Rural Housing Service
Census Bureau
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Antitrust Division
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employee Benefits Security Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Federal Transit Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action modifies VHF Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-5, V-20, V-155, V-241, and V-321; and removes jet routes J-37, J-55, J-79, J-121, J-174, J-191, and J-209. These changes support the VOR Minimum Operation Network (MON) project in the eastern United States.
Effective date 0901 UTC, April 20, 2023. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Paul Gallant, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the route structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System (NAS).
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2022-1028 in the
Domestic VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and jet routes are published in paragraph 2004 of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The VOR Federal airways and jet routes listed in this document will be subsequently published in or removed from FAA Order JO 7400.11.
The NPRM proposed, in part, to amend V-20 by removing the airway segments between Tuskegee, AL, and Sugarloaf Mountain, NC. This would result in a gap in the airway from Montgomery, AL, to Barretts Mountain, NC. After further consideration, the FAA decided to retain the segments between Athens, GA, and Barretts Mountain, NC. The purpose of this change is to maintain the east-west airway structure between Athens and Barretts Mountain for navigation while the supporting navigation aids remain in operation.
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by modifying V-5, V-20, V-155, V-241, and V-321; and by removing jet routes J-37, J-55, J-79, J-121, J-174, J-191, and J-209. The route changes are described below.
Full descriptions of the above amended routes are listed in the amendments to part 71 set forth below.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under Department of Transportation (DOT) Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action of modifying VOR Federal airways V-5, V-20, V-155, V-241, and V-321; and removing jet routes J-37, J-55, J-79, J-121, J-174, J-191, and J-209, in the eastern United States qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4321
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Pecan, GA; Vienna, GA; Dublin, GA; to Athens, GA. From New Hope, KY; Louisville, KY; Cincinnati, OH; to Appleton, OH.
From McAllen, TX, INT McAllen 038° and Corpus Christi, TX, 178° radials; 10 miles 8 miles wide, 37 miles 7 miles wide (3 miles E and 4 miles W of centerline), Corpus Christi; INT Corpus Christi 054° and Palacios, TX, 226° radials; to Palacios. From Beaumont, TX; Lake Charles, LA; Lafayette, LA; Reserve, LA; INT Reserve 084° and Gulfport, MS, 247° radials; Gulfport; Semmes, AL; INT Semmes 048° and
From INT Dublin, GA 309°(T)/314°(M) and Colliers, SC, 243° radials; Colliers; Chesterfield, SC; Sandhills, NC; Raleigh-Durham, NC; Lawrenceville, VA; INT Lawrenceville 034° and Flat Rock, VA, 171° radials; Flat Rock; to Brooke, VA. The airspace within R-6602A is excluded.
From Semmes, AL, via Crestview, FL; INT Crestview 076° and Wiregrass, AL, 232° radials; Wiregrass; Eufaula, AL; to INT Eufaula, AL 008°(T)/006° (M) and LaGrange, GA, 160°(T)/159°(M) radials.
From Pecan, GA, via INT Pecan 327°(T)/329°(M) and LaGrange, GA, 160°(T)/159°(M) radials; LaGrange; INT LaGrange 342° and Gadsden, AL, 124° radials; Gadsden; INT Gadsden 333° and Rocket, AL, 149° radials; Rocket, Shelbyville, TN; to Livingston, TN.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ness City Municipal Airport, Ness City, KS. This action is the result of new public instrument procedures being developed at this airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, April 20, 2023. 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 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Ness City Municipal Airport, Ness City, KS, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in the FAA Order JO 7400.11.
This document amends FAA Order 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of the Ness City Municipal Airport, Ness City, KS.
This action is necessary due to new public instrument procedures being developed at this airport.
FAA Order 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.4-mile radius of Ness City Municipal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action removes the Class E airspace at Marfa, TX. This action is due to the closure of the airport.
Effective 0901 UTC, April 20, 2023. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it removes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Alta Vista Ranch Airport, Marfa, TX, due to the closure of the airport.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, 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.
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 removes the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Alta Vista Ranch Airport, Marfa, TX.
This action is the result of the closure of the airport.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3)
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective January 23, 2023. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 23, 2023.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR part 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making some SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria,
This rule is effective January 23, 2023. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 23, 2023.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone: (405) 954-4164.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for Part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air traffic control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97, is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS,
Civil Division, Department of Justice.
Notification of procedures.
The Department of Justice (“the Department”) is publishing this document to update the public of the Department's procedures for filing claims under the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (“RECA”) at the revised statutory filing deadline. This document supersedes the Department's notification of Procedures for Claims Submitted at the Statutory Filing Deadline (Dec. 9, 2020).
The policy is effective on January 23, 2023.
Gerard W. Fischer (Assistant Director), 202-616-4090, Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation Section, Torts Branch, Civil Division, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530.
The RECA Extension Act of 2022 (“the Extension Act”), Public Law 117-139, requires that the RECA Trust Fund shall terminate on the date that is 2 years after the law's date of enactment, June 7, 2022. In addition, a claim to which RECA applies shall be barred unless the claim is filed not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of the RECA Extension Act of 2022. The statute is silent with respect to whether the RECA Trust Fund will be available to pay timely, meritorious claims received at the filing deadline.
The Department is publishing this document to articulate its policy that all timely filed, meritorious RECA claims shall be paid. This policy is consistent with the statutory requirements that the Department determine eligibility within 12 months of filing and pay meritorious claims within 6 weeks of approval. The amended statutory filing deadline, June 8, 2024, is a Saturday. Accordingly, claims that bear a date of June 10, 2024, on the postmark or stamp by another commercial carrier shall be deemed timely filed upon receipt by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program. The Department will return untimely claims and will not accept electronic submissions. Documentation to establish the eligibility of any potential beneficiary of an awarded claim must be provided by June 10, 2024, or within the 12-month determination period provided by the Act, or the award shall be deemed rejected.
Codified at 42 U.S.C. 2210 note, the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (“RECA”) offers an apology and monetary compensation to individuals (or their survivors) who have contracted certain cancers and other serious diseases following exposure to radiation released during above-ground atmospheric nuclear weapons tests, or following their employment in the uranium production industry during specified periods. This unique program was designed by Congress as an alternative to litigation in that the statutory criteria do not require claimants to establish causation. Rather, if the claimant can satisfy the requirements outlined in the statute, which include demonstrating that he or she contracted a compensable disease after working or residing in a designated location for a specific period of time, he or she qualifies for compensation.
Congress charged the Attorney General with authority to establish filing procedures under RECA, as well as responsibility for adjudicating claims under the Act, and authorizing payment in those claims which are determined to be qualified for compensation. The Attorney General delegated these functions to the Constitutional and Specialized Tort Litigation Section of the Torts Branch of the Civil Division of the United States Department of Justice.
The RECA Extension Act of 2022 (“the Extension Act”), Public Law 117-139, was signed into law on June 7, 2022. The Extension Act requires that
The Department is publishing this document to articulate its policy that all timely filed, meritorious RECA claims against the RECA Trust Fund will be paid, consistent with the requirements under RECA. Several stakeholders have expressed concern that the termination of the RECA Trust Fund on the deadline for claims may render it unavailable to pay meritorious claims. Once a claim is filed with the Department, RECA imposes statutory obligations for the Department to adjudicate the claim within 12 months, and issue payment on any approved claims within 6 weeks of approval. RECA Sec. 6(d). These statutory obligations will require the RECA Trust Fund to remain available until the Department has determined entitlement for all timely filed claims, including claims filed on the statutory filing deadline.
In addition, several stakeholders have noted that the revised statutory filing deadline, June 8, 2024, is a Saturday. The Department shall deem claims that bear a date of June 10, 2024, on the postmark or stamp by another commercial carrier, timely filed upon their receipt by the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program. This policy is consistent with methods for computing time set forth at Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 6(a), and with standard agency practice where a deadline falls on a weekend or holiday establishing the next business day as the deadline for submissions. The postmark requirement is consistent with the Department's existing procedures for submitting claims at 28 CFR 79.71(a) and (b), requiring a claim to be submitted in writing on a standard claim form and mailed to the address of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program. In addition, this policy allows claimants to affirmatively establish the timely filing of their claim by obtaining a postmark or other mailing date stamp consistent with the filing deadline.
The regulation at § 79.71(a) requires that claims be mailed to the Department. Accordingly, the Department will not accept electronically submitted claims.
Claims bearing a date on and after June 11, 2024, as indicated by the postmark or stamp by another commercial carrier, shall be returned to the submitting party due to untimely filing. Claims returned due to untimely filing will include a letter from the Radiation Exposure Compensation Program indicating the Department is barred by statute from reviewing the claim or awarding compensation.
This policy applies to all claims received at the filing deadline, including the resubmission of a previously denied claim under Sec. 8(b) of RECA. Resubmissions of previously denied claims bearing a postmark or stamp by another commercial carrier dated June 11, 2024, or later shall be returned due to untimely filing.
For timely filed claims in which a share of the compensation award is held in trust pending documentation to establish the eligibility of a potential beneficiary, such shares of compensation shall be deemed rejected consistent with 28 CFR 79.75(b) if sufficient documentation to establish the eligibility of the potential beneficiary is not received by June 10, 2024, or within the 12-month determination period provided by the Act, whichever falls later.
This document is intended to inform the public of the Department's policy regarding procedures for filing claims at the statutory deadline. The Department will post this document to its RECA website at
This document supersedes the Department's notification of Procedures for Claims Submitted at the Statutory Filing Deadline, 85 FR 79118 (Dec. 9, 2020).
Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), Treasury.
Order.
FinCEN is issuing an order, pursuant to the Combating Russian Money Laundering Act, as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022, to prohibit certain transmittals of funds (as defined in this order) by any covered financial institution involving Bitzlato Limited (Bitzlato), a financial institution operating outside of the United States determined to be of a primary money laundering concern in connection with Russian illicit finance.
This action is effective February 1, 2023.
The FinCEN Resource Center, 1-800-767-2825 or electronically at
This order: (1) sets forth FinCEN's determination that Bitzlato Limited (Bitzlato), a virtual asset service provider (VASP) incorporated in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China (Hong Kong), is a financial institution operating outside of the United States that is of primary money laundering concern
Section 9714(a) of the Combating Russian Money Laundering Act, as amended by section 6106(b) of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 (hereafter section 9714(a)),
Special measures one through four of section 5318A(b), commonly known as section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, describe additional recordkeeping, information collection, and reporting requirements that the Secretary may impose on covered U.S. financial institutions. The fifth special measure, codified at 31 U.S.C. 5318A(b)(5), allows the Secretary, in consultation with the Secretary of State, the Attorney General, and the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, to prohibit, or impose conditions upon, the opening or maintaining in the United States of correspondent or payable-through accounts by any domestic financial institution or domestic financial agency for, or on behalf of, a foreign banking institution, if such correspondent account or payable-through account involves one or more financial institutions operating outside of the United States that the Secretary has found to be of primary money laundering concern.
According to its website, Bitzlato is a “modern company working in the field of blockchain technologies and [CVC].”
As set out on its website, Bitzlato is an online platform that provides exchange and P2P services. Through its exchange services, Bitzlato organizes “trading for digital assets, their derivatives and other market instruments” with “[t]rading conducted via standard contracts or orders.”
In light of those activities, Bitzlato is a financial institution within the meaning of section 9714(a). Section 9714(a) does not expressly define the term “financial institution.” However, FinCEN has long defined that term to apply to foreign and domestic “money transmitters”, including persons that accept and transmit value that substitutes for currency, such as CVC.
Based on public and non-public information available to FinCEN, Bitzlato operates outside the United States and, although identified as “registered under the laws of Hong Kong,” Bitzlato has significant ties to and connections with Russia. Under “Section 1. Terms and Definitions” in Bitzlato's “Terms of Service” page on its website, Bitzlato is identified as “registered under the laws of Hong Kong” and “located at Unit 617, 6/F, 131-132 Connaught Road West, Solo workshops, Hong Kong.”
Based on public and non-public information available to FinCEN, FinCEN finds that reasonable grounds exist for concluding that Bitzlato, a P2P CVC exchanger with significant operations in Russia, is a financial institution of primary money laundering concern in connection with Russian illicit finance, namely, through: (1) its facilitation of deposits and funds transfers by Russian ransomware groups or affiliates, such as Conti; and (2) its facilitation of transactions with Russian darknet markets on behalf of both darknet customers and darknet vendors.
Ransomware is a form of malicious software (malware) used by an attacker to block access to a computer system or data, often by encrypting data or programs on information technology (IT) systems. Its purpose is to extort ransom payments from victims in exchange for decrypting the information, restoring victims' access to their systems or data, and/or not disclosing or destroying data or programs on IT systems. Ransomware payments are made most often via CVC, which are preferred by ransomware attackers for their ability to obscure the attackers' identities, thus aiding in the attackers' ability to launder their criminal proceeds and continue attacking victims.
According to open source reporting, ransomware attacks have increased exponentially over the last several years, with an estimated 300 million attempted attacks in the first half of 2021 alone,
In 2021, roughly 74 percent of ransomware revenue, or over $400 million worth of CVC, went to strains highly likely to be affiliated with Russian organizations. Blockchain analysis combined with web traffic data further revealed that most of the extorted funds from the ransomware attacks were laundered through services primarily catering to Russian users.
The media have reported on banks and stock exchanges being targets for ransomware attacks.
Although ransomware actors and darknet markets are not always state-affiliated, the notorious ransomware group Conti has significant connections to Russia and pledged allegiance to Russia on February 25, 2022. Further, the Hydra darknet market almost entirely catered to Russian customers and illicit goods and service providers before it was shut down by law enforcement in April 2022. The illicit gains from ransomware attacks can often be traced back to Russian-affiliated exchanges and darknet markets, representing the laundering of victim payments by Russian and Russia-affiliated actors through Russian and Russia-affiliated services. As such, ransomware is a conduit for Russian illicit finance.
Bitzlato plays a critical role in facilitating transactions for the Conti ransomware group and other global ransomware actors, including actors that operate out of Russia. As a result, FinCEN assesses that Bitzlato serves as a VASP that ultimately enables the profitability of ransomware attacks and, at least in the case of Conti, advances the political and economic destabilization interests of the Government of Russia.
Conti, a notorious Ransomware-as-a-Service (RaaS) group and the eponymous strains of ransomware it offers as a service to affiliated criminals for their use, emerged in December 2019.
FinCEN has documented numerous transactions between Conti-associated CVC addresses and Bitzlato.
Separately, based on blockchain analysis, other ransomware groups have used Bitzlato to facilitate transactions involving ransomware, including ransomware groups based in or linked to Russia. For example, blockchain analysis has identified transactions involving Bitzlato and: (1) Chatex, a VASP designated by Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) for facilitating financial transactions for ransomware actors; and (2) the RaaS group DarkSide, a Russian-speaking
According to public reporting, a spokesperson for Bitzlato denied that it worked with any ransomware criminals and claimed it was not acquainted with an organization called DarkSide.
In addition to receiving ransomware proceeds, Bitzlato's receiving and sending transactional activity shows a significant connection to counterparties associated with other suspected illicit activities, such as darknet markets and scams with ties to and operations in Russia.
Approximately two-thirds of Bitzlato's top receiving and sending counterparties are associated with darknet markets or scams. For example, Bitzlato's top three receiving counterparties, by total amount of BTC received between May 2018 and September 2022 were: (1) Binance, a VASP; (2) the Russia-connected darknet market Hydra; and (3) the alleged Russia-based Ponzi scheme “TheFiniko.” Similarly, Bitzlato's top three sending counterparties, by total amount of BTC sent between May 2018 and September 2022 were (1) Hydra; (2) Local Bitcoins, a VASP based/incorporated in Finland; and (3) “TheFiniko.” The majority of these receiving and sending counterparties have evident ties to and/or significant operations in Russia. Moreover, FinCEN notes that Bitzlato engaged in significant transactions with each of these counterparties—all of whom are associated with illicit activities—after publishing its AML/KYC policy (further described below), demonstrating the permissive or ineffective nature of its internal controls.
As noted above, dealings with the Russia-connected darknet market Hydra represented a notable percentage of Bitzlato's business. Bitzlato operated as a facilitator of sales and purchases of illicit goods and services on behalf of customers and vendors operating on Hydra and supported a larger proportion of business involving Hydra than comparable U.S. CVC exchangers. Prior to its designation by OFAC in April 2022 and its closure in a law enforcement operation, Russia-connected Hydra was the largest darknet market in the world, representing nearly 80 percent of all traceable darknet market transactions in 2021. Bitzlato processed over 1.46 million direct transfers with the Hydra darknet marketplace between May 2018 and early April 2022, representing transactional flows of nearly 20,000 BTC sent and received during that timeframe. Comparative analysis of Bitzlato to a large U.S.-registered CVC exchanger indicates that less than .01 percent of the U.S. exchanger's transactions were attributed to darknet markets, whereas 6 to 8 percent of Bitzlato's transactions were attributed to the Hydra darknet market alone. That comparison illustrates that Bitzlato either had a substantially higher appetite for engaging with this illicit darknet market than a U.S.-registered VASP and/or that Bitzlato did not have the appropriate controls to identify and prevent Hydra's illicit activity from flowing through it.
Although Hydra has been shut down, Bitzlato continues to facilitate transactions for growing Russia-connected darknet markets. As of June 2022, Bitzlato's top counterparties by total number of transactions included three other Russian darknet markets: BlackSprut, OMG!OMG!, and Mega.
According to a study performed by a blockchain analysis company of seven VASPs associated with Moscow City, Russia, between 2019 and 2021, Bitzlato received CVC worth $206 million from darknet markets, $224 million from scams, and $9 million from ransomware attackers, with the value of transactions involving Russian illicit finance or otherwise risky sources quantified as 48 percent of all known Bitzlato transactions.
Although Bitzlato's homepage states that it has a “Know Your Client [(KYC)] policy,” public reporting shows that Bitzlato does not effectively implement
Notwithstanding its stated AML/KYC policy, Bitzlato advertises the utility of “simple registration” and does not collect the types of information typically used to conduct effective (AML/CFT).
Additionally, Bitzlato advertises user-privacy and anonymity, allowing one to buy and sell CVC with “a P2P fiat-to-crypto exchange,” further stating, “you exchange fiat money and cryptocurrency directly with another person.”
On its website as of March 2022, Bitzlato purported to maintain an AML/KYC policy designed to prevent and reduce the potential risks of Bitzlato being involved in any illegal activity, stating that “in accordance with international and local regulations, Bitzlato implements effective internal procedures and mechanisms to prevent money laundering, terrorist financing, drug and human trafficking, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, corruption and bribery and to respond to any form of suspicious activity on the part of its Users [sic].”
In light of its advertised “simple registration without KYC” and exchange processes, Bitzlato's previously stated AML/KYC policy and controls appear to have little impact on its actual operations. In practice, Bitzlato does not appear to be collecting the identifying information that would be necessary to facilitate meaningful KYC analysis. The significant quantity of Bitzlato transactions involving ransomware and darknet market actors provides further evidence that Bitzlato is not following its stated AML/KYC policy or identifying suspicious transactions in a way that would allow it to identify and halt the use of its platform by illicit actors.
FinCEN was guided in its analysis by the following considerations: (1) the extent to which the institution is used to facilitate or promote money laundering in connection with Russian illicit finance, including through connections to money laundering activity by Russian organized criminal groups; (2) the extent to which the institution is used for legitimate business purposes; and (3) the extent to which action by FinCEN would guard against international money laundering and other financial crimes. While these considerations were drawn from factors identified in 31 U.S.C. 5318A(c)(2)(B), taking into account the specific circumstances of money laundering activities in connection with Russian illicit finance and the protection of U.S. national security and the U.S. financial system, FinCEN is under no obligation pursuant to section 9714(a) to consider any particular factor or set of factors when making a finding that a financial institution operating outside of the United States is of primary money laundering concern in connection with Russian illicit finance.
The record amply establishes that Bitzlato has significant ties to Russia and facilitates a significant number of money laundering transactions involving Russia-related ransomware and Russia-related darknet market proceeds.
Bitzlato's significant connections to Russia are evidenced by the following: (1) Moscow, Russia is the listed location for Bitzlato found on public websites, with a recent study performed by a blockchain analysis company expressly identifying Bitzlato as having a presence in Moscow City, Russia (during the period between 2019 and 2021);
Furthermore, Bitzlato has significant links to Russian illicit finance and Russian criminal actors. A review of illicit actors' direct exposure to Bitzlato shows that a majority of those illicit actors were based in, or had ties to, Russia and Russia-based cybercriminal forums. Russian ransomware groups or affiliates, such as Russia-affiliated Conti, have been observed using Bitzlato. In particular, CVC wallet addresses associated with the Conti ransomware strain and its affiliates, including Trickbot, have engaged in significant BTC transactions involving Bitzlato. Additionally, Bitzlato had a significant transaction history with the Russia-connected Hydra darknet marketplace and continues to facilitate transactions for Russia-connected darknet marketplaces BlackSprut, OMG!OMG!, and Mega. That Bitzlato is registered in Hong Kong (or that it maintains a registered office in Hong Kong) does not alter FinCEN's assessment that Bitzlato
The record further amply demonstrates that Bitzlato's services are used, to an unusually large extent, to facilitate illicit finance, particularly when compared to other CVC exchanges, and by illicit actors who seek to circumvent AML/CFT obligations and obfuscate the source of funds or their intended use. Bitzlato lacks an adequate AML/CFT program or safeguards, it has a high ratio of illicit transaction exposure relative to total transaction volume when compared to other exchanges, and it has served as the second largest attributable counterparty for the largest darknet market in the world and continues to support Russia-connected darknet markets.
Although Bitzlato offers services that could potentially be used by licit actors, those services may be found other VASPs, including VASPs located in jurisdictions with robust AML/CFT frameworks and regulatory oversight. Legitimate actors have access to a broad range of comparable services that provide for appropriate transparency and can support international efforts to protect the integrity of the international financial system, including transactions involving CVC. Accordingly, given the extensive flow of illegitimate funds through Bitzlato, FinCEN believes that the need to protect U.S. financial institutions from the money laundering risks presented by Bitzlato outweighs any potential legitimate utility its services may provide.
Finding Bitzlato to be a financial institution operating outside of the United States of primary money laundering concern in connection with Russian illicit finance, and prohibiting transmittals of funds, will help insulate the U.S. financial system from international money laundering and other financial crimes. It will further reinforce the importance of AML/CFT compliance in the virtual asset space, help protect the national security of the United States, notify financial institutions around the world of Bitzlato's illicit activity, and set an example for other international partners to follow in the fight against illicit finance and criminal actors.
Section 9714(a) does not require consideration of particular factors in determining which one or more special measures to apply to address an identified primary money laundering concern. Nevertheless, although not bound by the factors, FinCEN considered, in this instance, the factors identified in 31 U.S.C. 5318A(a)(4)(B) to help guide its analysis in this matter and FinCEN elected to perform interagency consultations
Guided by the following factors, FinCEN finds reasonable grounds exist for concluding that Bitzlato is a financial institution operating outside of the United States that is of primary money laundering concern in connection with Russian illicit finance and that, pursuant to section 9714(a)(2), the imposition of a special measure prohibiting certain transmittals of funds involving Bitzlato is warranted.
FinCEN is unaware of any action that has been taken or is being taken by other nations or multilateral groups with regard to Bitzlato. FinCEN, however, believes that the action will provide a strong signal to the international community of the risks posed by Bitzlato and urges counterpart jurisdictions to consider such risks in its supervision of VASPs.
FinCEN assesses that imposing a prohibition on certain transmittals of funds involving Bitzlato will not present a significant competitive disadvantage for financial institutions organized or licensed in the United States given Bitzlato's relatively small size, and the relatively limited burden that compliance with this order would impose.
By U.S. and international standards, Bitzlato represents a limited percentage of daily CVC transfers. As of April 2022, Bitzlato maintained a daily BTC balance that was 0.0185 percent as large as the largest U.S.-domiciled CVC exchange, and it has 0.55 percent as many BTC transfers. Bitzlato's transaction history with this same U.S.-domiciled CVC exchange totals fewer than $26 million in CVC over four years. By contrast, a CVC price and volume aggregator estimates that a large U.S.-domiciled exchanger processed more than $2.7
In providing for the rejection of CVC under certain limited circumstances, FinCEN acknowledges that, at this time, there are technological limitations that may limit or preclude covered financial institutions from declining CVC transfers originating at addresses
FinCEN believes that, for the reasons described below, this action will not have an adverse systemic impact, and indeed, will have a positive systemic impact on the international payment, clearance, and settlement system, and on legitimate business activities.
Bitzlato is a small exchange and has a relatively limited presence in the international payment system. As noted above, by comparison to U.S.-domiciled CVC exchanges, Bitzlato represents a relatively limited percentage of daily CVC transfers, by volume. There is no evidence that Bitzlato is a major participant in the international payment system or relied upon by the international banking community.
Rather, given its size and limited international presence, the legitimate business services that it offers would be readily available through other regulated institutions.
Given the redundancy and availability of its services as well as its clear use for illegitimate business, this action will remove from transaction chains a VASP that facilitates illicit or otherwise unduly risky transactions that pose a risk to the international financial system, without clear adverse impact on the international payment, clearance, and settlement system or on legitimate business activities currently involving Bitzlato.
As FinCEN is not aware of timing considerations associated with such service redundancy or availability, there is also no adverse impact associated with the timing of this action.
Given Bitzlato's connection with Russian illicit finance, FinCEN believes that this action is necessary to safeguard U.S. national security and the U.S. financial system, as well as serve key U.S. national security objectives. Targeting illicit proceeds obtained by ransomware actors, especially those with a nexus to Russia, is a high priority for the United States, as evidenced by recent OFAC actions and recently established intergovernmental task forces focused on Russia-related illicit finance threats. As such, this action will complement previous actions taken by the U.S. Government and will serve the United States' national security and foreign policy interests by protecting U.S. businesses and interests from known ransomware threat actors, by publicly countering a financing mechanism used by illicit entities, including entities that seek to further the Russian state's aims of political and economic destabilization, and by reinforcing the expectations of AML/CFT compliance in the virtual asset ecosystem in order to improve the identification and reporting of suspicious activity by financial institutions and agencies around the world.
FinCEN considered the other special measures available pursuant to section 9714 prior to selecting the prohibition reflected in this order. Pursuant to section 9714, these measures included: (1) the special measures described in 31 U.S.C. 5318A, including the imposition of additional recordkeeping, information collection, and reporting requirements on covered U.S. financial institutions and/or the prohibition or imposition of conditions upon the opening or maintaining of correspondent or payable-through accounts for or on behalf of a foreign banking institution; and (2) the imposition of conditions on the transmittal of funds, as an alternative to a prohibition on the transmittal of funds. However, prohibiting the transmittal of funds involving Bitzlato is the only means of adequately addressing the threat Bitzlato poses.
In particular, none of the special measures described in 31 U.S.C. 5318A would effectively address the threat posed by Bitzlato.
For these reasons, FinCEN assesses that the prohibition on the transmittal of funds, including CVC, involving Bitzlato is the most appropriate special measure.
Section 9714(a) permits the Secretary to impose certain special measures, including the prohibition of certain transmittals of funds, “by order,
In order to ensure orderly implementation, FinCEN will delay the effective date of this order until February 1, 2023.
