party on-behalf-of an unnamed person, may request expungement. Other proposed amendments may facilitate the attendance and participation of customers or authorized representatives of states securities regulators in expungement hearings. Attendance and participation by customers or
The proposed rule change would provide customers the option to attend and participate in an expungement hearing using whichever method is convenient for them (
An authorized representative of state securities regulators would similarly be permitted to attend and participate in prehearing conferences and expungement hearings in straight-in requests.
Customers and authorized representatives of state securities regulators may incur costs to attend and participate in the expungement hearings. These costs, however, would be optional and at their own discretion. Associated persons may factor in the potential for customer and state securities regulator attendance and participation in a straight-in request when deciding whether to settle a non-simplified customer arbitration.
The proposed rule change would require an associated person (or the party requesting expungement on behalf of an unnamed person) to appear by video conference or in-person at an expungement hearing.
Associated persons may incur costs to appear at an expungement hearing. The costs include the time and expense to appear, and other direct and indirect costs (
As a result of the proposed rule change, associated persons may determine that the additional costs to seek expungement relief are higher than the anticipated benefits. In addition, although the proposed rule change is intended to help ensure arbitrators award expungement when appropriate as it relates to the merits of the request, the likelihood that an associated person receives an award containing expungement relief may decrease because of the likely increase in the number of three-person panels deciding expungement requests and the requirement that such decisions be unanimous. This may lead associated persons not to seek expungement, including in some instances when expungement is likely to be awarded.
Associated persons who are not able to seek expungement of customer dispute information from the CRD system, or are delayed in doing so, may experience a loss of business and professional opportunities. The loss of business and professional opportunities by one associated person, however, may be the gain of another. Associated persons who may benefit in this regard include those who still determine that the additional costs to seek expungement relief under the proposed rule change is less than the anticipated benefits and continue to seek expungement of customer dispute information, and other associated persons who do not have similar disclosures.
An associated person may seek expungement of customer dispute information in a direct-to-court expungement case. The proposed rule change may result in associated persons seeking expungement in more direct-to-court expungement cases. For some associated persons, the anticipated costs to first go through arbitration under the proposed rule change may be greater than the similar costs to seek expungement in a direct-to-court expungement case. Associated persons who would otherwise first go through arbitration because of the proposed rule change may incur additional costs relative to today to seek expungement relief.
The number of associated persons who would instead seek expungement in a direct-to-court expungement case is dependent not only on the additional costs under the proposed rule change, but the costs an associated person would expect to incur in court to initiate an expungement proceeding. This information is generally not
Finally, the proposed rule change may have other marginal economic effects. First, the prohibition of a subsequent expungement request would decrease the potential inefficient allocation of resources resulting from a subsequent request that would have resulted in the same decision (
Second, the proposed rule change may increase the efficiency of the forum by requiring that a party provide certain information when filing an expungement request. The information includes identification of the customer dispute information that is the subject of the request, and whether expungement of the same customer dispute information was previously requested and, if so, how it was decided. This would increase the efficiency of the forum by enabling FINRA to identify and track a request through the expungement process, and by alerting arbitrators and FINRA to another expungement request of the same customer dispute information. The efficiency of the forum would also increase by requiring an unnamed person to consent to an on-behalf-of expungement request in writing. This would help ensure that an unnamed person is aware of the request and prevent another expungement request by the unnamed person of the same customer dispute information.
In addition, the proposed rule change may affect the value of the customer dispute information to describe the conduct of associated persons. The change in the value of the information depends on the merit of the disclosures that would have otherwise been expunged. The merit of these disclosures also depends on many factors which are difficult to predict. These factors include the incentive of parties to file an expungement request under the proposed rule change, the decisions by the panel to issue an award containing expungement relief dependent on the information that becomes available, and the merit of the customer dispute information that would have otherwise been sought to be expunged. The effect of the proposed rule change on the extent to which the customer dispute information available in the CRD system accurately describes the conduct of associated persons is, therefore, uncertain.
Alternatives to the proposed rule change include amendments that were proposed in
Another alternative to the proposed rule change could be to include different time limits for an associated person to file a straight-in request. In the
In general, shorter (longer) time limits may further facilitate (impede) customer attendance and participation in the proceedings and the likelihood that the panel from the Special Arbitrator Roster receives evidence and testimony from the customer to consider when deciding an expungement request. Shorter (longer) time limits, however, may further (less) constrain an associated person from filing a straight-in request or including more than one expungement request in the same straight-in request.
For example, the percentage of associated persons who would not have been able to include all customer dispute information disclosures in the same straight-in request would be lower if the proposed rule change imposed a six-year rather than three-year time limit on requesting expungement of customer complaints.
Other alternatives relate to the panel's decision to issue an award containing expungement relief. In the 2020 Rule Filing, FINRA proposed allowing a majority decision by a three-person panel, not a unanimous decision (as proposed herein), to issue an award containing expungement relief.