A copy of this order will be published in the
The order defines Bitzlato, a CVC exchanger registered in Hong Kong and previously known as ChangeBot, to mean all subsidiaries, branches, and offices of Bitzlato operating in any jurisdiction, as well as any successor entity.
The order defines convertible virtual currency (CVC) as a medium of exchange that either has an equivalent value as currency, or acts as a substitute for currency, but lacks legal tender status. Despite having legal tender status in at least one jurisdiction, for the purpose of this order, Bitcoin is included as a type of CVC.
The order defines a covered financial institution as having the same meaning as “financial institution” in 31 CFR 1010.100(t).
The order defines a CVC exchanger as any person engaged as a business in the exchange of CVC for fiat currency, funds, or other CVC.
The order defines P2P exchangers to include persons engaged in the business of buying and selling CVC.
The order defines recipient as the person to be paid by the recipient's covered financial institution.
The order defines successor entity as any person that replaces Bitzlato by acquiring its assets, in whole or in part, and/or carrying out the affairs of Bitzlato under a new name.
The order defines transmittal of funds as the sending and receiving of funds, including CVC.
All terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meaning set forth in 31 CFR Chapter X and 31 U.S.C. 5312.
A covered financial institution is prohibited from engaging in a transmittal of funds from or to Bitzlato, or from or to any account or CVC address administered by or on behalf of Bitzlato.
A covered financial institution will be deemed not to have violated this Order where, upon determining that it received CVC that originated from Bitzlato or from an account or CVC address administered by or on behalf of Bitzlato, that covered financial institution rejects the transaction, preventing the intended recipient from accessing such CVC and returning the CVC to Bitzlato, or to the account or CVC address from which the CVC originated.
The terms of this order are effective February 1, 2023, with no cessation date.
FinCEN reserves its authority pursuant to Section 9714(a) to impose conditions on certain transmittals of funds from or to Bitzlato, or from or to any account or CVC address administered by or on behalf of Bitzlato.
Nothing in this order shall be construed to modify, impair or otherwise affect any requirements or obligations to which a covered financial institution is subject pursuant to the BSA, including, but not limited to, the filing of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs), or other applicable laws or regulations, such as the sanctions administered and enforced by the U.S. Department of the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control.
The covered financial institution, and any of its officers, directors, employees, and agents, may be liable for civil or criminal penalties under 31 U.S.C. 5321 and 5322 for violating any of the terms of this order.
Any judicial determination that any provision of this order is invalid shall not affect the validity of any other provision of this order, and each other provision shall thereafter remain in full force and effect.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for navigable waters of the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and Atlantic Ocean at the Charleston Harbor Entrance and Approach, Charleston Harbor, within a 100-yard radius of the vessel USNS Gordon and all towing vessels supporting its operations. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the dead ship movement of USNS Gordon from the Naval Weapons Station, Joint Base Charleston Transportation Core (TC) Dock or Wharf Alpha through the Charleston Harbor Entrance Channel. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port Sector Charleston.
This rule is effective without actual notice from January 23, 2023 through January 24, 2023. For the purposes of enforcement, actual notice will be used from January 12, 2023, until January 23, 2023.
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 MST1 Thomas J. 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 doing so would be impracticable. The Coast Guard lacks sufficient time to provide for a comment period and then consider those comments before issuing the rule since this rule is needed by January 12, 2023. It would be contrary to the public interest since immediate action is necessary to protect the safety of the public, and vessels transiting the waters of the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and the Atlantic Ocean at the Charleston Harbor Entrance and Approach during the dead ship movement of USNS Gordon.
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 Charleston (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the dead ship movement and berthing of USNS Gordon on January 12, 2023 (or on a contingency date prior January 25, 2023), will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-yard radius of vessel and any towing vessels supporting the operation. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment during the dead ship movement of the USNS Gordon while outbound from berthing at the Naval Weapons Station, Joint Base Charleston Transportation Core (TC) Dock or Wharf Alpha, on the Cooper River in Goose Creek, SC to sea.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone on January 12, 2023 through January 24, 2023, however the zone will only be enforced while the USNS Gordon is underway with supporting, towing vessles. The moving 100-yard safety zone will be established for the the USNS Gordon and all towing vessels supporting its operations during transit from berth at the Naval Weapons Station, Joint Base Charleston Transportation Core (TC) Dock or Wharf Alpha on the Cooper River in Goose Creek, SC to the Charleston Harbor Entrance Channel Buoy #6. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the dead ship movement of USNS Gordon while transiting the Charleson Harbor area. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this 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, location, and scope of the safety zone. The zone is limited in size, location, and duration as it will cover all navigable waters of the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and Atlantic Ocean at the Charleston Harbor Entrance and Approach within a 100-yard radius of the vessel USNS Gordon and any towing vessels supporting the operation. The zone is limited in scope as vessel traffic may be able to safely transit around this safety zone and vessels may seek permission from the COTP to enter the zone. The zone is limited in duration in that it will be enforced for no more than eight hours. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about the safety zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this 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 regulated area 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
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. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this 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 Safety 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, moving safety zone on waters of the Cooper River, Charleston Harbor, and Atlantic Ocean at the Charleston Harbor Entrance and Approach, within a 100-yard radius of the vessel USNS Gordon and all towing vessels supporting its operations until the vessel proceeds seaward of the Charleston Harbor Entrance Channel Buoy #6. This zone is not expected to last more than eight hours. 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, Safety 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, 160.5; and Department of Homeland Safety 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 telephone at (843) 740-7050, or may contact a designated representative via VHF radio on channel 16.
(d)
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Final rule.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (CNCS) is updating its regulations to reflect required annual inflation-related increases to the civil monetary penalties under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Act) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.
This rule is effective January 23, 2023.
Kiara Rhodes, Office of General Counsel, at
The Corporation for National and Community Service, which operates as AmeriCorps, is a Federal agency that engages millions of Americans in service. AmeriCorps members and AmeriCorps Seniors volunteers serve directly with nonprofit organizations to tackle our nation's most pressing challenges. For more information, visit
AmeriCorps has two civil monetary penalties in its regulations. A civil monetary penalty under the Act is a penalty, fine, or other sanction that: (1) is for a specific monetary amount as provided by Federal law or has a maximum amount provided for by Federal law; and (2) is assessed or enforced by an agency pursuant to Federal law; and (3) is assessed or enforced pursuant to an administrative proceeding or a civil action in the Federal courts. (
The Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (Sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (the “Act”) requires agencies to adjust their civil monetary penalties for inflation annually. Today's rule updates AmeriCorps' two civil penalties for inflation.
The inflation adjustment for each applicable civil monetary penalty is determined using the percent increase in the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers (CPI-U) for the month of October of the year in which the amount of each civil money penalty was most recently established or modified.
The agency identified two civil penalties in its regulations: (1) the penalty associated with Restrictions on Lobbying (45 CFR 1230.400) and (2) the penalty associated with the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act (45 CFR 2554.1):
• The civil monetary penalties related to Restrictions on Lobbying (45 CFR 1230.400) range from $22,022 to $220,212. Using the 2023 multiplier, the new range of possible civil monetary penalties is from $23,728 to $237,267.
• The Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (45 CFR 2554.1) civil monetary penalty has an upper limit of $12,537. Using the 2023 multiplier, the new upper limit of the civil monetary penalty is $13,508.
This final rule adjusts the civil monetary penalty amounts related to Restrictions on Lobbying (45 CFR 1230.400) and the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (45 CFR 2554.1). The range of civil monetary penalties related to Restrictions on Lobbying increase from “$22,022 to $220,212” to “$23,728 to $237,267.” The civil monetary penalties for the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 increase from “up to $12,537” to “up to $13,508.”
Section 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that notice and public comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, then the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for prior public comment. The agency finds that there is good cause to except this rule from the public notice and comment provisions of the APA in this case. Because the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 requires the agency to update its regulations based on a prescribed formula, the agency has no discretion in the nature or amount of the change to the civil monetary penalties to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters. Accordingly, it would serve no purpose to provide an opportunity for public comment on this rule prior to promulgation. Thus, providing for notice and public comment is impracticable and unnecessary. Additionally, it would not be possible to meet the deadlines imposed by the Act if we were to first publish a proposed rule, allow the public sufficient time to submit comments, analyze the comments, and publish a final rule. Therefore, notice and comment for these proscribed updates is impracticable and unnecessary.
Furthermore, the agency finds under section 553(d)(3) of the APA that good cause exists to make this final rule effective immediately upon publication in the
Accordingly, we are issuing the annual adjustments as a final rule without prior notice or an opportunity for comment and with an effective date immediately upon publication in the
The agency has determined that making technical changes to the amount of civil monetary penalties in its regulations does not trigger any requirements under procedural statutes and Executive Orders that govern rulemaking procedures.
Government contracts, Grant programs, Loan programs, Lobbying, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Claims, Fraud, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Penalties.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 12651c(c), the Corporation for National and Community Service amends chapters XII and XXV, title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
Section 319, Pub. L. 101-121 (31 U.S.C. 1352); Pub. L. 93-113; 42 U.S.C. 4951,
Pub. L. 99-509, Secs. 6101-6104, 100 Stat. 1874 (31 U.S.C. 3801-3812); 42 U.S.C. 12651c-12651d.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for groundfish by vessels using nonpelagic trawl gear in the Red King Crab Savings Subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands management area (BSAI). This action is necessary because the State of Alaska, Department of Fish and Game did not establish a guideline harvest level fishery for red king crab in the Bristol Bay area for the 2022/2023 fishing year.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), January 20, 2023, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2023.
Abby Jahn, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the BSAI according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Management Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
In accordance with § 679.21(e)(3)(ii)(B)(
While this closure is effective, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion, and would delay the directed fishing closure of groundfish by vessels using nonpelagic trawl gear in the Red King Crab Savings Subarea of the BSAI. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of January 17, 2023.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the A season allowance of the 2023 total allowable catch of pollock for Statistical Area 610 in the GOA.
Effective 1200 hrs, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), January 20, 2023, through 1200 hrs, A.l.t., May 31, 2023.
Krista Milani, 907-581-2062.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR part 600 and 50 CFR part 679.
The A season allowance of the 2022 total allowable catch (TAC) of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is 1,685 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (87 FR 11599, March 2, 2022) and inseason adjustment (87 FR 80088, December 29, 2022).
In accordance with §§ 679.20(d)(1)(i) and 679.20(d)(1)(ii)(B), the Regional Administrator has determined that the A season allowance of the 2023 TAC of pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA is necessary to account for the incidental catch in other anticipated fisheries. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 100 mt and is setting aside the remaining 1,585 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for pollock in Statistical Area 610 of the GOA.
While this closure is effective, the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion, and would delay the closure of pollock in Statistical Area 610 in the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of January 17, 2023.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace at Watertown, SD. The FAA is proposing this action due to an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Watertown very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimum Operating Network (MON) Program. The name and geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2023.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0034/Airspace Docket No. 23-AGL-3 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E surface airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Watertown Regional Airport, Watertown, SD, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2023-0034/Airspace Docket No. 23-AGL-3.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:
Amending the Class E surface airspace at Watertown Regional Airport, Watertown, SD, by updating the name (previously Watertown Municipal
And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Watertown Regional Airport by removing the Watertown VOR/tactical air navigation (VORTAC) and the associated extension to the north of the airport; removing the extension south of the airport as it is no longer required; removing the airspace extending 1,200 feet above the surface from the airspace legal description as it is redundant with the airspace extending 1,200 feet above the surface over the State of South Dakota and State of Minnesota; and updating the name (previously Watertown Municipal Airport) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is the result of an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Watertown VOR, which provided navigational information to this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 6002 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, 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 regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
Within a 4.3-mile radius of Watertown Regional Airport.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.8-mile radius of Watertown Regional Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Western Carolina Regional Airport, Andrews, NC, as a new Area Navigation Global Positioning System (RNAV GPS) approach has been designed for this airport. This action would also update the airport's name and geographic coordinates. Murphy Medical Center would also be removed from the descriptor, as all instrument approaches into the hospital have been canceled. 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 March 9, 2023.
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 Docket No. FAA-2022-1741; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-29 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order JO 7400.11G 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
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 a factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify both docket numbers (Docket No. FAA-2022-1741 and Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-29) and be submitted in triplicate to DOT Docket Operations (see
Persons wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2022-1347; Airspace Docket No. 22-ASO-29.” The postcard will be dated/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 in this document may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket 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 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA proposes an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface for Carolina Regional Airport (formerly Andrews-Murphy Airport), Andrews, NC, as a new RNAV GPS approach has been designed for this airport. The 6.5-mile radius would remain, but extensions to the northeast and the southwest would be created. This action would also update the airport's name and geographic coordinates. Also, the descriptor header would be updated to Andrews, NC (formerly Andrews-Murphy, NC). Additionally, Murphy Medical Center would be removed from the descriptor, as all instrument approaches into the hospital have been canceled.
Class E airspace designations are published in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, 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 6.5-mile radius of the Western Carolina Regional Airport and within 1.5 miles on each side of the 257° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 13.5-miles southwest of the airport, and within 1-mile each side of the 077° bearing from the airport, extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 11-miles northeast of the airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class D and Class E airspace at Bloomington/Normal, IL. The FAA is proposing this action due to an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Bloomington very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimum Operating Network (MON) Program. The name and geographic coordinates of the airport would also be updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2023.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0035/Airspace Docket No. 23-AGL-4 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class D airspace and the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Central Illinois Regional/Bloomington-Normal Airport, Bloomington/Normal, IL, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2023-0035/Airspace Docket No. 23-AGL-4.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by:
Amending the Class D airspace to within a 4.4-mile (decreased from a 7-mile) radius of Central Illinois Regional/Bloomington-Normal Airport, Bloomington/Normal, IL; updating the header of the airspace legal description from “Bloomington, IL” to “Bloomington/Normal, IL” to coincide
And amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.9-mile (decreased from a 7.3-mile) radius of Central Illinois Regional/Bloomington-Normal Airport; updating the header of the airspace legal description from “Bloomington, IL” to “Bloomington/Normal, IL” to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database; and updating the name (previously Central Illinois Regional Airport at Bloomington-Normal) and geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is the result of an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Bloomington VOR, which provided navigational information to this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.
Class D and E airspace designations are published in paragraphs 5000 and 6005, respectively, of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D and 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 regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including 3,400 feet MSL within a 4.4-mile radius of Central Illinois Regional/Bloomington-Normal Airport. This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to Air Missions. The effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published in the Chart Supplement.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.9-mile radius of the Central Illinois Regional/Bloomington-Normal Airport.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend the Class E airspace at Sulphur Springs, TX. The FAA is proposing this action due to an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Sulphur Springs very high frequency omnidirectional range (VOR) as part of the VOR Minimum Operating Network (MON) Program.
Comments must be received on or before March 9, 2023.
Send comments on this proposal to the U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Operations, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; telephone (202) 366-9826, or (800) 647-5527. You must identify FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-0037/Airspace Docket No. 23-ASW-1 at the beginning of your comments. You may also submit comments through the internet at
FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sulphur Springs Municipal Airport, Sulphur Springs, TX, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport.
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. Communications should identify both docket numbers and be submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. FAA-2023-0037/Airspace Docket No. 23-ASW-1.” The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.
All communications received before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in light of the comments received. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the
This document proposes to amend FAA Order JO 7400.11G, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022. FAA Order JO 7400.11G is publicly available as listed in the
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 by amending the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Sulphur Springs Municipal Airport, Sulphur Springs, TX, by removing the Brashear radio beacon (RBN) and associated airspace extension as they are no longer needed; and adding an extension 2 miles each side of the 190° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius of the airport to 9.4 miles south of the airport.
This action is the result of an airspace review conducted as part of the decommissioning of the Sulphur Springs VOR, which provided navigation information to the instrument procedures to this airport, as part of the VOR MON Program.
Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11G, dated August 19, 2022, and effective September 15, 2022, 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 regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Sulphur Springs Municipal Airport; and within 2 miles each side of the 190° bearing from the airport extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 9.4 miles south of the airport.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period; correction.
This document contains a notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening the comment period (REG-146537-06) that was published in the
Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing are still being accepted and must be received by February 27, 2023.
Commenters are strongly encouraged to submit additional public comments electronically. Submit electronic submissions via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Concerning the notice of proposed rulemaking, Joel Deuth, at (202) 317-6938; concerning submissions of comments or requests for a public hearing, Vivian Hayes at (202) 317-5306 (not toll-free numbers) or by sending an email to
The notice of proposed rulemaking that is the subject of this correction is under section 892 of the Internal Revenue Code.
As published on December 29, 2022 (87 FR 80108) the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-146537-06) contains errors that need to be corrected.
Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-146537-06) that is the subject of FR Doc. 2022-27969, appearing on page 80108 in the
On page 80109, in the first column, under the heading
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to amend and update its list of recurring safety zone regulations that take place in the Coast Guard Sector Ohio Valley area of responsibility (AOR). Through this rulemaking, the current list of recurring safety zones is proposed to be updated with revisions, additional events, and removal of events that no longer take place. This proposed rule would reduce administrative costs involved in producing separate proposed rules for each individual recurring safety zone and serve to provide notification of the known recurring safety zones throughout the year. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before February 22, 2023.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2022-0928 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email MST3 Bryan Crane, Sector Ohio Valley, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 502-779-5334, email
The Captain of the Port Sector Ohio Valley (COTP) proposes to amend section 165.801 of Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) to update our regulations for annual fireworks displays and other events in the Eighth Coast Guard District requiring safety zones with respect to those in Sector Ohio Valley.
The current list of annual and recurring safety zones in Sector Ohio Valley's area of responsibility (AOR) is published under Table 1 of 33 CFR 165.801 for annual safety zones in the AOR.
The Coast Guard proposes to amend and update the safety zone regulations under 33 CFR part 165 to include the most up to date list of recurring safety zones for events held on or around navigable waters within Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. These events include air shows, fireworks displays, and other marine related events requiring a limited access area restricting vessel traffic for safety purposes. The current list in 33 CFR 165.801 needs to be amended to provide new information on existing safety zones, and to include new safety zones expected to recur annually or biannually, and to remove safety zones that are no longer required. Issuing individual regulations for each new safety zone, amendment, or removal of an existing safety zone would create unnecessary administrative costs and burdens. This single proposed rulemaking would considerably reduce administrative overhead and provide the public with notice through publication in the
The Coast Guard encourages the public to participate in this proposed rulemaking through the comment process so that any necessary changes can be identified and implemented in a timely and efficient manner. The Coast Guard will address all public comments accordingly, whether through response, additional revision to the regulation, or otherwise.
Part 165 of 33 CFR contains regulations establishing limited access areas to restrict vessel traffic for the safety of persons and property. Section 165.801 establishes recurring safety zones to restrict vessel transit into and through specified areas to protect spectators, mariners, and other persons and property from potential hazards presented during certain events taking place in the AOR. This section requires amendment from time to time to properly reflect the recurring safety zone regulations in the AOR. This proposed rule would amend and update § 165.801 by revising the current Table 1.
This proposed rule would add the following 8 safety zones to the existing Table 1 of section 165.801 as follows:
These new recurring events would be reflected in the table in the general date order in which they will occur, and the current recurring events would be reordered, as shown in the proposed regulatory text below.
This proposed rule would amend the following 4 safety zones to the existing Table 1 section 165.801 as follows:
This proposed rule would remove the following 4 safety zones from the existing Table 1 section 165.801 as follows:
The effect of this proposed rule would be to restrict general navigation in the safety zones during the events. Vessels intending to transit the designated waterway through the safety zones would only be allowed to transit the area when the COTP, or a designated representative, has deemed it safe to do so or at the completion of the event. The proposed annually recurring safety zones are necessary to provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the events.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposed rule to be minimal, therefore a full regulatory evaluation is unnecessary. This proposed rule would establish safety zones limiting access to certain areas under 33 CFR part 165 within Sector Ohio Valley's AOR. The effect of this proposed rulemaking would not be significant because these safety zones would be limited in scope and duration. Additionally, the public would be given advance notification through the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1,
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
Postal Service
Proposed rule.
The Postal Service is proposing to amend
Submit comments on or before February 22, 2023.
Mail or deliver written comments to the manager, Product Classification, U.S. Postal Service, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 4446, Washington, DC 20260-5015. If sending comments by email, include the name and address of the commenter and send to
All submitted comments and attachments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider to be confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure.
You may inspect and photocopy all written comments, by appointment only, at USPS® Headquarters Library, 475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, 11th Floor North, Washington, DC 20260. These records are available for review on Monday through Friday, 9 a.m.-4 p.m., by calling 202-268-2906.
Dale Kennedy at (202) 268-6592 or Garry Rodriguez at (202) 268-7281.
The Postal Service is proposing to revise subsection 503.2.1 to require commercial cash deposits over $500.00 be sent using Registered Mail® service.
As more business customers look to the Postal Service to mail their cash deposits, it has become necessary to determine the most appropriate method to meet this mailing need. As a result, the Postal Service has determined that requiring commercial cash deposits over $500.00 be sent using Registered Mail, our most secured service, would benefit both customers and the Postal Service.
In addition, the Postal Service is proposing to add new subsection 601.1.3,
The Postal Service is proposing to implement this change effective March 1, 2023.
The Postal Service believes this proposed revision will provide customers with a safe and secure service for their mailing needs.
Although exempt from the notice and comment requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c)) regarding proposed rulemaking by 39 U.S.C. 410(a), the Postal Service invites public comment on the following proposed revisions to
We will publish an appropriate amendment to 39 CFR part 111 to reflect these changes.
Administrative practice and procedure.
Accordingly, 39 CFR part 111 is proposed to be amended as follows:
5 U.S.C. 552(a); 13 U.S.C. 301-307; 18 U.S.C. 1692-1737; 39 U.S.C. 101, 401-404, 414, 416, 3001-3018, 3201-3220, 3401-3406, 3621, 3622, 3626, 3629, 3631-3633, 3641, 3681-3685, and 5001.
Items mailed containing commercial cash deposits over $500.00 must be sent as Registered Mail (see 601.1.3.4).
Currency (
Except for philatelic items and numismatic coins under 609.4.1g, eligible classes of mail containing currency may be insured with a maximum indemnity of $15.00.
Except under 1.3.4, eligible classes of mail containing currency may use Registered Mail service with included insurance payable at full value up to the applicable limit. (see 503.2.2.1).
The following standards apply for sending commercial cash deposits over $500.00:
a. Mailers must use Registered Mail service under 503.2.1.6.
b. Mailers must not use any USPS-provided packaging.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to grant an exclusion from the list of hazardous wastes to ExxonMobil Baytown Refinery (EMBR or Petitioner) located in Baytown, Texas. This action responds to a petition to exclude (or “delist”) up to 2,409 cubic yards per year of API separator sludge—from the list of federal hazardous wastes when disposed of in a Subtitle D Landfill. Resource Conservation Recovery Act (RCRA). The EPA is proposing to grant the petition based on an evaluation of waste-specific information provided by Petitioner.
Comments on this proposed exclusion must be received by February 22, 2023.
Submit your comments by one of the following methods:
•
•
You can view and copy the delisting petition and associated publicly available docket materials either through
Harry Shah, (214) 665-6457,
The EPA is proposing to grant a May 2021 petition (“K051 Delisting Petition”) request submitted by EMBR in Baytown, Texas to exclude (or “delist”) up to 2,409 cubic yards per year K051 API separator sludge from the list of federal hazardous waste set forth in 40 CFR 261.3 (hereinafter, all sectional references are to 40 CFR unless otherwise indicated) for offsite disposal. The Petitioner claims that the petitioned wastes do not meet the criteria for which the EPA listed it, and that there are no additional constituents or factors which could cause the waste to be hazardous. Based on our review described in Section III, the EPA propose to approve the petition request, and allow the delisted waste to be disposed in a Subtitle D landfill. A copy of the May 2021 petition is located in the docket to this proposal action.
The EPA published an amended list of hazardous wastes from non-specific and specific sources on January 16, 1981, as part of its final and interim final regulations implementing section 3001 of RCRA. The EPA has amended this list several times and codifies the list in §§ 261.31 and 261.32.
The EPA lists the Petitioner's wastes as hazardous because: (1) the wastes typically and frequently exhibit one or more of the characteristics of hazardous wastes identified in Subpart C of part 261 (that is, ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, and toxicity), (2) the wastes meet the criteria for listing contained in §§ 261.11(a)(2) or (3), or (3) the wastes are mixed with or derived from the treatment, storage or disposal of such characteristic and listed wastes and which therefore become hazardous under §§ 261.3(a)(2)(iv) or (c)(2)(i), known as the “mixture” or “derived-from” rules, respectively.
Individual waste streams may vary, however, depending on raw materials, industrial processes, and other factors. Thus, while a waste described in these part 261 regulations or resulting from the operation of the mixture or derived-from rules generally is hazardous, a specific waste from an individual facility may not be hazardous.
For this reason, 40 CFR 260.20 and 260.22 provide an exclusion procedure, called delisting, which allows persons to prove that the EPA should not regulate a specific waste from a particular generating facility as a hazardous waste.
A delisting petition is a request from a facility to the EPA or an authorized state to exclude wastes from the list of hazardous wastes. The facility petitions the EPA because it does not consider the waste as hazardous under RCRA regulations.
In a delisting petition, the petitioner must show that wastes generated at a particular facility do not meet any of the criteria for which the waste was listed. The criteria for which the EPA lists a waste are in 40 CFR part 261 and further explained in the background documents for the listed waste in the April 1988 publication of the “Proposed Best Demonstrated Available Technology (BDAT) Background Document for Petroleum Refining Treatability Group (K048, K049, K050, K051, K052)” (
In addition, under 40 CFR 260.22, a petitioner must prove that the waste does not exhibit any of the hazardous waste characteristics (that is, ignitability, reactivity, corrosivity, and toxicity) and must present sufficient information for the EPA to decide whether factors other than those for which the waste was listed warrant retaining it as a hazardous waste.
Generators remain obligated under RCRA to confirm whether their waste remains non-hazardous based on the hazardous waste characteristics even if the EPA has “delisted” the waste.
Besides considering the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a) and 3001(f) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed wastes, the EPA must consider any factors (including additional constituents) aside from those for which the EPA listed the waste, if a reasonable basis exists that these additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous.
The EPA must also consider hazardous waste mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or disposing of listed hazardous waste. See §§ 261.3(a)(2)(iii and iv) and (c)(2)(i), called the “mixture” and “derived-from” rules, respectively. These wastes are also eligible for exclusion and remain hazardous wastes until excluded. See 66 FR 27266 (May 16, 2001).
To better meet the EPA's “responsibilities related to the protection of public health and the environment, the EPA has developed an environmental justice (EJ) mapping and screening tool called EJ Screen” that reports values as a percentile when compared to a state or the nation. “It is based on nationally consistent data and an approach that combines environmental and demographic indicators in maps and reports,” (
The EPA utilized EJ Screen to evaluate potential environmental justice concerns in communities at one-, three-, and five-mile radiuses around the Baytown facility. The EPA considers the potential for EJ concerns in a community when one or more of the 12 EJ indices is at or above the 80th percentile when compared to the rest of the USA. At the one-mile radial measurement, all 12 EJ indices exceeded the 80th percentile, at the three-mile measurement, 11 out of the 12 EJ indices exceeded the 80th percentile, and at the five-mile radial measurement, four EJ indices exceeded the 80th percentile. This information is provided in Table 1. More information on EJ Screen, including an explanation of the 12 EJ indices can be found at
In May 2021, EMBR petitioned the EPA to exclude from the list of hazardous wastes contained in § 261.31, API separator sludge (K051) generated from its facility located in Baytown, Texas. The waste falls under the classification of listed waste pursuant to § 261.31. Specifically, in its petition, EMBR requested that the EPA grant a standard exclusion for 2,409 cubic yards per year of the API separator sludge for offsite disposal.
Industrial wastewaters generated at the facility are mainly routed through three sewer systems (west, central and east). Industrial wastewater from the Baytown Chemical Plant and the Baytown Olefins plant are routed through the west sewer, ultimately discharging into Preseparator 14. Industrial wastewater from refinery process units and the Demineralization Plant are routed through the central sewer, ultimately discharging into Preseparator 13; industrial wastewaters from refinery process units, the Sour Water Strippers, Wastewater Strippers and the Velasco Street ditch are routed through the east sewer and ultimately discharge into Preseparator 15. The wastewater then travels through the stormwater diversion box, through a lift station, to API Separator 12, Wastewater Oxidation Unit (WOU), wastewater lagoons, and ultimately to the Houston Ship Channel. The API separator also receives industrial wastewater in the form of treated effluent from the Sanitary Treatment Plant. The API separator allows for gravitational separation of phases (oil, water, and solids) during residence time in the unit. Free oil is skimmed off for reprocessing; whereas, settled sludge (solids) are first pumped to Solids Removal Unit 1 and then sent off-site to a Thermal Desorption Unit or for off-site disposal as a listed hazardous waste.
A total of four (1 sample per month for 4 months) acceptable sample results were provided by the Petitioner to support the petition. The EPA considered all 4 samples of the API separator sludge and the disposal scenario of the landfill was modeled using the Delisting Risk Assessment Software. The worst-case scenario of the constituents' concentrations for the K051 sludge were used as input in the model to determine if it would meet the hazardous waste criteria for which it was listed. The maximum total and leachate concentrations for the inorganic and organic constituents which were found in the analytical data provided by Petitioner are presented in Table 2.
In reviewing this petition, the EPA considered the original listing criteria and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
In addition to the criteria in 40 CFR 260.22(a), 261.11(a)(2) and (3), 42 U.S.C. 6921(f), and in the background documents for the listed wastes, the EPA also considered factors (including additional constituents) other than those for which the EPA listed the waste to determine if these additional factors could cause the waste to be hazardous (
Our proposed decision to grant the May 2021 petition to delist the waste from the Petitioner's facility in Baytown, Texas is based on our evaluation of the wastes for factors or criteria which could cause the waste to be hazardous. These factors included: (1) whether the waste is considered acutely toxic; (2) the toxicity of the constituents; (3) the concentration of the constituents in the waste; (4) the tendency of the constituents to migrate and to bioaccumulate; (5) the persistence in the environment of any constituents once released from the waste; (6) plausible and specific types of management of the petitioned waste; (7) the quantity of waste produced; and (8) waste variability.
The EPA must also consider as hazardous wastes mixtures containing listed hazardous wastes and wastes derived from treating, storing, or disposing of listed hazardous waste.
For this proposed delisting determination, the EPA evaluated the risk that the waste would be disposed of as a non-hazardous waste in a landfill. The EPA considered transport of waste constituents through groundwater, surface water and air. The EPA evaluated the Petitioner's analysis of the petitioned waste using the Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS) to predict the concentration of hazardous constituents that might be released from the petitioned waste and to determine if the waste would pose a threat to human health and the environment. The DRAS software and associated documentation can be found at
To predict the potential for release to groundwater from landfilled wastes and subsequent routes of exposure to a receptor, the DRAS uses dilution attenuation factors derived from the EPA's Composite Model for leachate migration with transformation products. From a release to groundwater, the DRAS considers routes of exposure to a human receptor through ingestion of contaminated groundwater, inhalation from groundwater while showering and dermal contact from groundwater while bathing.
From a release to surface water by erosion of waste from an open landfill into storm water run-off, DRAS evaluates the exposure to a human receptor by fish ingestion and ingestion of drinking water. From a release of waste particles and volatile emissions to air from the surface of an open landfill, DRAS considers routes of exposure of inhalation of volatile constituents, inhalation of particles, and air deposition of particles on residential soil and subsequent ingestion of the contaminated soil by a child. The technical support document and the user's guide to DRAS are available at
Petitioner stated in its petition that the petitioned waste meets the criteria of K051 for which the EPA listed it. Petitioner also stated that no additional constituents or factors could cause the waste to be hazardous. Petitioner also stated that disposal in a landfill will not adversely impact human health and the environment. The EPA's review of this petition included consideration of the original listing criteria, and the additional factors required by the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA).
If the petitioned wastes are delisted as proposed, the Petitioner must dispose of them in a Subtitle D landfill which is permitted, licensed, or registered by a state to manage industrial waste.
The EPA notes that in some instances the maximum allowable total constituent concentrations provided by the DRAS model exceed 100% of the waste—these DRAS results are an artifact of the risk calculations that do not have physical meaning. In instances where DRAS predicts a maximum constituent greater than 100 percent of the waste (that is, greater than 1,000,000 mg/kg or mg/L, respectively, for total and TCLP concentrations), the EPA is not proposing to require the Petitioner to perform sampling and analysis for that constituent and sampling type (total or TCLP).
The testing approach for this waste stream will be conducted annually during the second calendar quarter. Petitioner must conduct annual sampling and analysis as described in the delisting sampling and analysis plan and ensure that the wastes do not exceed the delisting parameters. If any measured constituent concentration exceeds the delisting levels set forth in Table 2, ExxonMobil must collect an additional representative sample within 10 business days of being made aware of the exceedance and test it expeditiously for the constituent(s) which exceeded delisting levels in the original annual sample. If compliance with the delisting parameters is demonstrated with analytical testing (TCLP analysis), the Petitioner may dispose of the API separator sludge as a non-hazardous waste. The annual amount of delisted sludge generated from the API Separator may not exceed 2,409 cubic yards. The annual sampling report shall include the volume of solids disposed of in the landfill, as well as annual testing event data. The petitioner should monitor and report increasing trends of constituents which will affect the overall compliance with the discharge permit.
The Petitioner must submit the data obtained through verification testing to U.S. EPA Region 6, Office of Land, Chemicals and Redevelopment Division, 1201 Elm Street, Suite 500, M/C 6LCR-RP, Dallas, Texas 75270-2102, within 30 business days after receiving the final results from the laboratory. These results may be submitted electronically to Harry Shah,
If this Petitioner violates the terms and conditions established in the exclusion, the EPA may start procedures to withdraw the exclusion. Additionally, the terms of the exclusion provide that “[a]ny waste volume for which representative composite sampling does not reflect full compliance with the exclusion criteria must continue to be managed as hazardous.”
If the testing of the waste does not demonstrate compliance with the delisting concentrations described in Section IV.C above, or other data (including but not limited to leachate data or groundwater monitoring data from the final land disposal facility) relevant to the delisted waste indicates that any constituent is at a concentration in waste above specified delisting verification concentrations in Table 2, the Petitioner must notify the EPA within 10 business days, or such later date as the EPA may agree to in writing, after receiving the final verification testing results from the laboratory or of first possessing or being made aware of other relevant data. The EPA may require the Petitioner to
The EPA has the authority under RCRA and the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. 551 (1978
Any process changes or additions implemented at Petitioner's facility which would significantly impact the constituent concentrations of the waste must be reported to the EPA in accordance with Condition VI. of the exclusion language.
HSWA specifically requires the EPA to provide notice and an opportunity for public comment before granting or denying a final exclusion. Thus, the EPA will not make a final decision or grant an exclusion until it has addressed all timely public comments, including any at public hearings. Upon receipt and consideration of all comments, the EPA will publish its final determination as a final rule. Since this rule would reduce the existing requirements for persons generating hazardous wastes, the regulated community does not need a six-month period to come into compliance in accordance with § 3010 of RCRA, as amended by HSWA.
Because the EPA is proposing to issue this exclusion under the federal RCRA delisting regulations, only states subject to federal RCRA delisting provisions will be affected. This exclusion may not be effective in states which have received authorization from the EPA to make their own delisting decisions.
RCRA allows states to impose more stringent regulatory requirements than RCRA's under § 3009 of RCRA. These more stringent requirements may include a provision that prohibits a federally-issued exclusion from taking effect in the state. The EPA urge Petitioners to contact the state regulatory authority to establish the status of its wastes under the state law.
The EPA has also authorized some states to administer a delisting program in place of the federal program, that is, to make state delisting decisions. Therefore, this exclusion does not apply in those states. If the Petitioner manages the wastes in any state with delisting authorization, the Petitioner must obtain delisting authorization or other determination from the receiving state before it can manage the waste as nonhazardous in that state.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at
This proposed action is exempt from review by the Office of Management and Budget because it is a rule of particular applicability, not general applicability. The proposed action approves a delisting petition under RCRA for the petitioned waste at a particular facility.
This proposed action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because actions such as approval of delisting petitions under RCRA are exempted under Executive Order 13771
This proposed action does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Because this rule is of particular applicability relating to a particular facility, it is not subject to the regulatory flexibility provision of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
This proposed action does not contain any unfunded mandate as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no new enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This proposed action does not have federalism implications. It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the national government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This proposed action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175. This proposed action applies only to a particular facility on non-tribal land. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it is not economically significant as defined in Executive Order 13045 and because the EPA does not believe the environmental health or safety risks addressed by this action present a disproportionate risk to children. This proposed action's health and risk assessments using the EPA's Delisting Risk Assessment Software (DRAS), which considers health and safety risks to children, are described in section III.E above. The technical support document and the user's guide for DRAS are included in the docket.
This proposed action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 13211.
This proposed action does not involve technical standards as described by the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. The EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement
The EPA believes that this proposed action does not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority populations, low-income populations, and/or indigenous peoples. The EPA has determined that this proposed action will not have disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because the petitioned wastes do not meet the criteria that determines what constitutes a hazardous waste and there are no additional constituents or factors which could cause the waste to be hazardous. The EPA's risk assessment, as described in section III.E above, did not identify risks from management of this material in an authorized, solid waste landfill (
This proposed action is exempt from the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Recycling, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the EPA proposes to amend 40 CFR part 261 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 6905, 6912(a), 6921, 6922, 6924(y) and 6938.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) begins the process to update and strengthen its data breach rule to provide greater protections to the public. We propose to expand the Commission's definition of “breach” to include inadvertent disclosures of customer information and seek comment on adopting a harm-based trigger for breach notifications. We also propose to require carriers to notify the Commission, in addition to the Secret Service and FBI, as soon as practicable after discovery of a breach. We also propose to eliminate the mandatory waiting period before notifying customers and instead require carriers to notify customers of CPNI breaches without unreasonable delay after discovery of a breach unless requested by law enforcement. We also propose to make changes to our TRS data breach reporting rule consistent with those we propose to our CPNI breach reporting rule.
Comments are due on or before February 22, 2023, and reply comments are due on or before March 24, 2023. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before March 24, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by WC Docket No. 22-21, by any of the following methods:
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Melissa Kirkel, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-7958,
This is a summary of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 22-21, adopted on December 29, 2022 and released on January 6, 2023. The full text of this document is available at
Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated on the first page of this document. Comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS).
•
•
• Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020).
The proceeding this document initiates shall be treated as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
This document contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due March 24, 2023.
Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) way to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
1. To better protect telecommunications customers and ensure that our rules keep pace with today's challenges, we propose a number of updates to our rule addressing telecommunications carriers' breach notification duties. We seek to ensure that affected customers, the Commission, and other federal law enforcement agencies receive the information they need in a timely manner so they can mitigate and prevent harm due to the breach and take action to deter future breaches. To identify best practices and to minimize burdens, we look to other federal and state breach laws as potential models for our rules.
2. We propose to expand the Commission's definition of “breach” to include inadvertent disclosures of customer information and seek comment on adopting a harm-based trigger for breach notifications. We also propose to require carriers to notify the Commission, in addition to the Secret Service and FBI, as soon as practicable after discovery of a breach. We also propose to eliminate the mandatory waiting period before notifying customers and instead require carriers to notify customers of CPNI breaches without unreasonable delay after discovery of a breach unless requested by law enforcement. We also seek comment on whether we should adopt minimum requirements for the content of customer breach notices. We also evaluate and seek comment on the impact of the Congressional disapproval of the
3.
4. We seek comment on the impact of requiring reporting of accidental breaches on the number of reported breaches. Do commenters foresee a significant increase in the number of reported breaches? If so, how would our proposal affect reporting costs for telecommunications carriers and is that burden outweighed by the benefits to customers, who may need to take actions to protect their personal and financial information whether or not the breach was intentional? Would removing the intentionality limit potentially risk over-notification of data breaches to customers? What would the impacts of over-notification be? Would the potential benefits outweigh any potential harm? To help us assess the burden to both carriers and consumers from requiring reporting of accidental breaches, we invite commenters to provide estimates on the total number of breaches they have detected over the past few years, as well as the number of people affected by those breaches, and the severity of the compromised CPNI.
5. We propose to revise our definition to define a breach as any instance in which a person, without authorization or exceeding authorization, has gained access to, used, or disclosed CPNI. We seek comment on this proposal and other possible definitions. Should we retain the intent limitation in certain contexts? If so, what contexts and why? With only a few exceptions, the vast majority of state statutes include a provision exempting from the definition of breach a good-faith acquisition of covered data by an employee or agent of the company where such information is not used improperly or further disclosed. Should we include such an exemption in our definition of “breach” or is such a provision unnecessary or otherwise inadvisable? Is our proposed rule sufficient to capture all instances in which persons, either purposefully or inadvertently, gain access to, use, or disclose CPNI? If not, how should we revise our proposed rule to ensure that it does? We also seek comment on whether we should expand the definition of a breach to include situations where a telecommunications carrier or a third party discovers
6.
7. We seek comment on the benefits and drawbacks of adopting a “harm-based” notification trigger. How would it impact consumers? Would it benefit consumers by avoiding confusion and “notice fatigue” with respect to breaches that are unlikely to cause harm? Recognizing that it is not only distressing, but time consuming and expensive, to deal with the fallout of a data breach, we seek comment on whether a harm-based notification trigger could save consumers the time, effort, and financial difficulty of changing their passwords, purchasing fraud alerts or credit monitoring, and freezing their credit in the wake of a breach that is not reasonably likely to result in harm. Alternatively, does a harm-based notification trigger risk that consumers would be unaware of important information regarding their CPNI? We note that a harm-based trigger has a basis in data breach notification frameworks employed by states, which generally do not require covered entities to notify customers of breaches when a determination is made that the breach is unlikely to cause harm. How should state and other data breach laws influence our analysis?
8. We also seek comment on the potential impacts of adopting a harm-based trigger on telecommunications carriers. Would a harm-based trigger allow carriers to better focus their resources on data security and ameliorating the harms caused by data breaches? Or to the contrary, would a harm-based trigger require carriers to unnecessarily expend resources determining whether particular breaches are reasonably likely to cause harm instead of more efficiently providing notice?
9. If we adopt a harm-based trigger, how should telecommunications carriers and the Commission determine the likelihood of misuse or harm? Should we identify a standard or set of factors that telecommunications carriers must consider to evaluate whether no harm to customers is reasonably likely? If so, what factors should carriers consider in making their evaluation? We preliminarily believe that no single factor on its own (
10. We seek comment on whether we should clarify the definition of “misuse” or “harm.” For example, should we construe “harm” broadly to encompass not only financial, but also physical and emotional harm, including reputational damage, personal embarrassment, and loss of control over the exposure of intimate personal details? Should we require telecommunications carriers to consider whether other information about the customers that may be available combined with CPNI could result in harm when determining whether notification is required? Should any harm-based trigger apply even where the data breached is encrypted? What are the potential enforcement and compliance implications associated with this approach? Should breaches without such “harm” be reported to the Commission even if not reported to customers? Should we require the carrier to consult with federal law enforcement and/or the Commission prior to determining that there is no reasonable likelihood of harm or misuse? We seek comment on whether there are other triggers we should consider for which notice would be unnecessary, such as the number of affected consumers or the length of time exposure occurred. Are there other factors that we should consider before requiring breach notifications? Should we adopt a harm-based trigger only if we require notices of unintentional breaches, or should we evaluate the two issues independently? We also seek comment on the current notification practices in the industry. How do carriers currently make decisions regarding whether to notify customers and law enforcement of a breach?
11. We seek comment on whether any harm-based notification trigger should apply to both notifications to customers and notifications to law enforcement. While there are legitimate reasons to consider eliminating notifications to customers in those instances where a breach is not reasonably likely to result in harm—including reducing confusion, stress, financial hardship, and notice fatigue—can the same be said of notifications to law enforcement? Are there compelling reasons for carriers to continue notifying law enforcement of data breaches even where such breaches are not reasonably likely to result in consumer harm? Do the benefits of notifying law enforcement of all breaches, regardless of whether the breach is likely to result in harm, outweigh the attendant costs to carriers of providing such notice?
12. We propose that if we adopt a harm-based trigger, where a carrier is unable to make a determination regarding harm or is uncertain whether harm is likely to occur, the obligation to notify would remain. We seek comment on this proposal.
13. We also recognize that telecommunications carriers possess proprietary information other than CPNI that customers have an interest in protecting from public exposure, such as Social Security Numbers and financial records. We seek comment on the Commission's authority to establish breach-reporting obligations for this type of information under Section 222, to the extent that this information is obtained by a telecommunications carrier in its activity as a common carrier. We also seek comment on the role of the Commission in protecting such information in light of the existing role of other agencies, including the FTC and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA). If we were to require telecommunications carriers to report breaches of proprietary information other than CPNI under Section 222(a), how broadly or narrowly should we define that category of information? If we were to extend our data breach rule to cover such information, how could we minimize duplicative reporting obligations from the FTC and CISA?
14.
15. As discussed above, the Commission adopted its existing data breach rule to address concerns regarding pretexting practices. The Commission found that notifying law enforcement of CPNI breaches is consistent with the goal of protecting CPNI because it enables law enforcement to investigate the breach, “which could result in legal action against the perpetrators, thus ensuring that they do not continue to breach CPNI.” Moreover, the Commission anticipated that law enforcement investigations into how breaches occurred would enable law enforcement to advise the carrier and the Commission to take steps to prevent future breaches of that kind. However, as we have seen in the years since our data breach rule was initially adopted, not all breaches of customer data are the result of criminal pretexting, which was Commission's sole focus in 2007. Large-scale security breaches can also be the result of lax or inadequate data security practices and employee training. Thus, we tentatively conclude that notification of breaches will provide Commission staff important information about data security vulnerabilities that Commission staff can help address and remediate. We anticipate that breach notification to the Commission will also shed light on carriers' ongoing compliance with our rules. We seek comment on these tentative conclusions. How much of an incremental burden is associated with notifying the Commission of data breaches as compared to the existing data breach notification requirement for the Secret Service and FBI? Are there any other government entities to which we should require data breach reporting, such as the FTC? What would be the benefits and burdens of doing so?
16.
17. We seek comment on how we can minimize data breach reporting burdens for telecommunications carriers. The recently-passed Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (CIRCIA) requires covered entities to notify CISA of cyber security incidents and establishes an interagency Cyber Incident Reporting Council intended to streamline interagency cyber incident reporting. When implemented, CIRCIA will require covered entities to report cybersecurity incidents to CISA, except where covered entities “by law, regulation, or contract” are already required to report “substantially similar information to another Federal agency within a substantially similar timeframe,” in which case the other agency will report the incident to CISA. To the extent that a breach of CPNI is a result of a cyber incident, we seek comment on whether there are any modifications to our proposed rules that would minimize potential duplicate reporting of such breaches.
18.
19.
20.
21. At the same time, establishing a threshold may limit our and our federal partners' abilities to remediate, investigate, and deter smaller breaches. Further, as the Commission has previously found, notification of all breaches could allow the Commission and federal law enforcement to be “better positioned than individual carriers to develop expertise about the methods and motives associated with CPNI breaches.” Is this still the case, given the development of data breach law and practices since 2007? Should we adopt a threshold for reporting to federal law enforcement? If so, should the threshold be the same for the Commission as for federal law enforcement? If not, how should the threshold differ? What would be an appropriate threshold for reporting? Most states that adopt a threshold for reporting to law enforcement or government agencies require reporting at 250, 500, or 1000 individuals affected. What reporting threshold would meet the needs of law enforcement and provide adequate safeguards? What are the benefits and drawbacks of setting a threshold, particularly for small carriers? If we adopt a threshold trigger, should we require carriers to maintain a record of smaller breaches that fall below the threshold and report such small breaches to the Commission in a report at the end of the year? What are the benefits and drawbacks to such an approach? Rather than a numerical threshold, should we instead consider requiring carriers to report only intentional breaches to law enforcement, but to report all breaches, whether intentional or inadvertent, to the Commission?
22.
23. We tentatively conclude that this existing approach is out-of-step with current approaches regarding the urgency of notifying victims about breaches of their personal information. We tentatively conclude that our proposal better serves the public interest than our current rule because it increases the speed at which customers may receive the important information contained in a notice, except in those specific circumstances when law enforcement officials specifically request otherwise. We seek comment on our tentative conclusion. What are the benefits and drawbacks to such an approach? Is there any reason to maintain our current absolute bar to customer notification for a set period? Does our proposal to eliminate the seven business-day waiting period before notifying customers appropriately balance legitimate law enforcement needs with the customers' need to take action to timely protect their information after a breach? We seek comment on whether a “without unreasonable delay” notification requirement would allow carriers enough time to determine the scope and impact of a breach. Would prompt customer notification compromise a carrier's ability to discover the source of the breach, mitigate the loss of data, and ensure further data is not compromised?
24. Our proposed requirement is consistent with many existing data breach notification laws that require expedited notice but refrain from requiring a specific timeframe. For example, the GLBA requires customer notification “as soon as possible” after a determination that customer information has been misused. California law requires notification “be made in the most expedient time possible and without unreasonable delay, consistent with the legitimate needs of law enforcement.” Similarly, many state data breach statutes impose an “expeditiously as practicable” or “without unreasonable delay” standard instead of a set time limit for reporting. In addition, FTC guidance on addressing data breaches explains that “if you quickly notify people that their personal information has been compromised, they can take steps to reduce the chance that their information will be misused.” How should state and other federal law influence the approach we adopt?
25. We seek comment on whether requiring notice to customers “without unreasonable delay” after discovery of a breach provides sufficient guidance as to the required timeframe to notify customers. Should we adopt a different approach, such as a fixed number of days for notification, and if so what should we adopt? If we were to adopt a “without unreasonable delay” standard, we seek comment on whether we should provide guidance on a specific time period that would be considered “reasonable” for notification. For example, HIPAA requires notification to individuals “without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 calendar days after discovery of a breach.” The Health Breach Notification Rule also requires notification to individuals “without unreasonable delay and in no case later than 60 days after the discovery of a breach of security.” Most states that impose an outside limit on when consumers must be notified of a breach require notification to affected consumers no later than 30, 45, or 60 days after discovery of a breach. What are the benefits and drawbacks to setting a definite time limit on notification while requiring notification without unreasonable delay?
26. We also seek comment on whether the same notification deadline should be applied to all carriers. Are there unique concerns or compliance barriers for small carriers that make prompt
27. We seek comment on how best to coordinate the timing of customer notification and federal law enforcement notification. Our current rule, providing for consecutive rather than simultaneous notification of federal law enforcement and customers, was adopted at the request of federal law enforcement. Is such an approach still necessary? Are there circumstances where it would be acceptable for carriers to notify customers and law enforcement simultaneously in certain instances? Given that nearly all, if not all, state data breach statutes subject the timing of customer notification to legitimate law enforcement needs, we seek comment on whether it is necessary to provide any further guidance to help coordinate the timing of notice to customers with notice to the Commission and other federal law enforcement.
28. In addition, consistent with our current rules implementing Section 222, our proposed rules would allow a federal agency to direct a carrier to delay customer notification for an initial period of up to 30 days if such notification would interfere with a criminal investigation or national security. In circumstances when a carrier reasonably decides to consult with law enforcement, a short delay pending such consultation would likely be reasonable for purposes of a “without unreasonable delay” standard for customer notification. We seek comment on this proposal. We observe that HIPAA, the GLBA, and the Health Breach Notification Rules allow for a delay of customer notification if law enforcement determines notification to customers would “impede a criminal investigation or cause damage to national security,” but only if law enforcement officials request such a delay. Both HIPAA and the Health Breach Notification Rule allow notification delays of up to 30 days if requested by law enforcement. Similarly, GLBA allows that “customer notice may be delayed if an appropriate law enforcement agency determines that notification will interfere with a criminal investigation and provides the institution with a written request for a delay.” Likewise, most, if not all, states permit delays in notifying affected consumers for legitimate law enforcement needs. We tentatively conclude that our proposal strikes an appropriate balance between the needs of law enforcement to have time to investigate criminal activity and the needs of customers to be notified of data breaches. Do commenters agree? We also observe that these other regimes appear to allow non-federal law enforcement to request a delay, whereas the Commission's rule currently allows only federal agencies to so request. Should our rule also allow carriers to delay notification upon request of non-federal law enforcement?
29.
30. To so identify possible categories of information to require, we look to numerous state data breach statutes as well as existing federal guidance regarding data breach notices. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands have laws requiring private or governmental entities to notify individuals of breaches involving their personal information. Of these, many impose minimum content requirements on the notifications that must be transmitted to affected individuals in the wake of a data breach, including: the name and contact information for the entity reporting the breach; the date, estimated date, or estimated date range of the breach; a description of the breach incident; a description of the personally identifiable information that was used, disclosed, or accessed, or reasonably believed to have been used, disclosed, or accessed; any actions the entity is taking to remedy the situation and/or protect affected individuals; a brief list of steps that affected consumers can take to protect themselves and their information, such as contacting credit bureaus to ask that fraud alerts or credit freezes be placed on their credit reports; and contact information for the FTC and any federal agency that assists consumers with matters of identity theft. Similarly, both the HIPAA Breach Notification Rule and guidance issued by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) in response to the GLBA impose minimum content requirements on data breach notifications. In its Data Breach Response Guide, the FTC advises companies on specific information that should be included in their breach notices to individuals, including describing what the company knows about the breach (how it happened, what information was taken, how the thieves have used the information (if known), what actions the company has taken to remedy the situation, what actions the company is taking to protect individuals, how to reach the relevant contact in the organization); the steps individuals can take, given the type of information exposed, and provide relevant contact information; current information about how to recover from identity theft; information about the law enforcement agency working on the case, if the law enforcement agency agrees that would help; encouraging people who discover that their information has been misused to report it to the FTC; and describing how the company will contact consumers in the future to help victims avoid phishing scams.