In the
Finally, other alternatives relate to the appearance of parties at expungement hearings. The proposed rule change could have allowed an associated person to appear at an expungement hearing by telephone, as an alternative to appearance in person or by video conference. Although associated persons may incur fewer costs to appear by telephone, FINRA believes appearance by telephone may reduce the ability of arbitrators to assess the credibility of associated persons when deciding an expungement request.
The proposed rule change could have provided a mechanism for an authorized representative of state securities regulators to attend and participate in expungement hearings when expungement is requested during a customer arbitration (simplified or non-simplified). FINRA determined not to propose allowing an authorized representative to attend or participate in a customer arbitration in which expungement is requested because such attendance and participation could delay or disrupt the customer's case and would be less impactful. Unlike many straight-in requests, customer cases are opposed and the panel would have the benefit of hearing the customer's evidence on the merits.
In December 2017, FINRA published
The 2020 Rule Filing proposed several significant enhancements to the current expungement process, including:
• establishing time limits within which associated persons may file straight-in requests;
• providing state securities regulators with notification of expungement requests at the time of filing of the requests;
• requiring that all straight-in requests be decided by a three-person panel, randomly selected from a roster of experienced public arbitrators with enhanced expungement training;
• prohibiting parties to straight-in requests from (1) agreeing to fewer than three arbitrators to review their expungement requests, (2) striking any of the selected arbitrators, (3) stipulating to an arbitrator's removal or (4) stipulating to the use of pre-selected arbitrators;
• requiring an associated person named in a customer arbitration to request expungement during the customer arbitration;
• preventing an associated person from getting “two bites at the apple” by conditioning and limiting the ability of a party to a customer arbitration to file an on-behalf-of request and precluding an associated person from requesting expungement of customer dispute information if a panel or a court previously denied a request to expunge the same customer dispute information;
• prohibiting an associated person who withdraws an expungement request from refiling the same request at a later date;
• facilitating customer attendance and participation in straight-in requests by notifying customers of the time, date and place of any prehearing conferences and the expungement hearing, and making clear that customers are entitled to appear with representation at prehearing conferences and the expungement hearing;
• providing customers who seek to attend and participate in straight-in requests with access to all relevant documents filed in the arbitration;
• specifically authorizing the panel to request any documentary, testimonial or other evidence that it deems relevant from the broker-dealer firm or associated person seeking expungement;
• requiring that the associated person requesting expungement appear personally at the expungement hearing; and
• requiring that the panel deciding the expungement request provide enough detail in the award to explain its rationale for including expungement relief in the award.
The Commission ultimately received 19 comments from 13 commenters in connection with the 2020 Rule Filing. The SEC received eight comment letters in response to the initial 2020 Rule Filing.
In general, the commenters on the 2020 Rule Filing suggested that the proposed changes to the expungement process would be beneficial. However, most of the commenters recommended alternative approaches or modifications to further protect the information in the CRD system and address the fact that many straight-in requests are unopposed. The commenters' recommendations generally focused on replacing the current expungement process with an administrative process; allowing state securities regulators to participate in expungement hearings in the DRS arbitration forum; embedding an independent advocate into the expungement process in the DRS arbitration forum; requiring that associated persons meet a higher standard to obtain an expungement award; requiring a unanimous decision of the arbitrators to award expungement; providing financial incentives to encourage customer participation in expungement proceedings; shortening the time limits within which associated persons may request expungement; and requiring that the associated person appear at the expungement hearing in person. Some commenters, in contrast, suggested that the proposed time limits were arbitrarily short; that the arbitrators should be required to provide an explanation when denying expungement; or that the arbitrators should not be limited to awarding expungement on the grounds set forth in FINRA Rule 2080(b)(1).
On May 28, 2021, following discussions with SEC staff, FINRA withdrew the 2020 Rule Filing and Partial Amendments Nos. 1 and 2 in order to consider whether modifications to the proposal would be appropriate in response to concerns raised by the commenters and SEC staff.
While the proposed rule change retains many of the significant enhancements proposed in the 2020 Rule Filing, the proposed rule change makes several key additional changes that would materially mitigate a number of the concerns with the current expungement process identified above and by commenters on the 2020 Rule Filing. These additional enhancements include: (1) providing a mechanism for state securities regulators to attend and participate in expungement hearings in straight-in requests;
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.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Public land order.
This order partially revokes 15 Public Land Orders (PLOs) insofar as they affect approximately 27,142,677 acres of public lands reserved for study and classification, as appropriate, by the Department of the Interior. This order opens these lands specifically to allow for allotment selection by eligible Alaska Native Vietnam-era Veterans under the Alaska Native Vietnam-era Veterans Land Allotment Program (Allotment Program) established by the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act of 2019 (Dingell Act). This partial revocation and opening was analyzed in the Alaska Native Vietnam-era Veterans Land Allotment Program Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) signed on April 21, 2022.