31. We seek comment on adapting these models to telecommunications carriers and requiring carriers to include, at a minimum, the following information in security breach notices to customers: (1) the date of the breach; (2) a description of the customer information that was used, disclosed, or accessed; (3) information on how customers, including customers with disabilities, can contact the carrier to
32.
33. In 2013, the Commission adopted CPNI rules applicable to all forms of Telecommunications Relay Services (TRS), as well as to point-to-point video calls handled over the video relay services (VRS) network. The Commission found that “for TRS to be functionally equivalent to voice telephone services, consumers with disabilities who use TRS are entitled to have the same assurances of privacy as do consumers without disabilities for voice telephone services.” The CPNI rules for TRS include a breach notification rule that is equivalent to § 64.2011 in terms of the substantive protection provided to TRS users. The texts of the two provisions are virtually identical, except for the substitution of the term “TRS provider” for “telecommunications carrier” in § 64.5111. The only substantive difference is that under the TRS rule, after a TRS provider notifies law enforcement of a breach, it “shall file a copy of the notification with the Disability Rights Office of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at the same time as when the TRS provider notifies the customers.”
34. To maintain functional equivalency for TRS users, we propose to amend § 64.5111 so that it continues to provide equivalent privacy protection for TRS users. The amendments we propose for § 64.5111 are thus essentially the same as those proposed for users of telecommunications and interconnected VoIP services. That is, we propose: (1) to expand the Commission's definition of “breach” to include inadvertent disclosures of customer information; (2) to require TRS providers to notify the Commission, in addition to the Secret Service and FBI, as soon as practicable after discovery of a breach; and (3) to eliminate the mandatory waiting period to notify customers, instead requiring TRS providers to notify customers of CPNI breaches without unreasonable delay after discovery of a breach unless law enforcement requests a delay. Further, we seek comment on the following additional issues, raised above regarding § 64.2011, as they relate to TRS providers: (1) whether to adopt a harm-based trigger for breach notifications; (2) whether we should adopt minimum requirements for the content of customer breach notices; and (3) whether our rules should address breaches of sensitive personal information.
35. We seek comment on each of these proposals and their costs and benefits. Should updated data breach requirements for TRS providers be identical to those we adopt for providers of telecommunications and interconnected VoIP services, or are there circumstances unique to TRS providers that warrant differences in their obligations regarding data breaches? Are any additional notification requirements necessary to ensure TRS users receive functionally equivalent privacy protection? If we adopt the proposed requirement that service providers notify the Commission of breaches via a centralized portal, is there any need to retain the current requirement that TRS providers submit a copy of any breach notification to the Disability Rights Office of the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau? Finally, would TRS providers incur costs or other compliance burdens under the proposed amendments that are disproportionately greater than those incurred by providers of telecommunications and interconnected VoIP services, and if so, would the extent of such costs or burdens justify the application of different breach notification requirements to TRS?
36.
37. We tentatively conclude that, for the same reasons cited in the
38.
39. Section 222 of the Act governs telecommunications carriers in their use, disclosure, and protection of proprietary information that they obtain in the course of providing telecommunications services. Section 222(a) imposes a duty on carriers to “protect the confidentiality of proprietary information of, and relating to” customers, fellow carriers, and equipment manufacturers. Section 222(c) imposes more specific requirements on carriers as to the protection and confidentiality of CPNI. We tentatively conclude that both subsections provide us authority to adopt rules requiring telecommunications carriers and interconnected VoIP providers to address breaches of CPNI.
40. The Commission has long required carriers to report data breaches as part of their duty to protect the confidentiality of customers' information. We believe that the proposed revisions to the Commission's data breach reporting rule reinforce carriers' duty to protect the confidentiality of their customers' information. Data breach reporting requirements also reinforce our other rules addressing the protection of CPNI. For example, data breach notifications can meaningfully inform customer decisions regarding whether to give, withhold, or retract their approval to use or disclose their information. Similarly, we believe that requiring carriers to notify the Commission in the event of a data breach will better enable the Commission to identify and confront systemic network vulnerabilities and help investigate and advise carriers on how best to avoid future breaches, also helping carriers to fulfill their duty under Section 222(a) to protect the confidentiality of their customers' information. We seek comment on this analysis.
41.
42. We seek comment on whether there are other bases of authority on which we can rely to adopt the rules we propose and seek comment on today.
43. As noted above, in 2016, the Commission acted to revise its breach notification rule as part of a larger proceeding addressing privacy requirements for broadband internet access service providers (ISPs). The rules the Commission adopted in the
44. As a threshold matter, we seek comment on the effect of the Congressional disapproval of the
45. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. Specifically, we seek comment on how our proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
46.
47.
1. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission requests written public comments on this IRFA. Comments must be identified as responses to the IRFA and must be filed by the deadlines for comments provided on the first page of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Commission will send a copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, including this IRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA). In addition, the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and IRFA (or summaries thereof) will be published in the
2. The Commission first adopted a rule in 2007 requiring telecommunications carriers and interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers to notify customers and federal law enforcement of breaches of customer proprietary network information (CPNI) in the carriers' possession. In the almost decade and a half since that time, data breaches nationwide have increased in both frequency and severity in all industries. In the telecommunications industry, the public has suffered an increasing number of security breaches of customer information in recent years. Federal and state data breach laws covering other areas have evolved since 2007. Those developments combined with our specific experience suggest opportunities for improvement in our own breach notification rule. Today, we begin the process to update and strengthen our data breach rule to provide greater protections to the public.
3. The Commission adopted the data breach rule, like the rest of the privacy safeguards adopted in the
4. To better protect telecommunications customers and ensure that our rules keep pace with today's challenges, we propose a number of updates to our rule addressing telecommunications carriers' breach notification duties. We seek to ensure that affected customers, the Commission, and other federal law enforcement agencies receive the information they need in a timely manner so they can mitigate and prevent harm due to the breach and take action to deter future breaches. To identify best practices and to minimize burdens, we look to other federal and state breach laws as potential models for our rules.
5. In this document, we propose to expand the Commission's definition of “breach” to include inadvertent disclosures of customer information and seek comment on adopting a harm-based trigger for breach notifications. We also propose to require carriers to notify the Commission, in addition to the Secret Service and FBI, as soon as practicable after discovery of a breach. We also propose to eliminate the mandatory waiting period before notifying customers and instead require carriers to notify customers of CPNI breaches without unreasonable delay after discovery of a breach unless law enforcement requests a delay. We also seek comment on whether we should adopt minimum requirements for the content of customer breach notices, and we seek comment on whether our rules should address breaches of other types of sensitive personal information beyond CPNI. Finally, we propose to make changes to our TRS data breach reporting rule consistent with those we propose to our CPNI breach reporting rule.
6. The legal basis for any action that may be taken pursuant to this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is contained in Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 222, 225, 303(r), and 332 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154, 201, 202, 222, 225, 303(r), 332.
7. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and by the rule revisions on which the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking seeks comment, if adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. A “small-business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
8.
9. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2018, there were approximately 571,709 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
10. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of
11.
12. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25. In this document, we propose to expand the Commission's definition of “breach” to include inadvertent disclosures of customer information and seek comment on adopting a harm-based trigger for breach notifications. We also propose to require carriers to notify the Commission, in addition to the Secret Service and FBI, as soon as practicable after discovery of a breach. We also propose to eliminate the mandatory waiting period before notifying customers and instead require carriers to notify customers of CPNI breaches without unreasonable delay after discovery of a breach unless law enforcement requests a delay. We also seek comment on whether we should adopt minimum requirements for the content of customer breach notices, and we seek comment on whether our rules should address breaches of other types of sensitive personal information beyond CPNI. Finally, we propose to make changes to our TRS data breach reporting rule consistent with those we propose to our CPNI breach reporting rule.
26. Should the Commission decide to modify existing rules or adopt new rules to strengthen our data breach reporting rule, such action could potentially result in increased, reduced, or otherwise modified recordkeeping, reporting, or other compliance requirements for affected providers of service. We seek comment on the effect of any proposals on small entities. Entities, especially small businesses, are encouraged to quantify the costs and benefits of any reporting, recordkeeping, or compliance requirement that may be established in this proceeding.
27. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.
28. The document seeks comment on the particular impacts that the proposed rules may have on small entities. Specifically, the document seeks comment on whether there are unique concerns or compliance barriers for small carriers that make notice to customers without unreasonable delay unfeasible; if there should be different notification requirements for small carriers; if streamlining notice requirements will benefit small providers; if a centralized reporting portal would reduce compliance barriers for small providers; and if a threshold trigger would benefit small providers.
29. None.
30. Accordingly,
31.
Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Individuals with disabilities, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 617, 620, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
(a) A telecommunications carrier shall notify affected customers, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission), and other federal law enforcement of a breach of its customers' CPNI as provided in this section.
(b)(1) As soon as practicable after reasonable determination of a breach, a telecommunications carrier shall electronically notify the Commission, the United States Secret Service (USSS), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) through a central reporting facility maintained by the Commission and made available on its website.
(2) If a law enforcement or national security agency notifies the carrier that public disclosure or notice to customers would impede or compromise an ongoing or potential criminal investigation or national security, such agency may direct the carrier not to so disclose or notify for an initial period of up to 30 days. Such period may be extended by the agency as reasonably necessary in the judgment of the agency. If such direction is given, the agency shall notify the carrier when it appears that public disclosure or notice to affected customers will no longer impede or compromise a criminal investigation or national security. The agency shall provide in writing its initial direction to the carrier, any subsequent extension, and any notification that notice will no longer impede or compromise a criminal investigation or national security.
(c) Customer Notification. A telecommunications carrier shall notify affected customers of covered breaches of CPNI without unreasonable delay after discovery of the breach after notification to the Commission and law enforcement as described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Recordkeeping. All carriers shall maintain a record, electronically or in some other manner, of any breaches discovered, notifications made to the Federal Communications Commission, USSS, and the FBI pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, and notifications made to customers. The record must include, if available, dates of discovery and notification, a detailed description of the CPNI that was the subject of the breach, and the circumstances of the breach. Carriers shall retain the record for a minimum of 2 years.
(e) Definitions. As used in this section, a “breach” has occurred when a person, without authorization or exceeding authorization, has gained access to, used, or disclosed CPNI.
(a) A TRS provider shall notify affected customers, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission), and other federal law enforcement of a breach of its customers' CPNI as provided in this section.
(b)(1) As soon as practicable after reasonable determination of a breach, a TRS provider shall electronically notify the Commission, the United States Secret Service (USSS), and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) through a central reporting facility maintained by the Commission and made available on its website.
(2) If a law enforcement or national security agency notifies the TRS provider that public disclosure or notice to customers would impede or compromise an ongoing or potential criminal investigation or national security, such agency may direct the TRS provider not to so disclose or notify for an initial period of up to 30 days. Such period may be extended by the agency as reasonably necessary in the judgment of the agency. If such direction is given, the agency shall notify the TRS provider when it appears that public disclosure or notice to affected customers will no longer impede or compromise a criminal investigation or national security. The agency shall provide in writing its initial direction to the TRS provider, any subsequent extension, and any notification that notice will no longer impede or compromise a criminal investigation or national security and such writings shall be contemporaneously logged on the same reporting facility that contains records of notifications filed by TRS provider.
(c) Customer Notification. A TRS provider shall notify affected customers of covered breaches of CPNI without unreasonable delay after discovery of the breach after notification to the Commission and law enforcement as described in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Recordkeeping. All TRS provider shall maintain a record, electronically or in some other manner, of any breaches discovered, notifications made to the Federal Communications Commission, USSS, and the FBI pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section, and notifications made to customers. The record must include, if available, dates of discovery and notification, a detailed description of the CPNI that was the subject of the breach, and the circumstances of the breach. TRS providers shall retain the record for a minimum of 2 years.
(e) Definitions. As used in this section, a “breach” has occurred when a person, without authorization or exceeding authorization, has gained access to, used, or disclosed CPNI.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by February 22, 2023 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques and other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by February 22, 2023 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Rural Housing Service, Rural Business-Cooperative Service, and Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Rural Business-Cooperative Service, Rural Housing Service, and the Rural Utilities Service, agencies of the Rural Development mission area within the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), hereinafter collectively referred to as the Agency to request approval for a new information collection in support of compliance with applicable acts for federal debt credit reporting and employment verification.
Comments on this notice must be received by March 24, 2023.
Comments may be submitted by the following method:
•
Lynn Gilbert, Rural Development Innovation Center—Regulations Management Division, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-1522. Telephone: (202) 690-2682. Email
The Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) regulation (5 CFR 1320) implementing provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13) requires that interested members of the public and affected agencies have an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping activities (see 5 CFR 1320.8(d)). This notice identifies an information collection that Rural Development is submitting to OMB for a new collection.
The Agencies offer supervised credit programs to build modest housing and essential community facilities in rural areas. Section 517(d) of Title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, provides the authority for the Secretary of Agriculture to issue loan guarantees for the acquisition of new or existing dwellings and related facilities to provide decent, safe, and sanitary living conditions and other structures in rural areas.
Because the Agency extends credit through loan guarantees, it is necessary to collect information from both a potential homebuyer, lender or other entity. All information collected is vital for the Agency to determine if borrowers qualify for all assistance for which they are eligible.
The Agency loan guarantee is used to offset the lender's risk of originating loan-to-value ratio loans in rural areas and is not intended to offset risks that stem from inadequate employment, credit history, or substandard property condition. Lenders must provide the Agency with clear and accurate information so Agency staff can promptly determine if the loan qualifies for a loan guarantee.
Information requested can include financial documents such as confirmation of household income, assets and liabilities, a credit record, evidence the borrower has adequate repayment ability for the loan amount requested and if the condition and location of the property meet program guidelines. All information is necessary to confirm the borrower qualifies for all assistance for which they are eligible.
In accordance with OMB Circular A-129, Agencies must make sure that lenders and servicers participating in Federal Credit programs meet all applicable financial and programmatic requirements. To ensure these standards are met, the Agency must collect documentation that demonstrates the lender's ability to originate, underwrite, service and report loans in accordance with Agency program guidelines is collected. Information collected must support that a participating lender has a high standard of demonstrated ability to originate and service sound loans and operates in a prudent and businesslike manner.
Comments from interested parties are invited on: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information 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 the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record.
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The ABS includes all nonfarm employer businesses filing Internal Revenue Service (IRS) tax forms as individual proprietorships, partnerships, or any other type of corporation, with receipts of $1,000 or more. For the 2023 ABS, approximately 850,000 employer businesses will be sampled (reference year 2022). The large sample sized is needed to produce detailed statistics by owner demographics. Results from the large
The 2023 ABS (reference year 2022) will also sample 8,000 nonprofit organizations to collect their research activities. Historically, nonprofit organizations were in scope to the ABS, however, they were not surveyed before the 2021 ABS because the survey does not expect nonprofit organizations to be classifiable by sex, ethnicity, race, or veteran status. To include the nonprofit organizations, the sample size increased to approximately 858,000 (850,000 employer businesses + 8,000 nonprofit organizations). Of note, nonprofit organizations will only see questions relating to research activities and will not be asked any questions relating to owner demographics.
The ABS is designed to allow for incorporating new content each survey year based on topics of relevance. Each year new questions will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval.
Employer businesses will be asked questions about the sex, ethnicity, race, and veteran status for up to four persons owning the majority of rights, equity, or interest in the business (Section B of the questionnaire). Organizations sampled as nonprofits and respondents with 1-9 employees will be asked about research and development (R&D) activities, R&D costs, and R&D capital expenditures. Further, employer businesses sampled will be asked about the following topics: Goods, Services, and Business Processes; Financing; Technology and Intellectual Property and Sustainability and Climate Impact.
The ABS is primarily collected via an electronic or web-based instrument. Respondents selected for the survey receive an initial letter informing them of their requirement to complete the survey as well as instructions on accessing the survey. The 2023 ABS initial mailing is scheduled for July 2023. Responses will be due approximately 30 days from initial mailing. Respondents will also receive a due date reminder approximately one week before responses are due. The Census Bureau plans to conduct two follow-up mailings and an optional third follow-up if deemed necessary based on check-in. Nonrespondents may receive a certified mailing for the second and third follow-up mailings. The Census Bureau may also plan to conduct an email follow-up to select nonrespondents reminding them to submit their report in the electronic instrument. The Census Bureau may include a paper questionnaire during the follow-up activities to assist with collecting data from select nonrespondents. Closeout of mail operations is scheduled for December 2023 but may be extended to allow ample time to receive returned forms if necessary. Response data will be processed as they are received. Upon the close of the collection period, data processing will continue, and records will be edited, reviewed, tabulated, and disseminated.
The Annual Business Survey uses the collection year in the survey name rather than a single reference year. Therefore, the 2023 ABS covers mostly reference year 2022.
Statistics from the ABS will be used by government program officials, industry organization leaders, economic and social analysts, business entrepreneurs, and domestic and foreign researchers in academia, business, and government. Estimates produced on owner demographic data may be used to assess business assistance needs, allocate available program resources, and create a framework for planning, directing, and assessing programs that promote the activities of disadvantaged groups; to assess minority-owned businesses by industry and area and to educate industry associations, corporations, and government entities; to analyze business operations in comparison to similar firms, compute market share, and assess business growth and future prospects. Estimates produced on R&D and innovation may be used to compare R&D costs across industries, determine where R&D activity is conducted geographically, and identify the types of businesses with R&D; to contribute to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) system of national accounts; to increase investments in research and development, strengthen education, and encourage entrepreneurship; and to compare business innovation in the United States to other countries, including those in the European Union. Results of the research activities data collected from nonprofit organizations will be used to report updated, valid, and reliable estimates of U.S. nonprofit R&D in National Patterns of R&D Resources and BEA's system of national accounts.
The data collected by ABS will also be incorporated into the National Science Board's biennial report, Science and Engineering Indicators (SEI). The R&D data from the nonprofit module will be reported in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) periodic publications and for international comparisons of R&D efforts. NCSES also anticipates professional associations will use data from the nonprofit module. Likely users in this category include, but are not limited to, the Science Philanthropy Alliance, the Association of Independent Research Institutes, and the Health Research Alliance.
Additional examples of data use include:
• The Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA) to assess business assistance needs and allocate available program resources.
• Local government commissions on small and disadvantaged businesses to establish and evaluate contract procurement practices.
• Federal, state and local government agencies as a framework for planning, directing and assessing programs that promote the activities of disadvantaged groups.
• The National Women's Business Council to assess the state of women's business ownership for policymakers, researchers, and the public at large.
• Consultants and researchers to analyze long-term economic and demographic shifts, and differences in ownership and performance among geographic areas.
• Individual business owners to analyze their operations in comparison to similar firms, compute their market share, and assess their growth and future prospects.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of these expedited sunset reviews, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty orders on carbon and alloy seamless standard, line and pressure pipe (under 4
Applicable January 23, 2023.
Katherine Johnson, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4929.
On October 3, 2022, Commerce published the notice of initiation of the fourth sunset reviews of the antidumping duty orders
Commerce received complete substantive responses from the domestic interested parties on November 2, 2022, within the 30-day deadline specified in 19 CFR 351.218(d)(3).
The merchandise subject to the
All issues raised in these sunset reviews are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(e)(1)(ii)(C)(2) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(5)(ii).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application and conservation plan for an incidental take permit; extension of public comment period.
We, NMFS, announce the extension of the public comment period on our December 22, 2022, notice of receipt of application and conservation plan for an incidental take permit. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Marine Fisheries (NCDMF) has applied in due form for a permit pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). As required by the ESA, NCDMF's application includes a conservation plan designed to minimize and mitigate take of endangered or threatened species. The permit application is for the incidental take of ESA-listed sea turtles and sturgeon associated with the otherwise lawful gill net fisheries operating in the inshore waters of North Carolina. The duration of the requested permit is 10 years.
The comment period for the document published at 87 FR 78659 on December 22, 2022, is extended. The comment period was originally scheduled to close on January 23, 2023. We are extending the public comment period by 30 days to February 22, 2023. Comments previously submitted do not need to be resubmitted.
The application is available for download and review at
You may submit comments, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2022-0115, by Electronic Submission: Submit all
Celeste Stout, NMFS, Office of Protected Resources at email:
On December 22, 2022, we published a notice of receipt of application and conservation plan from NCDMF for an incidental take permit. In that notice we made the incidental take permit application and associated conservation plan available for public comment.
We received a request to extend the public comment period to a minimum of 120 days in order to provide the public with additional time to gather relevant information and adequately comment on the application and conservation plan in a meaningful and constructive manner. We considered the request and concluded that a 30-day extension should allow sufficient time for responders to submit comments without significantly delaying the completion of our review. We are therefore extending the close of the public comment period from January 23, 2023, to February 22, 2023. Comments previously submitted do not need to be resubmitted.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of hybrid conference meetings.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will meet February 6, 2023 through February 13, 2023.
The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. in the Courtyard Ballroom on Monday, February 6, 2023, and continue through Tuesday, February 7, 2023, at 1 p.m. The Council's SSC workshop will begin at 1 p.m. in the Courtyard Ballroom on Tuesday, February 7, 2023, at continue through Wednesday, February 8, 2023. The Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m. in the North/West room on Tuesday, February 7, 2023, and continue through Friday, February 10, 2023. The Council will begin at 8 a.m. in the Courtyard Ballroom on Thursday, February 9, 2023, and continue through Monday, February 13, 2023. All times listed are Pacific Time.
The meetings will be a hybrid conference. The in-person component of the meeting will be held at the Renaissance Hotel, 515 Madison St. Seattle, WA 98104, or join the meeting online through the links at
Diana Evans, Council staff; email:
The SSC agenda will include the following issues:
(1) NSRKC (Norton Sound Red King Crab) ABC (acceptable biological catch)/OFL (overfishing limit)—Set Specifications, Crab Plan Team Report;
(2) EFH (essential fish habitat) 5-year review summary report—Review EFH for Arctic FMP (fishery management plan) species;
(3) Groundfish stock prioritization proposal—Review AFSC (Alaska Fishery Science Center) prioritization proposal;
(4) Climate Change Taskforce Climate Resiliency Synthesis—Review;
(5) GOA (Gulf of Alaska) Groundfish bottom Trawl Survey Changes—Review.
The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
In addition to providing ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, the SSC functions as the Council's primary peer review panel for scientific information, as described by the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(e), and the National Standard 2 guidelines (78 FR 43066). The peer-review process is also deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act, including the OMB Peer Review Bulletin guidelines.
The SSC workshop agenda will focus on rapid ecosystem changes in the northern Bering Sea and southern Chukchi Sea. The workshop will consider how species that are currently managed under the Bering Sea Fishery Management Plans will respond to environmental changes and the potential socioeconomic and cultural impacts of those fishermen, communities and Tribes who rely on these marine resources. The last component of the workshop will focus on bridging the gaps between science and management and will include an exploration of proactive approaches for achieving management goals in a changing environment. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
The Advisory Panel agenda will include the following issues:
(1) Area 4 vessel use cap interim measures—Initial Review/Final Action;
(2) Snow Crab Rebuilding analysis—Final Action;
(3) NSRKC ABC/OFL—Set specifications, Crab Plan Team Report;
(4) AIGKC (Aleutian Island Golden King Crab) facility use caps discussion paper;
(5) EFH 5-year review summary report—Review, Ecosystem Committee Report, NOAA Coral/Sponge research program update;
(6) BSAI (Bering Sea Aleutian Islands) Pot CP (catcher processor) Monitoring Adjustments—Initial Review/Final Action;
(7) PSEIS (programmatic supplemental environmental impact statement) discussion paper—Review, Ecosystem Committee Report;
(8) Groundfish stock prioritization proposal—Review, Joint Groundfish Plan Team report;
(9) Trawl EM (electronic monitoring) Committee Report—Review;
(10) Universal data collection discussion paper on crew, lease cost collection—Review;
(11) Staff Tasking.
The Council agenda will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.
(1) B Reports (Executive Director, NMFS Management, NOAA GC, AFSC, ADF&G, USCG, USFWS, IPHC report (T), Advisory Panel, SSC report);
(2) Snow Crab Rebuilding analysis—Final Action;
(3) NSRKC ABC/OFL—Set specifications, Crab Plan Team Report;
(4) AIGKC (Aleutian Island Golden King Crab) facility use caps discussion paper;
(5) Area 4 vessel use cap interim measures—Initial Review/Final Action;
(6) EFH 5-year review summary report—Review, Ecosystem Committee Report, NOAA Coral/Sponge research program update;
(7) BSAI Pot CP Monitoring Adjustments—Initial Review/Final Action;
(8) PSEIS discussion paper—Review, Ecosystem Committee Report;
(9) Groundfish stock prioritization proposal—Review, Joint Groundfish Plan Team report;
(10) Trawl EM Committee Report—Review;
(11) Universal data collection discussion paper on crew, lease cost collection—Review;
(12) Staff Tasking, including consideration of whether to rescind the Halibut Catch Share Plan revised allocations motion from February 2022.
You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at:
If you are attending the meeting in-person, please refer to the COVID avoidance protocols on our website,
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically through the links at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meetings.
The Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold public meetings of the Council and its Executive Committee.
The meetings will be held Tuesday, February 7 through Thursday, February 9, 2023. For agenda details, see
This is an in-person meeting with a virtual option. The meeting will be held at The Hotel Washington (515 15th Street NW, Washington, DC 20004), telephone: (202) 661-2400. Webinar registration details will be available on the Council's website at
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D. Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council; telephone: (302) 526-5255. The Council's website,
The following items are on the agenda, although agenda items may be addressed out of order (changes will be noted on the Council's website when possible.)
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meetings. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c).
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid should be directed to Shelley Spedden, (302) 526-5251, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council's is convening its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) via webinar to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This webinar will be held on Wednesday, February 8, 2023, beginning at 12 p.m. Webinar registration information:
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Scientific and Statistical Committee will meet to discuss the expected SSC workplan and meeting timing for the remainder of 2023. They will provide guidance to Council staff and the project team on a Prototype Management Strategy Evaluation (pMSE) plan for Ecosystem-Based Fishery Management using a Georges Bank 10-stock operating model. Other business will be discussed as necessary.
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, at
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of the SEDAR Steering Committee meeting.
The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet to discuss the SEDAR stock assessment process and assessment schedule. See
The SEDAR Steering Committee will meet Tuesday, February 7, 2023, from 9 a.m. until 5 p.m., Eastern and from 9 a.m. until 12 p.m., Eastern on Wednesday, February 8, 2023. The established times may be adjusted as necessary to accommodate the timely completion of discussion relevant to the SEDAR process. Such adjustments may result in the meeting being extended from or completed prior to the time established by this notice.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Program Manager, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843)769-4520; email:
The SEDAR Steering Committee provides guidance and oversight of the SEDAR stock assessment program and manages assessment scheduling. The items of discussion for this meeting are as follows: SEDAR Projects Update; SEDAR Projects Schedule; SEDAR Process Review and Discussions and Other Business.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the SEDAR office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
This notice lists arbitration panel decisions under the Randolph-Sheppard Act that the Department of Education (Department) made publicly available in accessible electronic format during the fourth quarter of 2022. All decisions are available on the Department's website and by request.
James McCarthy, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 5064D, Potomac Center Plaza, Washington, DC 20202-2800. Telephone: (202) 245-6703. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
For the purpose of providing individuals who are blind with remunerative employment, enlarging their economic opportunities, and stimulating greater efforts to make themselves self-supporting, the Randolph-Sheppard Act, 20 U.S.C. 107
The Act provides for arbitration of disputes between SLAs and vendors who are blind and between SLAs and Federal agencies before three-person panels, convened by the Department, whose decisions constitute final agency action. 20 U.S.C. 107d-1. The Act also makes these decisions matters of public record and requires their publication in the
The Department publishes lists of Randolph-Sheppard Act arbitration panel decisions in the
Throughout 2022, the Department received and posted four new decisions issued by Randolph-Sheppard arbitration panels. In addition, the Department posted seven older decisions issued between March 2016 and December 2021. The following table lists these 11 decisions from most recent to oldest based on their decision dates.
These decisions and other decisions that we have already posted are searchable by key terms, are accessible under Section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act, and are available in Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Department's website at
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2023 for Office of Indian Education (OIE) Formula Grants to Local Educational Agencies, Assistance Listing Number 84.060A. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1810-0021.
For questions about the Formula Grants program, contact Crystal C. Moore, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, MS 6335, Washington, DC 20202-6335. Telephone: (202) 453-5593. Email:
For technical questions about the EASIE application and uploading documentation, contact the Partner Support Center (PSC). Telephone: 877-457-3336. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
(1) Give to Indians preferences and opportunities for training and employment in connection with the administration of the grant; and
(2) Give to Indian organizations and to Indian-owned economic enterprises, as defined in section 3 of the Indian Financing Act of 1974 (25 U.S.C. 1452(e)), preference in the award of contracts in connection with the administration of the grant.
For purposes of this requirement, an Indian is a member of any federally recognized Indian Tribe (25 U.S.C. 1452(b)).
1.
2. a.
b.
c.
d.
1.
On request to the program contact person [persons] listed under
2.
User accounts were replaced with an entity-specific link (also known as a token) to access the EASIE application in the OMB MAX Survey. Only individuals that are registered as the current Point of Contact (POC), Project Director (PD), or Authorized Official Representative (AOR) will receive the entity-specific link to access the application for EASIE Part I and II. The AOR can continue to delegate the responsibility of completing the EASIE application in the new OMB MAX Survey to other entity contacts by
(b)
(1) In EASIE Part I, applicants that are Tribes, IOs, or ICBOs must submit the appropriate “Applying in Lieu of the LEA” agreement form with their application to verify their eligibility no later than March 10, 2023 (which is the closing date of EASIE Part I). Each separate eligibility document is identified by applicant type as either Tribe Applying in Lieu of an LEA Agreement; IO Agreement; or ICBO Agreement. These are available on the EASIE Communities of Practice website (
(2) In EASIE Part I, an applicant that is the lead applicant for a consortium must use the consortium agreement form that is available on the Getting Started page in the EASIE Portal as a downloadable document and upload it to EASIE no later than March 10, 2023 (which is the closing date of EASIE Part I).
(3) In EASIE Part II, for an applicant that is an LEA or a consortium of LEAs, the EASIE application requires the electronic PDF submission of the Indian Parent Committee Approval form no later than May 12, 2023 (which is the deadline for transmittal of EASIE Part II). Applicants are encouraged to begin planning parent committee meetings early to ensure parent committee requirements are met before EASIE Part II closes. The form is available on the EASIE Communities of Practice website at
3.
Submit applications for grants under this program electronically using EASIE located in the OIE-provided portal. For information (including dates and times) about how to submit your application, please refer to
OIE will only consider an application that is compliant with deadline requirements.
Individuals with disabilities who need an accommodation or auxiliary aid in connection with the application process should contact the person listed under
4.
5. Unique Entity Identification (UEI)
a. Have a Unique Entity Identification (UEI) number and a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN);
b. Register both your UEI number and TIN with the System for Award Management (SAM), the Government's primary registrant database;
c. Provide your UEI number and TIN on your SAM application; and
d. Maintain an active SAM registration with current information while your application is under review by the Department and, if you are awarded a grant, during the project period.
You can obtain a UEI number from
If you are a corporate entity, agency, institution, or organization, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service. If you are an individual, you can obtain a TIN from the Internal Revenue Service or the Social Security Administration. If you need a new TIN, please allow 2 to 5 weeks for your TIN to become active.
The SAM registration process can take approximately 7 business days, but may take upwards of several weeks, depending on the completeness and accuracy of the data you enter in the SAM database. Thus, if you think you might want to apply for Federal financial assistance under a program administered by the Department, please allow sufficient time to obtain and register your UEI number and TIN. We strongly recommend that you register early.
If you are currently registered with SAM, you may not need to make any changes. However, please make certain that the TIN associated with your UEI number is correct. Also note that you will need to update your registration annually. This may take 3 or more business days.
Information about SAM is available at
6.
a.
EASIE is an electronic application within OMB MAX Survey that users access via an entity-specific link. It is divided into two parts—EASIE Part I and EASIE Part II.
EASIE Part I, student count, provides the appropriate data entry screens to submit verified, aggregated, Indian student count totals based on either the Indian School Equalization Program (ISEP) count or the Indian Student Eligibility Certification Form (ED 506 Form). All applicants must submit a current Indian student count for FY 2023. Applicants must use the ED 506 Form to document eligible Indian students; however, BIE schools may use either the ISEP count or the ED 506 Form count to verify their Indian student counts. Applicants must protect the privacy of all individual data collected and only report aggregated data to the Secretary.
Applicants that verify their Indian student count with the ED 506 Form must document their Indian student counts by completing the following: (1) each year, the applicant must verify there is a valid ED 506 Form for each Indian child included in the count; (2) all ED 506 Forms included in the count must be completed, signed, and dated by the parent or legal guardian, and be on file with the applicant; (3) the applicant must maintain a copy of the student enrollment roster(s) covering the same period of time indicated in the application as the count period; and (4) each Indian child included in the count must be listed on the LEA's enrollment roster(s) and in attendance for at least 1 day during the count period.
BIE schools that enter an ISEP count to verify their Indian student count
Once an Indian child is determined to be eligible to be counted for such grant award, the applicant must maintain a record of such determination and must not require a new or duplicate determination or form to be made for such child for a subsequent application for a grant under this program.
Applicants must indicate the time span for the project objectives and corresponding activities and services for AI/AN students. Applicants can choose to set objectives that remain the same for up to 4 years to facilitate data collection and enhance long-term planning.
In EASIE Part II, all applicants are required to—
(1) Select the type of program being submitted as either regular formula grant project, formula grant project consolidated with a Title I schoolwide program, or integration of services under ESEA section 6116;
(2) Select the grade levels offered by the LEA or BIE school;
(3) Identify, from a list of possible Department grant programs (
(4) Describe the professional development opportunities that will be provided as part of a comprehensive program to ensure that teachers and other school professionals who are new to the Indian community are prepared to work with Indian children, and that all teachers who will be involved in programs assisted by this grant have been properly trained to carry out such programs, as required by ESEA section 6114(b)(5);
(5) Provide information on how the State assessment data of all Indian students (not just those served) are used and how such information will be disseminated to the Indian community, Indian Parent Committee, and Indian Tribes whose children are served by the LEA. Also describe how assessment data from the previous school year (SY) were used, as required by ESEA section 6114(b)(6);
(6) Indicate when the public hearing was held for SY 2023-24, as required by ESEA section 6114(c)(3)(C);
(7) For an applicant that is an LEA, BIE school, or a consortium of LEAs or BIE schools, describe the process the applicant used to meaningfully collaborate with Indian Tribes located in the community in a timely, active, and ongoing manner in the development of the comprehensive program and the actions taken as a result of such collaboration (ESEA section 6114(b)(7));
(8) Identify specific project objectives that will further the goal of providing culturally responsive education for AIAN students to meet their academic needs and help them meet State achievement standards (ESEA section 6115(b));
(9) For an LEA that selects a schoolwide application, identify how the use of such funds in a schoolwide program will produce benefits to Indian students that would not be achieved if the funds were not used in a schoolwide program (ESEA section 6115(c)(3));
(10) Submit a program budget and justification based on the estimated grant amount that the EASIE system calculates from the Indian student count submitted in EASIE Part I. After the initial grant amounts are determined, additional funds may become available due to such circumstances as withdrawn applications or a reduction in another applicant's student count. An applicant whose award amount increases or decreases more than $5,000 must submit a revised budget prior to receiving its grant award but will not need to re-certify its application. If an applicant's award amount increases or decreases by less than $5,000, a budget update is not required. For an applicant that receives an increased award amount following submission of its original budget, the applicant must allocate the increased amount only to previously approved budget categories;
(11) As required by section 427 of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), describe the steps the applicant proposes to take to ensure equitable access to, and participation in, the project or activity to be conducted with such assistance, by addressing the special needs of students, teachers, and other program beneficiaries in order to overcome barriers to equitable participation, including barriers based on gender, race, color, national origin, disability, and age; and
(12) If needed, provide additional comments to assist OIE in the review of the application.
b.
We discourage paper applications, but if electronic submission is not possible (
If you mail your written statement to the Department, it must be postmarked no later than 2 weeks before the application deadline date of EASIE Part I. If you fax your written statement to the Department, we must receive the faxed statement no later than 2 weeks before the application deadline date of EASIE Part I. If you email the written statement, it must be sent no later than 2 weeks before the application deadline date to the person listed under
Address and mail or fax your statement to: Crystal C. Moore, U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, MS 6335 Washington, DC 20202-6335. FAX: (202) 205-0606.
Your paper application must be submitted in accordance with the mail or hand delivery instructions described in this notice.
You must mail the original and two copies of your application, on or before the application deadline dates for both EASIE Part I and Part II, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, Attention: Crystal Moore, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, MS 6335, Washington, DC 20202-6335.
You must show proof of mailing consisting of one of the following:
(1) A legibly dated U.S. Postal Service postmark.
(2) A legible mail receipt with the date of mailing stamped by the U.S. Postal Service.
(3) A dated shipping label, invoice, or receipt from a commercial carrier.
(4) Any other proof of mailing acceptable to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education.
If you mail your application through the U.S. Postal Service, we do not accept either of the following as proof of mailing:
(1) A private metered postmark.
(2) A mail receipt that is not dated by the U.S. Postal Service.
We will not consider applications postmarked after the application deadline date for EASIE Part I or Part II.
c.
If you are submitting a paper application, you (or a courier service) may deliver your paper application to the Department by hand. You must deliver the original and two copies of your application by hand, on or before the application deadline dates for both EASIE Part I and Part II, to the Department at the following address: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Indian Education, Attention: Crystal Moore, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, MS 6335, Washington, DC 20202-6335.
The program office accepts hand deliveries daily between 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Eastern Time, except Saturdays, Sundays, and Federal holidays.
(1) You must indicate on the envelope and—if not provided by the Department—in Item 11 of the SF 424 the Assistance Listing Number, including suffix letter, of this program—84.060A; and
(2) The program office will mail you a notification of receipt of your grant application. If you do not receive this notification within 15 business days from the application deadline date, you should contact the program office at (202)453-5593.
1.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of a grant in the
3.
(b) You must submit a final annual performance report (APR) using EASIE via the OMB MAX Survey entity-specific link, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary, within 120 days after the close of the grant year. Grantees will be able to access the APR via the EASIE portal link provided to registered entities prior to the system being open to users. Grantees will receive an email from the PSC identifying the date that the APR will be available to grantees and the deadline for its transmission.
4.
5.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 24, 2023.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carrie Clarady, 202-245-6347.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
NTPS is an in-depth, nationally representative survey of first through twelfth grade public and private school teachers, principals, and schools. Kindergarten teachers in schools with at least a first grade are also surveyed. NTPS utilizes core content and a series of rotating modules to allow timely collection of important education trends as well as trend analysis. Topics covered include characteristics of teachers, principals, schools, teacher training opportunities, retention, retirement, hiring, and shortages. NTPS also functions as the base-year for the longitudinal studies Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) and Principal Follow-up Survey (PFS).
A previous request (OMB #1850-0598 v.41) to conduct the NTPS 2023-24 preliminary activities, namely special district recruitment, recruitment of endorsers, and Screener Survey for the NTPS and the NTPS follow-up surveys, was approved in December 2022. This request for public comment and OMB review is for the NTPS 2023-24 Main Study final procedures and materials, including all contact materials and survey questionnaires. Public comment and OMB approval for the follow-up surveys to NTPS 2023-24—the Teacher Follow-up Survey (TFS) and the Principal Follow-up Survey (PFS)—will be requested in an additional package in winter 2023-24.
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 22, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Pamela Maimer, (202) 453-6891.
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Under the Fulbright-Hays Doctoral Dissertation Research Abroad (DDRA) and the Fulbright-Hays Faculty Research Abroad (FRA) programs, individual scholars apply through eligible institutions for an institutional grant to support the research fellowship. These institutions administer the program in cooperation with the US Department of Education (US/ED) as provided under the authority of sections 102(b)(6) and 104(e)(1) of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act of 1961, 34 CFR part 662, and the Policy Statements of the J. William Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board (FSB).
This information collection request is a revision based on a program change due to agency discretion. It is adding to the currently approved respondents and burden hours the number of respondents and burden hours for the FRA program, which has been inactive since 2010. DDRA and FRA are two closely related programs funded under the Fulbright-Hays Act and their applications are cleared under the same OMB number: 1840-0005. In FY 2011 funding for these programs was significantly reduced and we could no longer afford to fund the FRA program, so we retired it. It has only been recently that we have been able to reactivate the program and run competitions again. The application for FRA is still cleared under OMB number 1840-0005 with the DDRA application, and we are revising the information collection to include the FRA program.
This collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1894-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Big Plain Solar, 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 February 6, 2023.
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
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Oak Trail Solar, 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 February 6, 2023.
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
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Tuesday, January 31, 2023, 10:00 a.m. Eastern Time.
The EEOC building is undergoing water remediation efforts and the Agency will need to change the meeting to a virtual meeting by a live streamed videoconference, with an option for listen-only audio dial-in by telephone. The public may observe the videoconference or connect to the audio-only dial-in by following the instructions that will be posted on
The following item will be considered at the meeting:
Please telephone (202) 921-2750, or email
Ray Windmiller, Executive Officer, (202) 921-2705.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Notice; correction.
The Federal Maritime Commission published a document in the
William Cody, 202-523-5725.
In the
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than February 6, 2023.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than February 7, 2023.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Federal Trade Commission.
Proposed consent agreement; request for comment.
The consent agreement in this matter settles alleged violations of federal law prohibiting unfair or deceptive acts or practices. The attached Analysis of Proposed Consent Order to Aid Public Comment describes both the allegations in the draft complaint and the terms of the consent order—embodied in the consent agreement—that would settle these allegations.
Comments must be received on or before February 22, 2023.
Interested parties may file comments online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comment part of the
Julia Ensor (202-326-2377), Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to section 6(f) of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 2.34, 16 CFR 2.34, notice is hereby given that the above-captioned consent agreement containing a consent order to cease and desist, having been filed with and accepted, subject to final approval, by the Commission, has been placed on the public record for a period of 30 days. The following Analysis to Aid Public Comment describes the terms of the consent agreement and the allegations in the complaint. An electronic copy of the full text of the consent agreement package can be obtained at
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before February 22, 2023. Write “Instant Brands LLC; File No. 222 3140” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the
Because of heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Instant Brands LLC; File No. 222 3140” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite CC-5610 (Annex D), Washington, DC 20580.
Because your comment will be placed on the publicly accessible website at
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request, and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website at
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) has accepted, subject to final approval, an agreement containing a consent order from Instant Brands LLC (“Respondent”). The proposed consent order has been placed on the public record for 30 days for receipt of comments from interested persons. Comments received during this period will become part of the public record. After 30 days, the Commission will again review the agreement and the comments received and decide whether it should withdraw from the agreement or make final the agreement's proposed order.
This matter involves Respondent's advertising of Pyrex measuring cup sets as “Made in USA.” According to the FTC's complaint, between May 2021 and March 2022, Respondent advertised certain Pyrex measuring cup sets on Amazon.com as “Made in USA” or “American as Apple Pie,” even though, in numerous instances, those measuring cup sets were wholly imported from China. Based on the foregoing, the complaint alleges Respondent violated section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45(a).
The proposed consent order contains provisions designed to prevent Respondent from engaging in similar acts and practices in the future. Consistent with the FTC's Made in USA Labeling Rule, 16 CFR part 323, and its Enforcement Policy Statement on U.S.-Origin Claims, Part I prohibits Respondent from making U.S.-origin claims for its products unless: (1) the final assembly or processing of the product occurs in the United States, all significant processing that goes into the product occurs in the United States, and all or virtually all ingredients or components of the product are made and sourced in the United States; (2) a clear and conspicuous qualification appears immediately adjacent to the representation that accurately conveys the extent to which the product contains foreign parts, ingredients or components, and/or processing; or (3) for a claim that a product is assembled in the United States, the product is last substantially transformed in the United States, the product's principal assembly takes place in the United States, and United States assembly operations are substantial.
Part II prohibits Respondent from making any representation about the country of origin of a product or service, unless the representation is not misleading, and Respondent has a reasonable basis substantiating it. Parts III and IV are monetary provisions. Part III imposes a judgment of $129,416. Part IV includes additional monetary provisions relating to collections.
Parts V through VIII are reporting and compliance provisions. Part V requires Respondent to acknowledge receipt of the order, to provide a copy of the order to certain current and future principals, officers, directors, and employees, and to obtain an acknowledgement from each such person that they have received a copy of the order. Part VI requires Respondent to file a compliance report within one year after the order becomes final and to notify the Commission within 14 days of certain changes that would affect compliance with the order. Part VII requires Respondent to maintain certain records, including records necessary to demonstrate compliance with the order. Part VIII requires Respondent to submit additional compliance reports when requested by the Commission and to permit the Commission or its representatives to interview Respondent's personnel.
Finally, Part IX is a “sunset” provision, terminating the order after twenty (20) years, with certain exceptions.
The purpose of this analysis is to aid public comment on the proposed order. It is not intended to constitute an official interpretation of the proposed order or to modify its terms in any way.
By direction of the Commission.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “National Network of Sexually Transmitted Diseases Clinical Prevention Training Centers” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on August 22, 2022 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received two comments. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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:
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
National Network of Sexually Transmitted Diseases Clinical Prevention Training Centers (OMB No. 0920-0995, Expiration 06/30/2023)—Extension—National Center for HIV/AIDS, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Division of STD Prevention requests an Extension and three-year approval of the currently approved information collection request that comprises the NNPTC Abbreviated Health Professional Application for Training (NNPTC, abbreviated HPAT). This Extension will allow the HPAT to continue to serve as the official training application form used for training activities conducted by the Sexually Transmitted Disease (STD) Prevention Training Centers' (PTCs) grantees funded by the CDC.
PTCs are funded by CDC/Division of STD Prevention (DSTDP) to provide training and capacity-building that includes information, training, technical assistance, and technology transfer. The PTCs offer classroom and experiential training, web-based training, clinical consultation, and capacity building assistance to maintain and enhance the capacity of health care professionals to control and prevent STDs and HIV. HPAT is used to monitor and evaluate performance and reach of grantees that offer STD and HIV prevention training, training assistance, and capacity building assistance to physicians, nurses, disease intervention specialists, health educators, etc. During the previously approved three-year period, data was collected to monitor and evaluate the performance of the NNTPC grantees and the NNPTC program. This data provided the NNPTC with necessary information to improve program processes and operations in order to improve the quality of STD prevention and treatment.
The 4,500 respondents (who will engage in a total of 11,680 responses) represent an average of the number of health professionals trained by PTC grantees during 2015. The evaluation instruments collect data on the impact of trainings by the NNPTC. This data collection is necessary to assess and evaluate the performance of the grantees in delivering training and to standardize training registration processes across the PTCs. HPAT allows CDC grantees to use a single instrument when collecting demographic data from its training and capacity building participants, regarding their: (1) occupations, professions, and functional roles; (2) principal employment settings; (3) location of their work settings; and (4) programmatic and population foci of their work. The HPAT takes approximately three minutes to complete. This data collection provides CDC with information to determine whether the training grantees are reaching their target audiences in terms of provider type, the types of organizations in which participants work, the focus of their work and the population groups and geographic areas served.
The evaluation instruments are used to assess training and capacity-building outcomes (knowledge, confidence, intention to use information, actual changes made as a result of training) immediately after, and again 90 days after training events. The evaluation instruments vary based on the type of training offered and take between approximately 10 minutes to complete (for intensive multi-day trainings) to three minutes to complete (for short didactic or webinar sessions). Most information is collected electronically through a centralized learning management system (LMS) managed and operated by the NNPTC. Respondents may complete instruments online using a computer, tablet, or smartphone. In rare instances (less than 5% of courses), instruments are completed on paper at the site of the training and data are entered into the electronic system by PTC staff.
The CDC's Funding Opportunity Announcement PS 20-2004, National Network of Sexually Transmitted Diseases Clinical Prevention Training Centers (NNPTC) requires the collection of national demographic information on grantees' trainees and national evaluation outcomes.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 453 annual burden hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on March 7, 2022, to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS) (OMB Control No. 0920-0822, Exp. 03/31/2023)—Revision—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This is a revision request for the currently approved National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS, OMB# 0920-0822). Sexual violence, intimate partner violence, and stalking are significant public health issues that impact the health and well-being of women and men across the United States. An extensive field of research has demonstrated that sexual violence, intimate partner violence, and stalking can have serious long-term health consequences and significant social and public health costs. Sexual violence is a major public health problem; 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men experienced sexual violence involving physical contact during their lifetimes. Nearly 1 in 5 women and 1 in 38 men have experienced completed or attempted rape. Sexual violence starts early; 1 in 3 female and 1 in 4 male rape victims experienced it for the first time between 11-17 years old.
In 2010, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Surveillance System (NISVS) reported that approximately 6.9 million women and 5.6 million men experienced rape, physical violence and/or stalking by an intimate partner within the last year. The health care costs of sexual violence exceed $5.8 billion each year, nearly $3.9 billion of which is for direct medical and mental health care services. To address this important public health problem, CDC implemented, beginning in 2010, the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Surveillance System that produces national and state level estimates of Intimate Partner Violence, Sexual Violence and stalking on an annual basis.
This Revision request describes the redesign of the NISVS and the approach for collecting NISVS data. More specifically, this Revision request is to use the restructured methodology based on recommendations resulting from experimental studies conducted in 2018-2021 and approved by OMB 6/19/2019, 3/20/2020, and 9/2/2021. This Revision request incorporates methodological design changes to improve response rate, reduce cost, and reduce non-response bias. Additionally, survey questions and their formatting were revised to improve clarity and reduce respondent burden or to update content with more recent concerns (
NISVS is a surveillance system used to monitor the magnitude of sexual violence, stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence victimization among adults in the U.S. Data are used by the federal government, states, partner organizations, and stakeholders to inform prevention programs and policies related to sexual violence, stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence. OMB approval is requested for three years. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 17,949. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Monitoring and Reporting for the Overdose Data to Action Cooperative Agreement” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on September 7, 2022, to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) 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;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) 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,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Monitoring and Reporting for the Overdose Data to Action Cooperative Agreement (OMB Control No. 0920-1283, Exp. 01/31/2023)—Revision—National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (NCIPC), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This is a Revision request for the currently approved Monitoring and reporting for the Overdose Data to Action Cooperative Agreement (OMB Control No. 0920-1283). In 2020, a total of 91,799 drug overdose deaths occurred in the United States; the age-adjusted rate in 2020 was 31% higher than the rate in 2019. Approximately 75% of drug overdose deaths in 2020 involved an opioid, and opioid overdose deaths in 2020 were 8.5 times the number they were in 1999. In addition, opioids are nested in a broadening polysubstance crisis, largely driven by deaths co-involving opioids and stimulants, such as cocaine and methamphetamine. While the overdose epidemic worsens in scope and magnitude, it is also becoming more complex.
In response to the growing severity of the opioid overdose epidemic, the U.S. government declared the opioid overdose epidemic a Public Health Emergency (PHE) on October 26, 2017, joining at least eight states that have declared the opioid overdose epidemic a statewide emergency. The opioid overdose epidemic is one of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) top priorities. In 2017, HHS launched a five-point Opioid Strategy: (1) Access: Better Prevention, Treatment, and Recovery Services; (2) Data: Better Data on the Epidemic; (3) Pain: Better Pain Management; (4) Overdoses: Better Targeting of Overdose-Reversing Drugs; and (5) Research: Better Research on Pain and Addiction.
CDC's overdose surveillance and prevention efforts include the Overdose Data to Action (OD2A) cooperative agreement. The purpose of OD2A is to support funded jurisdictions in obtaining high quality, complete, and timelier data on opioid prescribing and overdoses involving opioids, stimulants, and polysubstance use, and to use those data to inform prevention and response efforts. The OD2A cooperative agreement, ending in August 2023, will be followed by two fundings aimed at reducing non-fatal and fatal overdoses; one will be focused on states and the other on localities. OD2A in States (OD2A-S) will focus on overdose surveillance and prevention efforts by state health departments and Washington, DC, while OD2A Limiting Overdose through Collaborative Actions in Localities (OD2A-LOCAL), will focus on overdose surveillance and prevention efforts by city and county health departments, and territories. These two cooperative agreements will allow funded jurisdictions to continue the work started in OD2A and adapt their overdose surveillance and
This is a Revision request for the currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR) to continue the collection of information from jurisdictions (which include states, Washington, DC, U.S. Territories, cities, and counties), collect new information from jurisdictions (which include states and Washington, DC), and collect new information from jurisdictions (which include U.S. Territories, cities, and counties) funded under the OD2A-LOCAL. All jurisdictions funded by the OD2A NOFOs will report activity progress and capacity and workplan updates using web-based tools.
Information collected will provide crucial data for program performance monitoring, budget tracking, and where applicable, program success. The information will also improve communication between CDC and funding recipients as well as inform technical assistance and guidance documents.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 1,343 annualized burden hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Information Collections to Advance State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial (STLT) Governmental Agency and System Performance, Capacity, and Program Delivery. This collection is used to assess situational awareness of current public health emergencies, make decisions that affect planning, response and recovery activities of subsequent emergencies, and fill CDC and HHS gaps in knowledge of programs and/or STLT governments that will strengthen surveillance, epidemiology, and laboratory science, as well as improve CDC's support and technical assistance to states and communities.
CDC must receive written comments on or before March 24, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2023-0003 by either of the following methods:
•
•
• Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket Number. CDC will post, without change, all relevant comments to
Please note: Submit all comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffery M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
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;
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,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Information Collections to Advance State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial (STLT) Governmental Agency and System Performance, Capacity, and Program Delivery—Extension—Center for State, Tribal, Local and Territorial Support (CSTLTS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The mission of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is to enhance the health and well-being of all Americans. As part of HHS, CDC conducts critical science and provides health information to people and communities to save lives and protect people from health threats. To this end, CDC and HHS seek to accomplish their mission by collaborating with partners throughout the nation and the world to monitor health, detect and investigate health problems, conduct research to enhance prevention, develop and advocate sound public health policies, implement prevention strategies, promote healthy behaviors, foster safe and healthful environments, and provide leadership and training.