This PLO takes effect on August 15, 2022.
Chelsea Kreiner, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Alaska State Office, 222 West Seventh Avenue, Mailstop #13, Anchorage, AK 99513-7504, (907) 271-4205, or
The BLM prepared the Allotment Program EA to consider opening lands subject to Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (ANCSA) section 17(d)(1) withdrawals within the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula, Ring of Fire, Bay, Bering Sea—Western Interior, and East Alaska planning areas to the selection of Native allotments under the Allotment Program.
This Order implements Alternative C as detailed in the Allotment Program EA and FONSI. Sec. 17(d)(1) of ANCSA states that “the Secretary is authorized to classify or reclassify any lands so withdrawn and to open such lands to appropriation under the public land laws in accord with [her] classifications.” The analysis completed pursuant to Sec. 801 of the Alaska National Interests Lands Conservation Act included in the EA found no significant restriction on subsistence uses due to this action.
PLO Nos. 5169, 5170, 5171, 5172, 5173, 5174, 5175, and 5176 as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands for selection by Village and Regional Corporations under Sec. 11(a)(3) of ANCSA, and for classification. PLO No. 5178, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands for selection by Regional Corporations under Sec. 11(a)(3) of ANCSA. PLO No. 5179, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands in aid of legislation concerning addition to, or creation of, units of the National Park, National Forest, Wildlife Refuge, and Wild and Scenic Rivers systems, and to allow for classification of the lands. PLO No. 5180, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands to allow for classification and for the protection of the public interest in these lands. PLO No. 5184, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands to allow for classification or reclassification of some of areas withdrawn by Sec. 11 of ANCSA. PLO No. 5186, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands for classification and protection of the public interest in lands not selected by the State of Alaska. PLO No. 5188, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew the lands in former reservations for the use and benefit of Alaska Natives for classification and protection of the public interest. PLO No. 5353, as amended, modified, or corrected, withdrew lands pending determination of eligibility of certain Native communities under ANCSA sec. 11(b)(3), and for the classification of lands not conveyed pursuant to ANCSA sec. 14.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 U.S.C. 1714, and Section 17(d)(1) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971, 43 U.S.C. 1616(d)(1), it is ordered as follows:
1. Subject to valid existing rights, Public Land Orders No. 5169 (37 FR 5572); 5170 (37 FR 5573); 5171 (37 FR 5573); 5172 (37 FR 5574); 5173 (37 FR 5575); 5174 (37 FR 5576); 5175 (37 FR 5576); 5176 (37 FR 5577); 5178 (37 FR 5579); 5179 (37 FR 5579); 5180 (37 FR 5583); 5184 (37 FR 5588); 5186 (37 FR 5589); 5188 (37 FR 5591); and 5353 (38 FR 19825), and any amendments, modifications, or corrections to these Orders, if any, are hereby partially revoked to allow for allotment selection under the Allotment Program, and for no other purposes, insofar as they affect the following described Federal lands in the Kobuk-Seward Peninsula, Ring of Fire, Bay, Bering Sea—Western Interior, and East Alaska planning areas, excepting any lands within 500 feet of the Iditarod National Historic Trail, and any lands within
U.S. Survey No. 2046.
The areas described aggregate approximately 9,548,309 acres.
The areas described aggregate approximately 944,192 acres.
The areas described aggregate approximately 1,244,730 acres.
U.S Survey No. 14323.
U.S. Survey No. 14322.
Lots 1 and 3, U.S. Survey No. 2646.
Tracts A and B.
Tracts A thru E.
U.S. Survey No. 14317.
tract B.
Tract B.
Tract A.
tract C.
The areas described aggregate approximately 13,314,736 acres.
U.S. Survey No. 4031;
U.S. Survey No. 4206;
U.S. Survey No. 14433.
Lots 3 and 7, U.S. Survey No. 4680.
The areas described aggregate approximately 2,082,479 acres.
The areas described aggregate a total of approximately 27,134,446 acres.
2. At 8 a.m. AKST on September 14, 2022, the lands described in Paragraph 1 shall be open to allotment selection under the Allotment Program, subject to valid existing rights. All valid allotment applications received at or prior to 8 a.m. AKST on September 14, 2022, shall be considered as simultaneously filed at that time. Those received thereafter shall be considered in accordance with 43 CFR. 2569.502.
3. No lands are opened by this order for any purpose other than allotment selection under the Allotment Program.
4. No lands are opened by this order that are within 500 feet of the Iditarod National Historic Trail, or within
(b) I hereby delegate to the Secretary of Defense the authority to submit to the Congress the cost estimate required by section 102(b)(3)(A)(i) of the Act.
(c) I hereby delegate to the Secretary of State the authority to submit to the Congress the cost estimate required by section 102(c)(3)(A)(i) of the Act.
(d) I hereby delegate to the Director of the National Science Foundation the authority to submit to the Congress the cost estimate required by section 102(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Act.