CDC is requesting a three-year approval to extend a Generic clearance to collect information related to domestic public health issues and services that affect and/or involve State, Tribal, Local, and Territorial (STLT) government entities. The respondent universe is comprised of STLT governmental staff or delegates acting on behalf of a STLT agency involved in the provision of essential public health services in the United States. Delegate is defined as a governmental or non-governmental agent (agency, function, office or individual) acting for a principal or submitted by another to represent or act on their behalf. The STLT agency is represented by a STLT entity or delegate with a task to protect and/or improve the public's health.
Information will be used to: (1) assess situational awareness of current public health emergencies; (2) make decisions that affect planning, response and recovery activities of subsequent emergencies; (3) fill CDC and HHS gaps in knowledge of programs and/or STLT governments that will strengthen surveillance, epidemiology, and laboratory science; and (4) improve CDC's support and technical assistance to states and communities. CDC and HHS will conduct brief data collections, across a range of public health topics related to essential public health services.
CDC estimates up to 30 data collections with STLT governmental staff or delegates, and 10 data collections with local/county/city governmental staff or delegates will be conducted on an annual basis. Approximately 95% of these data collections will be web-based and 5% will be conducted via telephone, in-person, or focus groups.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 54,000 annual burden hours. There are no costs to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed and/or continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Message Testing for Tobacco Communication Activities (MTTCA). The primary purpose and use of information collected under MTTCA is to inform the development and
CDC must receive written comments on or before March 24, 2023.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2023-0004 by any of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7118; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
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;
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,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Message Testing for Tobacco Communication Activities (MTTCA) (OMB Control No. 0920-0910, Exp. 01/31/2024)—Revision—National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion (NCCDPH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
CDC has employed the Message Testing for Tobacco Communication Activities (MTTCA, OMB Control No. 0920-0910) clearance since 2012. The MTTCA clearance collects information about attitudes and perceptions among adults who smoke and adults who don't smoke, and is designed to pretest draft messages and materials for clarity, salience, appeal, and persuasiveness. The MTTCA clearance has been used to obtain OMB approval for a variety of message testing activities, with particular emphasis on communications supporting CDC's National Tobacco Education Campaign (NTEC) called the
Information collection modes under the MTTCA clearance that are supported include in-person and online in-depth interviews; in-person and online focus groups; and online surveys. Each project approved under the MTTCA framework is outlined in a project specific Generic Information Collection Request (GenIC) that describes its purpose and methodology. Messages developed from MTTCA data collection have been disseminated via multiple media channels including television, radio, print, out-of-home, and digital formats.
CDC requests OMB approval for a Revision to the MTTCA clearance, for three years. Requested changes are to increase the number of respondents and burden hours. These adjustments will support data collections among people who smoke and people who do not smoke, including, but not limited to, people who smoke and are members of populations that are disproportionately affected by commercial tobacco (
This Revision and requested changes are needed to support CDC's planned information collections and to accommodate additional needs that CDC may identify during the next three years. For example, the MTTCA Generic Clearance may be used to facilitate the development of tobacco-related health communications of interest for CDC's collaborative efforts with other federal partners including, but not limited to, the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Tobacco Products. The MTTCA clearance should not replace the need for additional Generic Clearance mechanisms of HHS and other federal partners that may need to test tobacco messages related to their campaigns and initiatives.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 20,039 annualized burden hours. Participation is voluntary and there are no costs to respondents other than their time.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), is requesting the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to extend approval of the Income Withholding for Support Order (IWO), with minor changes, for an additional 3 years. The current OMB approval expires September 30, 2023.
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
The IWO form instructions underwent minor edits to clarify the language and improve the respondent's ability to properly complete the IWO Form. The burden estimates changed to reflect current estimates for the annual number of respondents and responses.
Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is proposing to renew the collection of expenditure estimate forms for the tribal child support enforcement program through an optional financial reporting form, Tribal Budget and Narrative Justification Template (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) #: 0970-0548; expiration date June 30, 2023). No changes are proposed.
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the issuance of Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs) (the Authorizations) for certain medical devices related to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) public health emergency. FDA has issued the Authorizations listed in this document under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act). These Authorizations contain, among other things, conditions on the emergency use of the authorized products. The Authorizations follow the February 4, 2020, determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) that there is a public health emergency that has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad and that involves the virus that causes
These Authorizations are effective on their date of issuance.
Submit written requests for single copies of an EUA to the Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4338, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the Authorization may be sent. See the
Jennifer Ross, Office of Counterterrorism and Emerging Threats, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4332, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-8510 (this is not a toll-free number).
Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) allows FDA to strengthen the public health protections against biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents. Among other things, section 564 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product in certain situations. With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.
Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act provides that, before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist justifying the authorization based on one of the following grounds: (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 of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; (2) a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to U.S. military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of title 10 or title 50 of the U.S. Code, of attack with (A) a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or (B) an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to U.S. military forces;
Once the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist justifying an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act, FDA may authorize the emergency use of a drug, device, or biological product if the Agency concludes that the statutory criteria are satisfied. Under section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA is required to publish in the
An electronic version of this document and the full text of the Authorizations are available on the internet and can be accessed from
Having concluded that the criteria for the issuance of the following Authorizations under section 564(c) of the FD&C Act are met, FDA has authorized the emergency use of the following products for diagnosing, treating, or preventing COVID-19 subject to the terms of each Authorization. The Authorizations in their entirety, including any authorized fact sheets and other written materials, can be accessed from the FDA web page entitled “Emergency Use Authorization,” available at
FDA is hereby announcing the following Authorizations for molecular diagnostic and antigen tests for COVID-19, excluding multianalyte tests:
FDA is hereby announcing the following Authorization for a multianalyte test:
FDA is hereby announcing the following Authorization for a serology test:
In addition, on November 1, 2022, FDA issued a letter to Developers of Antigen In Vitro Diagnostics (IVDs) Authorized for Emergency Use for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) as of Today's Date (November 1, 2022) for Revisions Related to Serial (Repeat) Testing for the EUAs of Antigen IVDs.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment.
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before February 22, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Sherrette Funn,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of
Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is establishing a new system of records to be maintained by the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy within the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH/OIDP), System No. 09-90-2101 “HIV Prevention Medication Distribution Records.” The new system of records will consist of records about individual patients who participate in the Ending the HIV Epidemic—Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis Implementation and Distribution Services Program (PrEP Program), which will provide donated HIV prevention medication to patients in the United States who are at substantial risk of acquiring the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this notice is effective upon publication, subject to a 30-day period in which to comment on the routine uses, described below. Please submit any comments by February 22, 2023.
The public should submit comments on the new system of records by email to
General questions about the system of records may be submitted to Ann Abercrombie, OASH/OIDP at (202) 401-9588, or
Within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health (OASH) leads development of agency-wide public health policy recommendations and oversees core public health offices, including the Office of the Surgeon General and the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps, as well as 10 regional health offices across the nation and 10 presidential and secretarial advisory committees. The mission of the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy (OIDP) is to provide strategic leadership and management, while encouraging collaboration, coordination, and innovation among federal agencies and stakeholders to reduce the burden of infectious diseases, including the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV).
The initiative to End the HIV Epidemic in the U.S. is part of a national HIV prevention and control effort to reduce the number of new HIV infections by 75% in five years and 90% in 10 years. A key component of the initiative is expanding access to HIV prevention medication for patients who are at substantial risk of acquiring the disease. Pursuant to a donation agreement executed May 8, 2019, a drug manufacturer, Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead), donated certain HIV prevention medication (emtricitabine/tenofovir disoproxil fumarate and emtricitabine/tenofovir alafenamide tablets, collectively referred to as “Product”) to HHS for distribution through the Ending the HIV Epidemic—Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Implementation and Distribution Services Program (PrEP Program), which will be administered by OASH/OIDP subject to the terms of the donation agreement between Gilead and HHS. Under the terms of the donation agreement, Gilead will donate Product for up to 200,000 individuals each year up to end of 2030 or earlier. The PrEP Program, through a contractor engaged by OASH/OIDP, will issue an enrollment card or electronic enrollment confirmation, containing a unique identification number, to each qualified eligible patient in the United States who applies to the program (up to 200,000 individuals per year). This will enable the patient to obtain the Product at no cost, either in person or by mail, from a participating pharmacy. The contractor will operate a mail order pharmacy to acquire the Product from Gilead and dispense it to patients who elect to receive the Product by mail. The
The mail-order pharmacy and other pharmacies that wish to participate in the program must sign an agreement with HHS agreeing that they will donate their services (agreeing to be reimbursed only for wholesale acquisition cost and taxes for the Product they dispense). Participating pharmacies also sign an addendum with the claims processor acknowledging that they will receive reimbursement for wholesale acquisition cost and taxes only, with no dispensing or other fees. The list of participating pharmacies is available on this website
The claims processor (subcontractor) will have access to enrollment identification numbers and the dates the numbers are valid (not other information about patients). The contractor will collect and maintain all records needed to determine patients' initial and continued eligibility for the Program and to operate the mail-order pharmacy. The contractor will, for example, obtain twice yearly confirmations of the patient's continued eligibility from the patient and the patient's prescribing health care provider; and, if the patient elects mail order, the contractor will notify the provider to send the prescription to the mail-order pharmacy to be filled. The mail-order pharmacy will confirm the patient's shipping information and current eligibility for the program, using the patient's enrollment identification number.
HIV Prevention Medication Distribution Records, 09-90-2101.
Unclassified.
The address of the agency component responsible for the system of records is the Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy (OASH/OIDP), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 330 C St. SW—Suite L100, Washington, DC 20024. The records will be housed in a contractor-owned information technology (IT) system.
Director, Office of Infectious Disease and HIV/AIDS Policy (OASH/OIDP), Department of Health & Human Services, 330 C St. SW-Suite L100, Washington, DC 20201, (202) 795-7697.
Authorization to collect and maintain the records is provided under sections 301, 1702, and 1703 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 241, 300u-1, and 300u-2).
The records in this system of records will be used to administer the Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) Implementation and Distribution Services Program (PrEP Program, or Program), the goal of which is to distribute donated HIV prevention medication (Product) appropriately to qualifying patients in the United States who are at high risk of acquiring HIV, in order to reduce transmission of HIV. To administer the Program, OASH/OIDP, through a contractor, will use the records for these specific purposes:
• To determine if patients who apply for enrollment in the Program are eligible to receive the Product under the terms of the donation agreement between HHS and the drug manufacturer, Gilead Sciences, Inc. (Gilead);
• To enroll qualified eligible patients in the Program and issue an enrollment card or confirmation containing a unique enrollment identification number to each enrolled patient, and, thereafter, to confirm each patient's continued eligibility to remain enrolled in the Program;
• To verify the validity of enrollment identification numbers, for Product dispensing and cost reimbursement purposes.
• To reimburse participating pharmacies' wholesale acquisition cost and taxes, for the Product they dispense to patients;
• To monitor and audit the Program to prevent, detect, and address any program violations, errors, fraud, and improper distribution of benefits, to ensure the integrity of the Program; and
• To compile statistics for reports and to conduct research to evaluate the effectiveness of the Program.
The records will be about patients who apply for Product through the PrEP Program.
The records will consist of application records, enrolled patient records, and reimbursement records.
• Application records will include information needed to identify a patient and verify the patient's initial eligibility to be enrolled in the Program, to include: patient name, date of birth, location, and the last four digits of the patient's Social Security Number; name and address of prescribing practitioner and practice location; the patient's certification that the patient is not covered by a health insurance plan or policy that covers outpatient prescription drugs; and the patient's consent to information sharing between OASH/OIDP, its contractor, the Product manufacturer, and the patient's prescribing health care provider. A patient (or the patient's health care provider) can submit an application to the program through the Program's online portal or call center hub. Demographic information (race, ethnicity, gender identity, and sex assigned at birth) will be included in both application records and enrolled patient records, for statistical purposes only, to use in government analyses of the data at an aggregate level.
• Enrolled patient records will include the above application information; a unique identifier assigned to the patient by the OASH/OIDP contractor (included on the patient's enrollment card or enrollment confirmation); twice yearly confirmations of the patient's continued eligibility (
• The claims processor will use the enrollment identification number provided by a participating pharmacy to verify patient eligibility in the program and to generate a claim number used to reimburse the pharmacy's wholesale
Information in the patient's application records and enrolled patient records will be obtained directly from the patient or the patient's prescribing health care provider. The OASH/OIDP contractor will assign the unique enrollment identification number to the patient upon enrollment.
In addition to other disclosures that may be made without the patient's prior, written consent which are authorized directly in the Privacy Act at 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(1)-(b)(2) and (b)(4)-(11), HHS may disclose information about a patient from this system of records to parties outside the agency pursuant to these routine uses.
1. Records may be disclosed to agency contractors, consultants, or others who have been engaged by the agency to assist in accomplishment of an HHS function relating to the purposes of this system of records and who need to have access to the records in order to assist HHS. Note that this routine use will authorize any such disclosures which are not adequately covered by the patient's consent provided on or with the enrollment application. Any contractor will be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act.
2. Records may be disclosed to a patient's prescribing healthcare provider to verify the patient's initial, or continued, eligibility for enrollment. Note that this routine use will authorize any such disclosures which are not adequately covered by the patient's consent on or with the enrollment application.
3. Records may be disclosed to Gilead Sciences, Inc., to ensure individuals are not actively enrolling in both Gilead's Advancing Access program and HHS' Ready, Set, PrEP program simultaneously. Note that this routine use will authorize any such disclosures which are not adequately covered by the patient's consent on or with the enrollment application.
4. Information may be disclosed to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) or to a court or other tribunal in litigation or other proceedings, when the agency or any component thereof, or any employee of the agency in his or her official capacity, or any employee of the agency in his or her individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee, or the United State Government is a party to the proceedings or has an interest in such proceedings and, by careful review, HHS determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the proceedings.
5. Records may be disclosed to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to a written inquiry from the congressional office made at the written request of that individual.
6. Records may be disclosed to representatives of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) during records management inspections conducted pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
7. Records may be disclosed to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) HHS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records, (2) HHS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HHS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security, and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with HHS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
8. Records may be disclosed to another federal agency or federal entity, when HHS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the federal government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
The records will be stored on electronic media.
Records will be retrieved by the patient's unique enrollment identification number.
OASH is developing a disposition schedule for the records and plans to propose a retention period of approximately 10 years for the records. Until the schedule has been submitted to and approved by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the records will be retained indefinitely.
The records will be safeguarded in accordance with applicable laws, rules and policies, including the pertinent National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST) publications and OMB Circular A-130, Managing Information as a Strategic Resource. Records will be protected from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, physical, and technical safeguards. Safeguards will conform to the HHS Information Security and Privacy Program,
The safeguards will include protecting the facilities where records are stored or accessed with security guards, badges and cameras; limiting access to electronic databases to authorized users based on roles and the principle of least privilege and either two-factor authentication or user name and password; using a secured operating system protected by encryption, firewalls, and intrusion detection systems; using an SSL connection for secure encrypted transmissions; requiring encryption for records stored on removable media; and training personnel in Privacy Act and information security requirements. Records that are eligible for destruction will be disposed of using secure destruction methods prescribed by NIST SP 800-88.
An individual seeking access to records about him or her in this system of records must submit a written access request to the System Manager (see above “System Manager” section). The request must contain the requester's full name, address, and signature. The request should also contain the requester's contact information and sufficient identifying particulars (such as, the unique identifier from the individual's enrollment card or enrollment confirmation) to enable HHS to locate the requested records. To verify the requester's identity, the signature must be notarized or the request must include the requester's written certification that the requester is the individual who the requester claims to be and that the requester understands that the knowing and willful request for or acquisition of records pertaining to an individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense subject to a fine of up to $5,000. Requesters may also ask for
An individual seeking to amend a record about him or her in this system of records must submit a written amendment request to the System Manager (see above “System Manager” section), containing the same information required for an access request and including verification of the requester's identity in the same manner required for an access request. In addition, the request must reasonably identify the record and specify the information being contested, the corrective action sought, and the reasons for requesting the correction; and should include supporting information, showing how the record is inaccurate, incomplete, untimely, or irrelevant.
An individual who wishes to know if this system of records contains records about that individual must submit a written notification request to the System Manager (see above “System Manager” section). The request must contain the same information required for an access request and and must include verification of the requester's identity in the same manner required for an access request.
None.
None.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) is accepting applications for grants for the 4-in-1 Grant Program. This program is authorized under the Snyder Act, 25 U.S.C. 13; the Transfer Act, 42 U.S.C. 2001(a); and Title V of the Indian Health Care Improvement Act (IHCIA), at 25 U.S.C. 1653(c)-(e) (authorizing grants for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention (HP/DP) services, Immunization services, and Mental Health services), and 1660a (authorizing grants for Alcohol and Substance Abuse related services). This program is described in the Assistance Listings located at
In the late 1960s, Urban Indian community leaders began advocating at the local, state, and Federal levels to address the unmet health care needs of Urban Indians, and requested health care services and programs. These efforts resulted in an increase of preventative, medical, and behavioral health services, but there was growing recognition of challenges preventing Urban Indians in seeking health care services. To address these barriers, advocacy focused on the development of culturally appropriate activities that were unique to the social, cultural, and spiritual needs of American Indians and Alaska Natives residing in urban settings. Programs developed at that time were staffed by volunteers in storefront settings, with limited budgets, offering primary care, outreach, and referral services.
In response to efforts of the Urban Indian community leaders, Congress appropriated funds in 1966 through the IHS for a pilot urban clinic in Rapid City, South Dakota. In 1973, Congress appropriated funds to study unmet Urban Indian health needs in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The findings of this study documented cultural, economic, and access barriers to health care and led to congressional appropriations to support emerging Urban Indian clinics in several Bureau of Indian Affairs relocation cities,
The purpose of this program is to ensure the highest possible health status for Urban Indians. Funding will be used to support the 4-in-1 health program objectives. These programs are integral components of the IHS health care delivery system. Funds from this effort will ensure that comprehensive, culturally acceptable personal and public health services are available and accessible to Urban Indians.
Each awardee shall provide health care services under this award only to eligible Urban Indians living within the urban center in which the Urban Indian Organization (UIO) is situated. An “Urban Indian” eligible for services, as codified at 25 U.S.C. 1603(13), (27), and (28), includes any individual who:
1. Resides in an urban center, which is any community that has a sufficient Urban Indian population with unmet health needs to warrant assistance under the IHCIA, as determined by the Secretary, Health and Human Services (HHS), and who meets one or more of the following criteria:
a. Irrespective of whether he or she lives on or near a reservation, is a member of a Tribe, band, or other organized group of Indians, including:
i. those Tribes, bands, or groups terminated since 1940, and
ii. those recognized now or in the future by the state in which they reside, or
b. Is a descendant, in the first or second degree, of any such member described in 1.a.; or
c. Is an Eskimo, or Aleut, or other Alaska Native; or
d. Is a California Indian;
1. Is a descendant of an Indian who was residing in the State of California on June 1, 1852;
2. Holds trust interests in public domain, national forest, or Indian reservation allotments; or
3. Is listed on the plans for distribution of assets of California Rancherias and reservations under the Act of August 18, 1958 (72 Stat. 619), or is the descendant of such an individual.
e. Is considered by the Secretary of the Department of the Interior to be an Indian for any purpose; or
f. Is determined to be an Indian under regulations pertaining to Urban Indian health that are promulgated by the Secretary, HHS.
Each awardee is responsible for taking reasonable steps to confirm that the individual is eligible for IHS services as an Urban Indian.
The total funding identified for fiscal year (FY) 2023 is approximately $450,000. Individual award amounts for the first budget year are anticipated to be between $160,000 and $249,360. New applicants may apply for funding up to $200,000; current 4-in-1 health program awardees may apply for funding up to the amount approved in the last noncompeting award and must demonstrate that they have complied with previous terms and conditions of their award. The funding available for competing and subsequent continuation awards issued under this announcement is subject to the availability of appropriations and budgetary priorities of the Agency. The IHS is under no obligation to make awards that are selected for funding under this announcement.
Approximately two awards will be issued under this program announcement.
The period of performance is for 4 years.
• To be eligible for this funding opportunity, an applicant must be an Urban Indian organization, as defined by 25 U.S.C. 1603(29), that is currently administering a contract or receiving a grant pursuant to 25 U.S.C. 1653. The term “Urban Indian organization” means a nonprofit corporate body situated in an urban center, governed by an Urban Indian controlled board of directors, and providing for the maximum participation of all interested Indian groups and individuals, which body is capable of legally cooperating with other public and private entities for the purpose of performing the activities described in 25 U.S.C. 1653(a). Applicants must provide proof of nonprofit status with the application,
The Division of Grants Management (DGM) will notify any applicants deemed ineligible.
Please refer to Section IV.2 (Application and Submission Information/Subsection 2, Content and Form of Application Submission) for additional proof of applicant status documents required, such as proof of nonprofit status.
The IHS does not require cost sharing or matching funds for grants or cooperative agreements.
Applications with budget requests that exceed the highest dollar amount outlined under Section II Award Information, Estimated Funds Available, or exceed the period of performance outlined under Section II Award Information, Period of Performance, are considered not responsive and will not be reviewed. The DGM will notify the applicant.
The UIO must submit a letter of support from their organization's board of directors.
Organizations claiming nonprofit status must submit a current copy of the 501(c)(3) Certificate with the application.
The application package and detailed instructions for this announcement are available at
Please direct questions regarding the application process to
Mandatory documents for all applicants include:
• Application forms:
1. SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance.
2. SF-424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs. Each of the 4-in-1 health program areas (HP/DP, immunization, alcohol and substance abuse, and mental health), should be addressed in a separate Grant Program Function or Activity row/column of the SF-424A.
3. SF-424B, Assurances—Non-Construction Programs.
4. Project Abstract Summary form.
• Project Narrative (not to exceed 20 pages). See Section IV.2.A, Project Narrative for instructions.
• Budget Justification and Narrative (not to exceed five pages). See Section IV.2.B, Budget Narrative for instructions.
• Letter of Support from the UIO's board of directors.
• 501(c)(3) Certificate.
• Biographical sketches for all Key Personnel (not to exceed one page each).
• Contractor/Consultant proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (not to exceed one page each, if applicable).
• Disclosure of Lobbying Activities (SF-LLL), if applicant conducts reportable lobbying.
• Certification Regarding Lobbying (GG-Lobbying Form).
• Copy of current Negotiated Indirect Cost rate (IDC) agreement (required in order to receive IDC).
• Organizational Chart or written information that shows where the 4-in-1 health program areas fit into the larger organization.
• Documentation of current Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Financial Audit (if applicable).
Acceptable forms of documentation include:
1. Email confirmation from Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) that audits were submitted; or
2. Face sheets from audit reports. Applicants can find these on the FAC website at
All Federal public policies apply to IHS grants and cooperative agreements. Pursuant to 45 CFR 80.3(d), an individual shall not be deemed subjected to discrimination by reason of their exclusion from benefits limited by Federal law to individuals eligible for benefits and services from the IHS. See
Be sure to succinctly answer all questions listed under the evaluation criteria (refer to Section V.1, Evaluation Criteria) and place all responses and required information in the correct section noted below, or they will not be considered or scored. If the narrative exceeds the page limit, the application will be considered not responsive and will not be reviewed. The 20-page limit for the narrative does not include the standard forms, budget, budget justification, narrative, and/or other items. Page limits for each section within the project narrative are guidelines, not hard limits.
There are three parts to the narrative: Part 1—Program Information; Part 2—Program Planning and Evaluation; and Part 3—Organizational Capacity. See below for additional details about what must be included in the narrative.
The statement of need describes the history and urban center currently served by the applicant. The statement of need also provides the facts and evidence that support the need for each of the 4-in-1 health program areas and establishes that the UIO understands the problems and can reasonably address them.
• Describe the current service gaps, including disconnection between available services and unmet needs of Urban Indians. This should include services at the UIO and in communities where Urban Indians reside.
• Describe the need for an enhanced infrastructure to increase the capacity to implement, sustain, and improve effective health care services offered to Urban Indians and any other service gaps and problems related to the need for infrastructure development within the UIO.
State the purpose, goals, and objectives of your proposed projects. Clearly state how proposed activities address the needs detailed in the statement of need. Describe fully and clearly plans to meet each of the 4-in-1 health program areas of this funding announcement. Each objective should be addressed with a corresponding time frame. Provide a work plan for the first budget period (1 year) that details expected key activities, accomplishments, and includes responsible staff for each of the 4-in-1 health program areas.
This section of the narrative should describe efforts to collect and report project data that will support and demonstrate grant activities for each of the 4-in-1 health program areas. Awardees will be required to participate in a national evaluation of the 4-in-1 grant program. Awardees will also be required to collect and report data pertaining to activities, processes, and outcomes. Data sources should include clinical Government Performance and Results Act (GRPA) measures, National Immunization Reporting System (NIRS) data, and standardized data sets from the Uniform Data System (UDS). Data collection activities from GRPA, NIRS, and UDS should capture and document program activities conducted throughout awarded years, including activities that will contribute to relevant project impact and improvements. This section should also describe the applicant's plan to evaluate program activities, including any implemented practice-based and evidence-based prevention or treatment programs and how practicing culture correlates with an improvement in health outcomes. The evaluation plan should describe expected results and any identified metrics to support program effectiveness. Evaluation plans should incorporate questions related to outcomes and processes, including documentation of lessons learned.
• Describe in a brief narrative a plan to monitor activities under each of the 4-in-1 health program areas to demonstrate progress towards program outcomes and inform future program decisions over the 4-year project period.
• Describe proposed evaluation methods, including performance measures and other data relevant to evaluation outcomes, including intended results (
• Identify qualified professionals who will implement and administer the proposed grant activities, including progress and financial reports.
• Identify a contact person to maintain open and consistent communication with the IHS program official on any programmatic barriers to meeting the requirements of the award.
• Describe the organization's current system and ability to develop partnerships with service providers and community programs, including families and support systems of Urban Indians.
• Describe potential project partners and community resources in the urban center.
Provide a budget narrative that explains the amounts requested for each line item of the budget from the SF-424A (Budget Information for Non-Construction Programs) for the first year of the project. The applicant can submit with the budget narrative a more detailed spreadsheet than is provided by the SF-424A (the spreadsheet will not be considered part of the budget narrative). The budget narrative should specifically describe how each item will support the achievement of proposed objectives. Be very careful about showing how each item in the “Other” category is justified. Do NOT use the budget narrative to expand the project narrative.
Applications must be submitted through
If technical challenges arise and assistance is required with the application process, contact
The IHS will not acknowledge receipt of applications.
Executive Order 12372 requiring intergovernmental review is not applicable to this program.
• Pre-award costs are not allowable.
• The available funds are inclusive of direct and indirect costs.
• Only one grant may be awarded per applicant.
All applications must be submitted via
If you cannot submit an application through
If DGM approves your waiver request, you will receive a confirmation of approval email containing submission instructions. You must include a copy of the written approval with the application submitted to DGM. Applications that do not include a copy of the signed waiver from the Deputy Director of DGM will not be reviewed. The Grants Management Officer of DGM will notify the applicant via email of this decision. Applications submitted under waiver must be received by the DGM no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the Application Deadline Date. Late applications will not be accepted for processing. Applicants that do not register for both the System for Award Management (SAM) and
Please be aware of the following:
• Please search for the application package in
• If you experience technical challenges while submitting your application, please contact
• Upon contacting
• Applicants are strongly encouraged not to wait until the deadline date to begin the application process through
• Please follow the instructions on
• Applicants must comply with any page limits described in this funding announcement.
• After submitting the application, the applicant will receive an automatic acknowledgment from
Organizations that are not registered with SAM must access the SAM online registration through the SAM home page at
Your
Check your
The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006, as amended (“Transparency Act”), requires all HHS awardees to report information on sub-awards. Accordingly, all IHS awardees must notify potential first-tier sub-awardees that no entity may receive a first-tier sub-award unless the entity has provided its UEI number to the prime awardee organization. This requirement ensures the use of a universal identifier to enhance the quality of information available to the public pursuant to the Transparency Act.
Additional information on implementing the Transparency Act, including the specific requirements for SAM, are available on the DGM Grants Management, Policy Topics web page at
Possible points assigned to each section are noted in parentheses. The project narrative and budget narrative should include only the first year of activities. The project narrative should be written in a manner that is clear to outside reviewers unfamiliar with prior related activities of the applicant. It should be well organized, succinct, and contain all information necessary for reviewers to fully understand the project. Attachments requested in the criteria do not count toward the page limit for the narratives. Points will be assigned to each evaluation criteria adding up to a total of 100 possible points. Points are assigned as follows:
Applications will be reviewed and scored according to the quality of responses to the required application components in Sections A-E outlined below. In developing the required sections of this application, use the instructions provided for each section, which have been tailored to this program. The application must use the five sections listed below (Sections A-E) in developing the narratives. The applicant must place the required information in the correct section to ensure it will be properly scored. The application will be scored according to how well the applicant addresses the requirements for each section listed below. The number of points after each section heading is the maximum number of points the Objective Review Committee (ORC) may assign to that section. Although scoring weights are not assigned to individual bullets, each bullet is assessed deriving the overall section score.
1. Identify the proposed urban center and provide demographic information on the population(s) to receive services. Describe the stakeholders and resources
2. Based on the information and/or data currently available, document the need to implement, sustain, and improve health care services offered to Urban Indians.
3. Based on available data, describe the service gaps and other problems related to the needs of Urban Indians. Identify the source of the data. Documentation of need may come from a variety of qualitative and quantitative sources. Examples of data sources for the quantitative data that could be used are local epidemiologic data, such as Tribal Epidemiology Centers, or IHS Area Offices, state data from state needs assessments, and/or national data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) National Survey on Drug Use and Health, or from the National Center for Health Statistics/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Census data (American Community Survey, etc.). This list is not exhaustive. Applicants may submit other valid data, as appropriate, for the applicant's programs.
1. Describe the purpose of the proposed project, including a clear statement of goals and objectives. The project narrative is required to address each of the 4-in-1 health program areas.
a.
b.
c.
d.
2. Describe how project activities will increase the capacity of the UIO to improve access to and quality of care for Urban Indians.
3. Describe anticipated barriers and how these barriers will be addressed.
4. Describe how the proposed project will address issues of diversity for Urban Indians, including race/ethnicity, gender, culture/cultural identity, language, sexual orientation, disability, and literacy.
5. Describe how Urban Indians may receive services for each of the 4-in-1 health program areas and how they will be involved in the planning and implementation of the grant.
6. Describe how the efforts of the proposed project will be coordinated with any other related Federal grants, including the IHS, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, SAMHSA, or Health Resources and Services Administration, etc. (if applicable).
7. Provide a work plan for the first year budget period that details expected key activities, accomplishments, and includes responsible staff for each of the 4-in-1 health program areas.
Describe plans to monitor activities under each of the 4-in-1 health program areas, demonstrate progress towards program outcomes, and inform future program decisions over the 4-year project period. Applications should address the following points:
1. Describe proposed data collection efforts (performance measures and associated data) and how you will use the data to answer evaluation questions. This should include data collection method, data source, data measurement tool, identified staff for data management, and data collection timeline.
2. Identify key program partners and describe how they will participate in the implementation of the evaluation plan (
3. Describe data collection and evaluation of any proposed practice-based and/or evidence-based care programs (
4. Describe how evaluation findings will be used at the applicant level. Discuss how data collected (
5. Discuss any barriers or challenges expected for implementing the plan, collecting data (
1. Describe the management capability of the UIO and other participating organizations in administering similar projects.
2. Identify staff to maintain open and consistent communication with the IHS program official on any financial or programmatic barriers to meeting the requirements of the award.
3. Identify the department(s) and/or division(s) that will administer each of the 4-in-1 health program areas. Include a description of these department(s) and/or division(s), their functions, and their placement within the UIO and their direct link to management.
4. Discuss the UIO's experience and capacity to provide culturally appropriate and competent services to the community and specific populations of focus.
5. Describe the resources available for the proposed project (
6. Identify other organization(s) that will participate in the proposed project. Describe their roles and responsibilities and demonstrate their commitment to each of the 4-in-1 health program areas.
7. Describe how project continuity will be maintained if there is a change in the operational environment (
8. Provide a list of staff positions for the project and other key personnel, showing the role of each and their level of effort and qualifications for each of the 4-in-1 health program areas. Key personnel include the Chief Executive Officer or Executive Director, Chief Financial Officer, Medical Director, and Chief Information Officer.
9. Demonstrate successful project implementation for the level of effort budgeted for the project staff and other key staff.
10. Include position descriptions (upload as Other Attachments) for all key personnel. Position descriptions should not exceed one page each. Reviewers will not consider information past one page.
11. For individuals who are currently on staff, include a biographical sketch with their name (do not include personally identifiable information such as Social Security Number (SSN), date of birth, or place of birth) for each individual who will be listed as project staff and other key positions. Describe the experience of identified staff in each of the 4-in-1 health program areas. Upload each biographical sketch in the Other Attachments form in your
a. Personally Identifiable Information (SSN, date of birth, or place of birth);
b. Resumes; or
c. Curriculum Vitae.
1. Include a line item budget for each of the 4-in-1 health program areas for all expenditures identifying reasonable and allowable costs necessary to accomplish the goals and objectives as outlined in the project narrative for the first budget year only.
2. Provide a categorized budget for each of the 4-in-1 health program areas.
3. Applicants should ensure that the budget and budget narrative are aligned with the project narrative. The budget and budget narrative the applicant provides will be considered by reviewers in assessing the applicant's submission, along with the material in the project narrative. Questions to address include: What resources are needed to successfully carry out and manage the project? What other resources are available from the organization? Will new staff be recruited? Will outside consultants be required?
4. For any outside consultants, include the total cost broken down by activity.
5. If indirect costs are claimed, indicate and apply the current negotiated rate to the budget. Include a copy of the current negotiated IDC rate agreement in the Other Attachments form in the application Workspace.
Additional documents can be uploaded as Other Attachments in
• Work plan, logic model, and/or timeline for proposed objectives.
• Position descriptions for key staff (not to exceed one page each).
• Biographical sketch of key staff that reflects current duties (not to exceed one page each).
• Consultant or contractor proposed scope of work and letter of commitment (not to exceed one page each) (if applicable).
• Current IDC Rate Agreement.
• Organizational chart.
• Map of area identifying project location(s).
• Additional documents to support narrative (
Each application will be prescreened for eligibility and completeness as outlined in the funding announcement. Applications that meet the eligibility criteria shall be reviewed for merit by the ORC based on evaluation criteria. Incomplete applications and applications that are not responsive to the administrative thresholds (budget limit, period of performance limit) will not be referred to the ORC and will not be funded. The program office will notify the applicant of this determination.
Applicants must address all program requirements and provide all required documentation.
All applicants will receive an Executive Summary Statement from the IHS Office of Urban Indian Health Programs within 30 days of the conclusion of the ORC outlining the strengths and weaknesses of their application. The summary statement will be sent to the Authorizing Official identified on the face page (SF-424) of the application.
The Notice of Award (NoA) is the authorizing document for which funds are dispersed to the approved entities and reflects the amount of Federal funds awarded, the purpose of the grant, the terms and conditions of the award, the effective date of the award, and the budget period, and period of performance. Each entity approved for funding must have a user account in GrantSolutions in order to retrieve the NoA. Please see the Agency Contacts list in Section VII for the systems contact information.
Approved applications not funded due to lack of available funds will be held for 1 year. If funding becomes available during the course of the year, the application may be reconsidered.
Any correspondence, other than the official NoA executed by an IHS grants management official announcing to the project director that an award has been made to their organization, is not an authorization to implement their program on behalf of the IHS.
Awards issued under this announcement are subject to, and are administered in accordance with, the following regulations and policies:
A. The criteria as outlined in this program announcement.
B. Administrative Regulations for Grants:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for HHS Awards currently in effect or implemented during the period of award, other Department regulations and policies in effect at the time of award, and applicable statutory provisions. At the time of publication, this includes 45 CFR part 75, at
• Please review all HHS regulatory provisions for Termination at 45 CFR 75.372, at the time of this publication located at
C. Grants Policy:
• HHS Grants Policy Statement, Revised January 2007, at
D. Cost Principles:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Cost Principles,” located at 45 CFR part 75 subpart E, at the time of this publication located at
E. Audit Requirements:
• Uniform Administrative Requirements for HHS Awards, “Audit Requirements,” located at 45 CFR part 75 subpart F, at the time of this publication located at
F. As of August 13, 2020, 2 CFR 200 was updated to include a prohibition on certain telecommunications and video surveillance services or equipment. This prohibition is described in 2 CFR 200.216. This will also be described in the terms and conditions of every IHS grant and cooperative agreement awarded on or after August 13, 2020.
This section applies to all awardees that request reimbursement of IDC in their application budget. In accordance with HHS Grants Policy Statement, Part II-27, the IHS requires applicants to obtain a current IDC rate agreement and submit it to the DGM prior to the DGM issuing an award. The IDC rate agreement must be prepared in accordance with the applicable cost principles and guidance as provided by the cognizant agency or office. A current rate covers the applicable grant activities under the current award's budget period. If the current rate agreement is not on file with the DGM at the time of award, the IDC portion of the budget will be restricted. The restrictions remain in place until the current rate agreement is provided to the DGM.
Per 45 CFR 75.414(f) Indirect (F&A) costs,
Electing to charge a de minimis rate of 10 percent only applies to applicants that have never received an approved negotiated IDC rate from HHS or another cognizant federal agency. Applicants awaiting approval of their indirect cost proposal may request the 10 percent de minimis rate. When the applicant chooses this method, costs included in the indirect cost pool must not be charged as direct costs to the grant.
Available funds are inclusive of direct and appropriate indirect costs. Approved indirect funds are awarded as part of the award amount, and no additional funds will be provided.
Generally, IDC rates for IHS awardees are negotiated with the Division of Cost Allocation at
The awardee must submit required reports consistent with the applicable deadlines. Failure to submit required reports within the time allowed may result in suspension or termination of an active grant, withholding of additional awards for the project, or other enforcement actions, such as withholding of payments or converting to the reimbursement method of payment. Continued failure to submit required reports may result in the imposition of special award provisions and/or the non-funding or non-award of other eligible projects or activities. This requirement applies whether the delinquency is attributable to the failure of the awardee organization or the individual responsible for preparation of the reports. Per DGM policy, all reports must be submitted electronically by attaching them as a “Grant Note” in GrantSolutions. Personnel responsible for submitting reports will be required to obtain a login and password for GrantSolutions. Please use the form under the Recipient User section of
The reporting requirements for this program are noted below.
Program progress reports are required quarterly. The progress reports are due within 30 days after the reporting period ends (specific dates will be listed in the NoA Terms and Conditions). Awardees have the option to use the 4-in-1 Grant Reporting Template instead of developing their own format. The template is available at the 4-in-1 Grant web page at
The quarterly Progress Report shall demonstrate actual goals and objectives were met against established target measures, a summation of the program approach, and report on integrated cultural interventions and implementation of practice-based and/or evidence-based approaches, including a concise summary narrative of the program's impact on the Urban Indian service population. If applicable, program changes for the next reporting period may be included.
To comply with statutory requirements consistent with 25 U.S.C. 1653(a), 1655, and 1657(a), the Progress Reporting Template includes a section for the awardee to report their unmet needs, or the awardee may use their own format to report their unmet needs. This includes information gathered by the awardee to: (1) identify gaps between unmet health needs of Urban Indians and the resources available to meet such needs; and (2) make recommendations to the Secretary and Federal, state, local, and other resource agencies on methods of improving health services to meet the needs of Urban Indians.
The final end of year and fourth quarter report must be submitted within 90 days of expiration of the period of performance.
Federal Financial Reports are due 30 days after the end of each budget period, and a final report is due 90 days after the end of the period of performance. Awardees are responsible and accountable for reporting accurate information on all required reports: the Progress Reports and the Federal Financial Report.
Failure to submit timely reports may result in adverse award actions blocking access to funds.
The GPRA data period shall be the Federal fiscal year of October 1 through September 30. GPRA data shall be submitted electronically to the National Data Warehouse (NDW). All GPRA data submitted shall be verifiable and based upon criteria set forth for each GPRA performance standard. Monthly registration and workload data shall be
The UDS reporting period shall be by calendar year. The UDS reports shall be due in January for the previous calendar year. The UDS data collection activities should capture and document actions conducted throughout awarded years, including activities that will contribute to relevant project impact.
Quarterly Immunization Reports are required and submitted to the online National Immunization Reporting System (NIRS) (
This award may be subject to the Transparency Act sub-award and executive compensation reporting requirements of 2 CFR part 170.
The Transparency Act requires the OMB to establish a single searchable database, accessible to the public, with information on financial assistance awards made by Federal agencies. The Transparency Act also includes a requirement for recipients of Federal grants to report information about first-tier sub-awards and executive compensation under Federal assistance awards. The IHS has implemented a Term of Award into all IHS Standard Terms and Conditions, NoAs, and funding announcements regarding the FSRS reporting requirement. This IHS Term of Award is applicable to all IHS grant and cooperative agreements issued on or after October 1, 2010, with a $25,000 sub-award obligation threshold met for any specific reporting period.
For the full IHS Term of Award implementing this requirement and additional award applicability information, visit the DGM Grants Management website at
Should you successfully compete for an award, recipients of Federal financial assistance (FFA) from HHS must administer their programs in compliance with Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability, age, and, in some circumstances, religion, conscience, and sex (including gender identity, sexual orientation, and pregnancy). This includes ensuring programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency and persons with disabilities. The HHS Office for Civil Rights provides guidance on complying with civil rights laws enforced by HHS. Please see
• Recipients of FFA must ensure that their programs are accessible to persons with limited English proficiency. For guidance on meeting your legal obligation to take reasonable steps to ensure meaningful access to your programs or activities by limited English proficiency individuals, see
• For information on your specific legal obligations for serving qualified individuals with disabilities, including reasonable modifications and making services accessible to them, see
• HHS funded health and education programs must be administered in an environment free of sexual harassment. See
• For guidance on administering your program in compliance with applicable Federal religious nondiscrimination laws and applicable Federal conscience protection and associated anti-discrimination laws, see
The IHS is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the FAPIIS at
As required by 45 CFR part 75 Appendix XII of the Uniform Guidance, NFEs are required to disclose in FAPIIS any information about criminal, civil, and administrative proceedings, and/or affirm that there is no new information to provide. This applies to NFEs that receive Federal awards (currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts) greater than $10 million for any period of time during the period of performance of an award/project.
As required by 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance, and the HHS implementing regulations at 45 CFR part 75, the IHS must require an NFE or an applicant for a Federal award to disclose, in a timely manner, in writing to the IHS or pass-through entity all violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award.
All applicants and awardees must disclose in writing, in a timely manner, to the IHS and to the HHS Office of Inspector General all information related to violations of Federal criminal law involving fraud, bribery, or gratuity violations potentially affecting the Federal award. 45 CFR 75.113.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Inspector General, ATTN: Mandatory Grant Disclosures, Intake Coordinator, 330 Independence Avenue SW, Cohen Building, Room 5527, Washington, DC 20201, URL:
Failure to make required disclosures can result in any of the remedies described in 45 CFR 75.371 Remedies for noncompliance, including suspension or debarment (see 2 CFR part 180 and 2 CFR part 376).
1.
2.
3.
The Public Health Service strongly encourages all grant, cooperative agreement, and contract recipients to provide a smoke-free workplace and promote the non-use of all tobacco products. In addition, Public Law 103-227, the Pro-Children Act of 1994, prohibits smoking in certain facilities (or in some cases, any portion of the facility) in which regular or routine education, library, day care, health care, or early childhood development services are provided to children. This is consistent with the HHS mission to protect and advance the physical and mental health of the American people.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation.
Approval of exemption.
The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation has approved an exemption that relieves the General Services Administration from historic preservation review requirements under the National Historic Preservation Act for specified routine operations and maintenance activities.
The exemption went into effect on January 13, 2023.
Laura Lavernia, (202) 517-0225,
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (section 106) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of projects, activities, or programs they carry out, license, or assist on historic properties (undertakings) and afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment with regard to such undertakings. Historic properties are those that are listed or have been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP).
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) authorizes the ACHP to promulgate regulations for exempting undertakings “from any or all the requirements of” the NHPA. The section 106 implementing regulations, 36 CFR 800, detail the process for the approval of such exemptions.
In accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(c)(1), the ACHP may approve an exemption for an undertaking if it finds that: (i) the actions within the program or category would otherwise qualify as “undertakings” as defined in 36 CFR 800.16; (ii) the potential for effects of the undertakings within the program or category upon historic properties are foreseeable and likely to be minimal or not adverse; and (iii) exemption of the program or category is consistent with the purposes of the NHPA.
In accordance with the regulations and processes outlined in 36 CFR
GSA currently has four (4) executed Regional PAs in place among its eleven (11) regions: Southeast Sunbelt (Region 4), Rocky Mountain (Region 8), Pacific Rim (Region 9), and the National Capital (Region 11). GSA Regional Historic Preservation Officers (RHPOs) within these four regions have identified and defined, in consultation with SHPOs, THPOs, and the ACHP, routine operations and maintenance undertakings for exemption from section 106 review. Collectively, these agreements include twenty-two (22) states and apply to approximately half of GSA's historic property inventory.
Given GSA's comprehensive preservation policies, preservation personnel qualifications, widely recognized program, and decades-long track record of compliance, the ACHP recommended GSA pursue an exemption in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(c) to further streamline and strengthen the agency's nationwide approach to the ongoing management of these activities. The exemption will supplement the extant Regional PAs and inform future agreements proposed as part of the agency's continued compliance excellence efforts. GSA worked closely with ACHP staff to outline and develop the exemption, establish parameters, and define routine operations and maintenance activities (see Appendix A of the text of the exemption below).
The program alternative exempts GSA from the requirement of the section 106 review process for routine operations and maintenance activities (subpart B of the implementing regulations, as codified in 36 CFR 800). Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.14(c)(1), section 106 exemptions must meet certain criteria: (i) The actions within the program or category would otherwise qualify as “undertakings,” as defined in 800.16; (ii) The potential effects of the undertakings within the program or category upon historic properties are foreseeable and likely to be minimal or not adverse; and (iii) exemption of the program or category is consistent with the purposes of the NHPA.
The exemption applies to routine operations and maintenance activities implemented in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties (Secretary's Standards) and conducted on historic property under the custody and control of GSA. The ACHP has determined that such operations and maintenance activities meet the definition of undertakings since they are carried out by a federal agency, GSA. This definition is tied to federal involvement in an activity or project, by either permitting, funding, or licensing. Additionally, routine operations and maintenance activities have the potential to impact the physical environment and therefore have the potential to cause effects.
The effect of activities within the scope of the exemption are foreseeable and minimal or not adverse. The exemption defines routine operations and maintenance for GSA properties and, specifically for the purpose of section 106 compliance, to historic properties listed or determined eligible for listing in the NRHP. The ongoing routine operations and maintenance of historic properties contributes to their preservation.
The exemption abides by the definition of “Preservation” as a specific treatment—one of four approaches for historic properties—established by the Secretary's Standards. As indicated in 36 CFR 800.5, preservation treatments in accordance with the Secretary's Standards will not lead to adverse effects. Routine operations and maintenance activities exempted from section 106 review are specified in Appendix A of the exemption. These activities were compiled from the lists of activities excluded from section 106 review in GSA Regional PAs, and from the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation & Guidelines for Preserving Historic Buildings. The inherent nature of these activities, combined with the professional qualifications of those performing and providing oversight for the conduct of such activities, is critical to ensuring that they are carried out in accordance with the Standards and Guidelines.
The NHPA, and section 106 regulations 36 CFR 800.2(a)(1), acknowledge that the care and custody of historic properties require specialized knowledge, training, and experience to adequately perform work that meets the Secretary's Standards. The Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards (Qualification Standards) codify the minimum requirements that must be met for professional work concerning historic properties, and their application by qualified and highly experienced professionals will ensure the credibility of historic preservation within the larger public arena at the federal, state, and local levels, as well as in the private sector.
When an agency establishes and maintains a comprehensive nationwide stewardship program for the preservation of its historic properties and provides guidance to and oversight of those who manage work in them, routine operations and maintenance activities are carried out in a manner that eliminates or minimizes the potential for adverse effects, thereby meeting the “minimal or not adverse” effect standard for exemptions. To avoid adverse effects as defined in the section 106 regulations (36 CFR 800.5), the exemption ensures that the historic preservation staffing infrastructure at GSA, as set forth as policy in the GSA Order Procedures for Historic Properties (currently ADM 1020.3) and subsequent revisions (ADM) provides oversight by personnel exceeding the Qualification Standards. GSA's staffing infrastructure provides continual monitoring and management of historic properties and a system of checks and balances for routine operations and maintenance ensuring that work complies with the Secretary's Standards.
GSA's Federal Preservation Officer (FPO) leads GSA's agency-wide stewardship program, guides regional offices and the national headquarters, and acts as the Agency Official for purposes of section 106 compliance, among other duties. Along with the FPO, compliance and oversight of historic properties is managed by GSA Center for Historic Buildings staff and RHPOs in each of GSA's regions nationwide. The RHPO directs GSA's historic preservation program at the regional level and is responsible for coordinating day-to-day compliance with preservation laws, regulations,
The exemption is consistent with the intent of the NHPA. With respect to federal property, the NHPA fosters a spirit of stewardship for federal agency historic preservation programs administered by professionals who meet established Qualification Standards. The ACHP has determined the exemption will serve to reinforce the critical role of GSA's preservation staff expertise and may encourage other federal agencies to increase their staffing, professional qualifications, and internal preservation policies.
In accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(c)(2), public participation regarding exemptions must be arranged on a level commensurate with the subject and scope of the exemption. Plans for public participation (consultation) for a proposed exemption are arranged by the proponent of the exemption. The ACHP introduced the exemption to its Federal Agency Programs Committee on June 28, 2022, and GSA briefed the ACHP at its Business Meeting on June 29, 2022. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(c)(3), GSA held two consultation meetings with SHPOs and other key stakeholders on July 28, 2022, and August 2, 2022. On August 9, 2022, GSA hosted a Tribal Listening Session with Tribal representatives, THPOs, and section 106 Coordinators. In total, 36 SHPOs, 32 THPOs, 3 Tribal representatives, the National Trust for Historic Preservation (NTHP) and the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers (NCSHPO) participated in consultation.
On October 14, 2022, GSA submitted the final proposed exemption to the ACHP. Per the regulations, ACHP must approve or reject the proposed exemption within thirty (30) days of receipt, provided the ACHP does not request additional information from the proponent. GSA's proposal transmittal letter extended the regulatory timeframe to ninety (90) days, allowing for the ACHP to conduct Tribal Consultation.
Per 36 CFR 800.14(c), the ACHP drafted a Tribal Consultation Plan for the exemption and, with GSA, conducted a Tribal consultation meeting with Indian Tribes and Tribal and Native Hawaiian Organization (NHO) leaders that included thirty-six (36) participants, on November 7, 2022. On November 17, 2022, the ACHP published information regarding the exemption for public comment on its website. ACHP emailed notes from the Tribal consultation meeting along with a summary document of how consulting party comments were considered to Tribal and NHO leaders and representatives December 22, 2022.
The ACHP membership voted to approve the final exemption on January 13, 2023.
In response to its consultation on the proposed exemption, GSA received 215 separate comments from 16 SHPOs, the NTHP and NCSHPO, and 3 from THPOs, Indian Tribes and Tribal and NHO representatives during early coordination. The exemption received widespread support from consulting parties and respondents contributed much in terms of suggesting refinements and in seeking clarification on details and aspects of the exemption, as well as the list of routine operations and maintenance activities defined in Appendix A. GSA considered all comments and revised the exemption accordingly. The final exemption and its Appendix A reflect a meaningful and productive consultation process, and a comprehensive exemption improved by the significant contributions of consulting parties. Summaries of responses to common and key comments are provided below.
An “Unanticipated Discoveries” clause has been added to the exemption text (Stipulation III). This clause addresses ground disturbing activities: archaeological concerns, human remains, and sacred objects; and previously unidentified historic properties and character-defining features discovered during the implementation of an exempted activity. Stipulation III sets forth a procedure for GSA to initiate consultation with the appropriate parties, as necessary.
GSA clarified in Stipulation II “Excluded from Exemption” that the exemption proposed by GSA does not apply to property on Tribal lands and does not involve any property under the custody and control of GSA identified as having religious or cultural significance to an Indian Tribe or NHO.
Several questions were posed regarding GSA's associating routine operations and maintenance activities at historic properties to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Preservation (Preservation Standards). The Preservation Standards define
Comments related to activities outlined in Appendix A of the exemption suggested GSA specifically cite the relevant National Park Service Preservation Brief (NPS Brief) or qualify that the exempted activity will adhere to the Preservation Standards. The following comprehensive statement is provided in the introduction to Appendix A: “Routine operations and maintenance activities in historic properties under the custody and
Several comments expressed concern regarding the inclusion of mothballing as an exempted activity; specifically, regarding the potential for a property to remain indefinitely mothballed as a result of exempting this activity. GSA will adhere to the intent, protocols and recommendations specified in NPS Brief 31, “Mothballing Historic Buildings,” which are temporary measures meant to be applied for a period up to ten (10) years. Mothballing is considered a preservation activity as it protects a structure until a use can be identified. Preservation as a treatment includes preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property. More specifically, mothballing is described in Standard 1 of the Preservation Standards as “Where a treatment and use have not been identified, a property will be protected and, if necessary, stabilized until additional work may be undertaken.” If mothballing of a specific property is anticipated to extend beyond a period of ten (10) years, standard section 106 review will be initiated by the GSA RHPO.
Several consulting parties requested consideration of an annual reporting requirement. The ACHP staff confirmed that reporting is inconsistent with the intent of an exemption as a program alternative, which exempts activities that have minimal or no effects to historic properties. GSA will report to the ACHP on the exemption's use, application, and impact on streamlining the effectiveness and efficiency of section 106 compliance in accordance with Executive Order 13287 and its section 3 triennial Federal Property Stewardship Report requirement.
Several SHPOs inquired as to how GSA determines which properties are eligible and whether or not the activity to be performed would affect the character-defining features or spaces that contribute to the significance of the property. GSA has an effective and nationally recognized identification, evaluation, and documentation program. GSA section 110 stewardship policy practice is to begin assessing properties 40 years post construction to ensure all considerations have been given and determined in advance of the property reaching 50 years of age. GSA's determinations of eligibility (DOEs) are reviewed by and concurred upon by SHPOs. GSA's RHPOs, all exceeding the Qualification Standards, possess the knowledge, skill, and expertise necessary to responsibly and accurately determine whether or not an activity will affect character-defining features and if section 106 review must be initiated. GSA internal planning documents are prepared in accordance with NHPA section 110 and, as confirmed by the ACHP staff, do not require concurrence. GSA has further addressed this comment by clarifying in Stipulation II “Excluded from Exemption” that the exemption would not impact or alter GSA established section 110 responsibilities or practice.
Clarification was requested as to the applicability of the exemption and specific maintenance activities to murals and other fine arts features integral to many GSA historic properties. GSA clarified in section II “Excluded from Exemption” that maintenance, preservation, and conservation of fine arts works at historic properties are governed by the Policies & Procedures of GSA's Fine Arts Program (
The applicability of the exemption to NHLs was questioned by several consulting parties. GSA recognizes the special importance of NHLs and exercises particular care in the operations and maintenance of these highly significant properties. GSA also recognizes that the Secretary's Standards do not differentiate between preservation of NHLs and preservation of other historic properties. The exemption will apply to all GSA properties determined eligible for or listed in the NRHP, regardless of their level of significance. In the event that an activity proposed exceeds the definition or scope set forth in the exemption, the RHPO will initiate section 106 consultation and, as is standard practice for GSA, invite the NPS to participate as a consulting party.
Based on comments requesting clarification of terms, the exemption “Definitions” section has been modified to reference definitions in 36 CFR 800, and amended to add definitions for additional, specific terms, as requested.
The full text of the exemption is reproduced below:
Except as noted in section II, and so long as GSA maintains its national preservation program and personnel infrastructure, as specified in GSA policy
The following items do not constitute exempted categories and are excluded from the exemption:
(a) The exemption does not affect GSA's section 110 responsibilities, as set forth in the NHPA. GSA will maintain its existing identification, evaluation, and documentation efforts in accordance with the ADM.
(b) The exemption does not apply to activities performed according to the
(c) Exempted activities must avoid extant, documented archaeological resources. Archaeological sites must be preserved and maintained in place. If avoidance is not feasible or possible, the RHPO will initiate section 106 Review under Subpart B of 36 CFR 800.
(d) Maintenance, preservation, and conservation of fine arts works at historic properties are governed by GSA's
(e) This exemption does not apply on Tribal lands and does not involve any property under the custody and control of GSA identified as having religious and/or cultural significance to an Indian Tribe or NHO.
(f) As per 36 CFR 800.14(c)(6), if an RHPO determines that there are special circumstances which warrant section 106 review for an activity otherwise exempted, the RHPO will initiate section 106 Review under Subpart B of 36 CFR 800.
Ground disturbing activities may have the potential to affect historic properties through unanticipated discoveries. Where previously undetected historic or cultural resources are discovered during implementation of exempted activities, GSA will proceed with one of the following:
a. If a GSA Regional PA is in place to govern the unanticipated discovery, GSA shall follow the procedures outlined therein.
b. For GSA regions without a Regional PA, if an unanticipated discovery is made during the implementation of an exempted activity, at any stage, work will stop immediately. The RHPO shall be notified within twenty-four (24) hours and the RHPO shall inform the corresponding SHPO/THPO, any Indian Tribe or NHO that may attach religious and/or cultural significance to the property, and the ACHP of the discovery within forty-eight (48) hours. Unanticipated discoveries will be handled as outlined in 36 CFR 800.13(b).
If human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony are discovered at any time during the implementation of any exempted activity, work shall stop immediately within thirty (30) meters of the location of the discovery, and any human remains encountered during the undertaking will be given sensitive and respectful treatment. GSA shall implement one of the above provisions set forth for unanticipated discoveries. Human remains will be provided with security until they are removed. The remains will be carefully covered and secured to protect them from any degradation, inappropriate observation, or inappropriate photography. GSA shall follow the applicable provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 25 U.S.C. 3001).
If a property discovered has not been previously included in or determined eligible for the NHRP and/or provisions for its treatment are not contained in an approved archaeological treatment plan, GSA may assume that the property is eligible for inclusion in the NRHP for purposes of this exemption.
The terms of the exemption may be amended by the ACHP membership in a manner consistent with 36 CFR 800.14(c)(1). The ACHP shall first consult with GSA and other parties, as appropriate. The ACHP will publish notice in the
The ACHP may terminate the exemption at any time in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(c)(7).
The exemption adopts definitions in 36 CFR 800.16. In addition, the following additional definitions shall apply to this exemption:
(a) “Character-defining features” means the visual and physical aspects that comprise the appearance and individually and collectively contribute to the significance of the historic property.
(b) “In-kind” means the repair or replacement of a character-defining feature or item with one that meets its design specifications in the same way, producing the same appearance. Repair or replacement with the same material or new material that matches the historic material in type, design, dimension, texture, detailing, and appearance.
(c) “Maintenance” means the “activities directed toward keeping fixed assets in an acceptable condition. Activities include preventative maintenance; replacement of parts, systems, or components; and other activities needed to preserve or maintain the asset. Maintenance and repairs, as distinguished from capital improvements, exclude activities directed towards expanding the capacity of an asset or otherwise upgrading it.” (
(d) “Preservation” means the act or process of applying measures necessary to sustain the existing form, integrity, and materials of an historic property. Work, including preliminary measures to protect and stabilize the property, generally focuses upon the ongoing maintenance and repair of historic materials and features rather than extensive replacement and new construction. New exterior additions are not within the scope of this treatment
The following are activities exempted from section 106 review as part of GSA's section 106 Routine Operations and Maintenance Exemption approved by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) on January 13, 2023, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.14(c).
The activities are culled from appendices of activities excluded from section 106 review in GSA Regional Programmatic Agreements, from preservation activities recognized in the
Routine operations and maintenance activities in historic properties under the custody and control of GSA shall follow the
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of official filing.
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) is scheduled to file plats of survey 30 calendar days from the date of this publication in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming. These surveys, which were executed at the request of the U.S. Forest Service and the BLM are necessary for the management of these lands.
Protests must be received by the BLM prior to the scheduled date of official filing by February 22, 2023.
You may submit written protests to the Wyoming State Director at WY926, Bureau of Land Management, 5353 Yellowstone Road, Cheyenne, Wyoming 82009.
Sonja Sparks, BLM Wyoming Chief Cadastral Surveyor, by telephone at 307 775-6225 or by email at
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the BLM Wyoming State Office, Cheyenne, Wyoming.
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified in this notice must file a written notice of protest within 30 calendar days from the date of this publication with the Wyoming State Director at the above address. Any notice of protest received after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the State Director within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed. If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your protest, you should be aware that your entire protest—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Copies of the preceding described plat and field notes are available to the public at a cost of $4.20 per plat and $0.15 per page of field notes. Requests can be made to
National Park Service, Interior.
Notification of boundary revision.
The boundary of Petroglyph National Monument is modified to exclude four parcels of land from the monument boundary which contain private homes and property, totaling 8.37 acres and to include two parcels of land containing 3.78 acres, located in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. Upon publication of the Notice, the National Park Service will accept, by donation, a perpetual easement (3.47 acres) from Albuquerque Public Schools (APS). The other tract to be included in the boundary (0.31 acres) is already federally owned.
The effective date of this boundary revision is January 23, 2023.
The map depicting this boundary revision is available for inspection at the following locations: National Park Service, Interior Regions 6, 7, & 8, Land Resources Program Center, 12795 West Alameda Parkway, Denver, Colorado 80228 and National Park Service, Department of the Interior, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240.
Regional Realty Officer William Morgan, National Park Service, Interior Regions 6, 7, & 8 Land Resources Program Center, 12795 West Alameda Parkway, Denver, Colorado 80228, telephone (303) 969-2610,
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to Public Law 101-313, the boundary of Petroglyph National Monument is modified to exclude four (4) tracts totaling 8.37 acres of land and expanded to include two tracts (2) totaling approximately 3.78 acres of adjacent unimproved land. The boundary revision is depicted on Map No. 354/179645, dated September 2022.
Public Law 101-313 section 102(c) authorizes minor revisions of the boundary, after completion of the general management plan for the monument, by publishing a revised map or other boundary description in the
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 31) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting a joint motion to terminate the investigation as to the remaining respondents based on a consent order stipulation. The Commission has entered a consent order against respondents Boart Longyear Group Ltd.; Boart Longyear Limited; Boart Longyear Company; Boart Longyear Manufacturing and Distribution Inc.; Longyear TM, Inc.; Globaltech Corporation Pty Ltd.; Globaltech Pty Ltd.; and International Directional Services LLC (collectively, “Remaining Respondents”). The investigation is terminated in its entirety.
Cathy Chen, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone 202-205-2392. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on April 5, 2022, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Australian Mud Company Pty Ltd. of Australia and Reflex USA LLC of Chandler, AZ (collectively, “Complainants”). 87 FR 19704 (Apr. 5, 2022). The complaint, as
On December 14, 2022, the Commission determined not to review an ID (Order No. 28) granting a joint motion to terminate respondent Granite Construction Incorporated from the investigation based on withdrawal of the complaint.
On November 30, 2022, Complainants and the Remaining Respondents jointly moved to terminate and stay the investigation based on a consent order stipulation. The joint motion included a consent order stipulation, a proposed consent order, and a settlement agreement. OUII filed a response supporting the joint motion.
On December 19, 2022, the ALJ issued an ID (Order No. 31) granting the joint motion to terminate the investigation with respect to the Remaining Respondents based on the entry of a consent order. The ID found that the consent order stipulation and proposed consent order conform with Commission Rule 210.21(c)(3) and (4) (19 CFR 210.21(c)(3) and (4)). The ID also found that termination of the investigation with respect to the Remaining Respondents would not be contrary to the public interest. No petitions for review were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID and to issue a consent order against respondents Boart Longyear Group Ltd.; Boart Longyear Limited; Boart Longyear Company; Boart Longyear Manufacturing and Distribution Inc.; Longyear TM, Inc.; Globaltech Corporation Pty Ltd.; Globaltech Pty Ltd.; and International Directional Services LLC. The investigation is terminated in its entirety.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on January 17, 2023.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR part 210.
By order of the Commission.
Section 7A of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C. 18a, as added by Title II of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, requires persons contemplating certain mergers or acquisitions to give the Federal Trade Commission and the Assistant Attorney General advance notice and to wait designated periods before consummation of such plans. Section 7A(b)(2) of the Act permits the agencies, in individual cases, to terminate this waiting period prior to its expiration and requires that notice of this action be published in the
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 24, 2023. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 24, 2023.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on December 1, 2022, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., 1440 Olympic Drive, Buildings 1-5 & 7-14, Athens, Georgia 30601-1645, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances for the internal use intermediates or for sale to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before February 22, 2023. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before February 22, 2023.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 6, 2022, Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2898 Manufacturers Road, Greensboro, North Carolina 27406-4600, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import the above listed controlled substance in finished dosage from for commercial distribution to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Siegfried USA, LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 24, 2023. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 24, 2023.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 8, 2022, Siegfried USA, LLC, 33 Industrial Park Road, Pennsville, New Jersey 08070-3244, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances in bulk for sale to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Maridose LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 24, 2023. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 24, 2023.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 30, 2022, Maridose LLC, 74 Orion Street, Brunswick, Maine 04011, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances to supply to the Drug Enforcement Administration-registered researchers for their approval studies. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc. has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before February 22, 2023. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before February 22, 2023.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 1, 2022, Janssen Pharmaceuticals Inc., 1440 Olympic Drive, Buildings 1-5 & 7-14, Athens, Georgia 30601-1645, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import intermediates classified under Tapentadol (9780) and Thebaine (9333) for further manufacturing to the controlled substances Tapentadol and Buprenorpine, respectively, prior to distribution to customers. The company plans to import Poppy Straw Concentrate (9670) to bulk manufacture other controlled substances. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Medi-Physics Inc. dba GE Healthcare has applied to be registered as an importer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplementary Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before February 22, 2023. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before February 22, 2023.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on December 14, 2022, Medi-Physics Inc. dba GE Healthcare, 3350 North Ridge Avenue, Arlington Heights, Illinois 60004-1412, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to import derivatives of the listed controlled substances to be used for the manufacture of a diagnostic product and reference standards. No other activity for these drug codes is authorized for this registration.
Approval of permit applications will occur only when the registrant's business activity is consistent with what is authorized under 21 U.S.C. 952(a)(2). Authorization will not extend to the import of Food and Drug Administration-approved or non-approved finished dosage forms for commercial sale.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is providing notice of an application it has received from an entity applying to be registered to manufacture in bulk basic class(es) of controlled substances listed in schedule I. DEA intends to evaluate this and other pending applications according to its regulations governing the program of growing marihuana for scientific and medical research under DEA registration.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 24, 2023.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) prohibits the cultivation and distribution of marihuana except by persons who are registered under the CSA to do so for lawful purposes. In accordance with the purposes specified in 21 CFR 1301.33(a), DEA is providing notice that the entity identified below has applied for registration as a bulk manufacturer of schedule I controlled substances. In response, registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefor, may submit electronic comments on or objections of the requested registration, as provided in this notice. This notice does not constitute any evaluation or determination of the merits of the application submitted.
The applicant plans to manufacture bulk active pharmaceutical ingredients (API) for product development and distribution to DEA registered researchers. If the application for registration is granted, the registrant would not be authorized to conduct other activity under this registration aside from those coincident activities specifically authorized by DEA regulations. DEA will evaluate the application for registration as a bulk manufacturer for compliance with all applicable laws, treaties, and regulations and to ensure adequate safeguards against diversion are in place.
As this applicant has applied to become registered as a bulk manufacturer of marihuana, the application will be evaluated under the criteria of 21 U.S.C. 823(a). DEA will conduct this evaluation in the manner described in the rule published at 85 FR 82333 on December 18, 2020, and reflected in DEA regulations at 21 CFR part 1318.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), DEA is providing notice that on December 6, 2022, Sunny Enterprises Inc, 4562 Meridian Street, Bellingham, Washington 98226, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Organic Consultants LLC DBA Cascade Chemistry has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may submit electronic comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 24, 2023. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 24, 2023.
The Drug Enforcement Administration requires that all comments be submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, which provides the ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on the web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Please go to
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on November 9, 2022, Organic Consultants LLC DBA Cascade Chemistry, 90 North Polk Street, Suite 200, Eugene, Oregon 97402-4109, applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to bulk manufacture small quantities of the listed controlled substances for internal use or for sale as analytical reference standard materials to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Employee Benefits Security Administration, Labor.
Notice of exemption.
This document contains a notice of an exemption issued by the Department of Labor (the Department) extending the exemptive relief provided by PTE 2017-05 for an additional four (4) years. This exemption provides that certain entities with specified relationships to Citigroup (hereinafter, the Citigroup Affiliated QPAMs and the Citigroup Related QPAMs, as defined in Sections I(b) and I(c), respectively) will not be precluded from relying on the exemptive relief provided by Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 84-14 (PTE 84-14 or the QPAM Exemption), notwithstanding the Conviction (defined in Section I(a)), during the Exemption Period (as defined in Section I(d)).
This exemption will be in effect from January 10, 2023, through January 9, 2027.
Anna Mpras Vaughan of the Department at (202) 693-8565. (This is not a toll-free number.)
The Applicant requested an individual exemption pursuant to ERISA Section 408(a) in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011). On November 16, 2022, the Department published a notice of proposed exemption (the Proposed Exemption) in the
As a result of the Conviction, the Citigroup Affiliated QPAMS and Citigroup Related QPAMs (collectively, the Citigroup QPAMs) became ineligible to rely on the relief provided in PTE 84-14 as of the January 10, 2017, sentencing date for a total of 10 years from the date of the Conviction (the Ten-Year Period), unless the Department issued an administrative individual exemption that would allow it to continue relying on such relief.
On December 22, 2016, the Department granted PTE 2016-04, an exemption allowing the Citigroup QPAMs to rely on the relief provided in PTE 84-14 for 12 months
After considering the entire record developed in connection with the Applicant's exemption application, including one comment letter received in connection with the Proposed Exemption that is discussed below, the Department has determined to grant the exemption subject to the conditions and comments described below. The Department has made the requisite findings under ERISA Section 408(a) that the exemption is: (1) administratively feasible, (2) in the interest of the plan and its participants and beneficiaries, and (3) protective of the rights of the Plan's participants and beneficiaries, as long as all of the exemption conditions are met. Accordingly, affected parties should be aware that the conditions incorporated in this exemption are, individually and taken as a whole, necessary for the Department to grant the relief requested by the Applicant. Without these conditions, the Department would not have granted this exemption.
The Department cautions that the relief in this four-year exemption will terminate immediately if, among other things, certain entities within the Citigroup corporate structure are convicted of a crime described in Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 (other than the Conviction) during the Exemption Period of the exemption (as described in Section I(f) of this exemption, below). While such an entity could apply for a new exemption in that circumstance, the Department would not be obligated to propose such an exemption, and the facts and circumstances of any new conviction would weigh heavily on whether additional relief if provided. Finally, the terms of this four-year exemption have been designed to permit plans to terminate their relationships with the Citigroup Affiliated QPAMs in an orderly and cost-effective fashion in the event there were another conviction or a plan determines that it is otherwise prudent to terminate its relationship with them.
In the Proposed Exemption, the Department invited all interested persons to submit written comments and/or requests for a public hearing with respect to the notice of Proposed Exemption. In this regard, the Applicant was given 15 days to provide notice (Notice) to interested persons, and all comments and requests for a hearing were due on January 3, 2023. On the deadline for the Applicant to meet the Notice requirement (December 1, 2022), the Applicant notified the Department that it did not meet the proposed exemption's Notice requirement, because its notice to interested persons did not include a Federal Register copy of the Proposed Exemption. To ensure interested persons would receive full notice and have sufficient time to provide their comments to the Department, the Applicants agreed to send a second notice to interested persons (the Second Notice) to all interested persons that included a copy of Federal Register version of the Proposed Exemption and a cover letter notifying interested persons that the Department extended the comment period until January 9, 2023. The Applicant distributed the Second Notice on December 5, 2022.
The Department received 12 non-substantive phone inquiries and one comment letter from the Applicant that requested certain clarifications to the Proposed Exemption's Summary of Facts and Representations and minor changes to the Proposed Exemption's operative language and responded to the Department's request for comment on specific issues. The Department did not receive any other comment letters or requests for a public hearing. The Applicant's comment letter, and the Department's response thereto, is discussed below.
The Applicant further states that the proposed definition is based on the language used in the pending amendment to Class PTE 84-14 that was published in the
The Applicant asserts that the Department should finalize the definition of “actual losses” in PTE 84-
Therefore, the Applicant requests the Department to delete the definition of “actual losses” from the Proposed Exemption, or in the alternative, define the phrase in the Proposed Exemption as “actual losses” as such term is defined in PTE 84-14 and if such phrase is not defined in the final amendment to PTE 84-14, the definition should not be included in the version of the Proposed Exemption that is adopted in the final grant notice.
Furthermore, the Applicant states that Citigroup's subsidiary Citibank, N.A., is a national bank subject to the restrictions in the National Bank Act on making records available to persons other than the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (the OCC). The Applicant states that the OCC Reports of Examination and other formal written communications are subject to confidentiality requirements under federal banking law, specifically under 12 CFR part 4. Other U.S. banking regulators operate under similar restrictions, as described in a 2005 joint release by the OCC and other federal banking agencies entitled “Interagency Advisory on the Confidentiality of the Supervisory Rating and Other Nonpublic Supervisory Information,” and non-U.S. regulators may impose similar limitations. The Applicant states that as a result, a requirement to make records available to the Department would be administratively burdensome for the Department, because of the need to distinguish between information that may or may not be legally disclosed, and the information made available to the Department or to plans would be necessarily incomplete.
• emails the employee periodic reminders to complete the training before the due date;
• notifies the employee's manager if training is overdue; and
• maintains a Reports Dashboard that allows a manager or Independent Compliance Risk Management (ICRM) to check completion rates.
The Applicant stated that it does not believe any additional conditions are required in the exemption to impose any such requirements, because it already has a system in place.
Furthermore, the Department expects the independent auditor described in Section III(i)(1) of the exemption to address through its review and testing, the concerns raised in the Department's Request for Comment validating the efficacy of the Training, and, if necessary, to suggest additional enhancements to the Applicant's Training program.
In the Notice of Proposed Exemption, the Department commented that, “[t]he Department intends for the “Best Knowledge” standard described in the exemption to require the certifying senior executive to perform its due diligence required under the exemption to determine whether the information such executive is certifying is complete and accurate in all respects.”
Accordingly, after considering the entire record developed in connection with the Applicant's exemption request, subject to the comments and information described above, and in consideration of the exemption's protective conditions, the Department has determined to grant this exemption consistent with the requirements of ERISA Section 408(a).
The complete application file (D-12067) for this exemption is available for public inspection in the Public Disclosure Room of the Employee Benefits Security Administration, Room N-1515, U.S. Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210. For a more complete statement of the facts and representations supporting the Department's decision to grant this exemption, please refer to the Proposed Exemption published on November 16, 2022, at 87 FR 68278.
The attention of interested persons is directed to the following:
(1) The fact that a transaction is the subject of an exemption under ERISA Section 408(a) does not relieve a fiduciary or other party in interest from certain requirements of other ERISA provisions, including any prohibited transaction provisions to which the exemption does not apply and the general fiduciary responsibility provisions of ERISA Section 404, which, among other things, require a fiduciary to discharge their duties respecting the plan prudently and solely in the interest of the plan's participants and beneficiaries.
(2) As required by ERISA Section 408(a), the Department hereby finds that the exemption is: (a) administratively feasible; (b) in the interests of the affected plan and its participants and beneficiaries; and (c) protective of the rights of the plan's participants and beneficiaries.
(3) This exemption is supplemental to, and not in derogation of, any other ERISA provisions, including statutory or administrative exemptions and transitional rules. Furthermore, the fact that a transaction is subject to an administrative or statutory exemption is not dispositive of determining whether the transaction is in fact a prohibited transaction.
(4) The availability of this exemption is subject to the express condition that the material facts and representations contained in the application accurately describe all material terms of the transactions that are the subject of the exemption.
Accordingly, the Department grants the following exemption under the authority of ERISA Section 408(a) and in accordance with the procedures set forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (76 FR 66637, 66644, October 27, 2011):
(a) The term “Citicorp” means Citicorp, a financial services holding company subsidiary of Citigroup Inc. that is organized and existing under the laws of Delaware and does not include any subsidiaries or other affiliates.
(b) The term “Citigroup Affiliated QPAM” means a “qualified professional asset manager” (as defined in section VI(a)
(c) The term “Citigroup Related QPAM” means any current or future “qualified professional asset manager” (as defined in section VI(a) of PTE 84-14) that relies on the relief provided by PTE 84-14, and with respect to which Citigroup owns a direct or indirect five percent or more interest, but with respect to which Citigroup is not an “affiliate” (as defined in Section VI(d)(1) of PTE 84-14).
(d) The term “Conviction” means the judgment of conviction against Citicorp for violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act (15 U.S.C. 1), entered in the District Court for the District of Connecticut (the District Court) (Case Number 3:15-cr-78-SRU). For all purposes under this exemption, “conduct” of any person or entity that is the “subject of [a] Conviction” encompasses the conduct described in Paragraph 4(g)-(i) of the Plea Agreement filed in the District Court in Case Number 3:15-cr-78-SRU.
(e) The term “Covered Plan” means a plan subject to Part 4 of Title I of ERISA (ERISA-covered plan) or a plan subject to Section 4975 of the Code (IRA) with respect to which a Citigroup Affiliated QPAM relies on PTE 84-14, or with respect to which a Citigroup Affiliated QPAM (or any Citigroup affiliate) has expressly represented that the manager qualifies as a QPAM or relies on the QPAM class exemption (PTE 84-14). A Covered Plan does not include an ERISA-covered Plan or IRA to the extent the Citigroup affiliated QPAM has expressly disclaimed reliance on QPAM status or PTE 84-14 in entering into its contract, arrangement, or agreement with the ERISA-covered plan or IRA.
(f) The term “Exemption Period” means January 10, 2023, through January 9, 2027.
The Citigroup Affiliated QPAMs and the Citigroup Related QPAMs (as defined in Sections I(b) and I(c), respectively) will not be precluded from relying on the exemptive relief provided by Prohibited Transaction Class Exemption 84-14 (PTE 84-14 or the QPAM Exemption),
(a) Other than a single individual who worked for a non-fiduciary business within Citigroup's Markets and Securities Services business, and who had no responsibility for and exercised no authority in connection with the management of plan assets, the Citigroup Affiliated QPAMs and the Citigroup Related QPAMs (including their officers, directors, agents other than Citicorp, and employees of such QPAMs who had responsibility for, or exercised authority in connection with the management of plan assets) did not know of, did not have reason to know of, or participate in the criminal conduct that is the subject of the Conviction. For purposes of this paragraph (a), “participate in” means the knowing approval of the misconduct underlying the Conviction;
(b) Other than a single individual who worked for a non-fiduciary business within Citigroup's Markets and Securities Services business and who had no responsibility for and exercised no authority in connection with the management of plan assets, the Citigroup Affiliated QPAMs and the Citigroup Related QPAMs (including their officers, directors, and agents other than Citicorp, and employees of such Citigroup QPAMs) did not receive direct compensation or knowingly receive indirect compensation in connection with the criminal conduct that is the subject of the Conviction;
(c) The Citigroup Affiliated QPAMs will not employ or knowingly engage any of the individuals that participated in the criminal conduct that is the subject of the Conviction. For the purposes of this paragraph (c), “participated in” includes the knowing approval of the misconduct underlying the Conviction;
(d) At all times during the Exemption Period, no Citigroup Affiliated QPAM will use its authority or influence to direct an “investment fund” (as defined in Section VI(b) of PTE 84-14), that is subject to ERISA or the Code and managed by such Citigroup Affiliated QPAM in reliance on PTE 84-14, or with respect to which a Citigroup Affiliated QPAM has expressly represented to an ERISA-covered plan or IRA with assets invested in such “investment fund” that it qualifies as a QPAM or relies on PTE 84-14, to enter into any transaction with Citicorp, or to engage Citicorp to provide any service to such investment fund, for a direct or indirect fee borne by such investment fund, regardless of whether such transaction or service may otherwise be within the scope of relief provided by an administrative or statutory exemption;
(e) Any failure of a Citigroup Affiliated QPAM or a Citigroup Related QPAM to satisfy Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 arose solely from the Conviction;
(f) A Citigroup Affiliated QPAM or a Citigroup Related QPAM did not exercise authority over the assets of any plan subject to Part 4 of Title I of ERISA (an ERISA-covered plan) or section 4975 of the Code (an IRA) in a manner that it knew or should have known would: Further the criminal conduct that is the subject of the Conviction; or cause the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM, the Citigroup Related QPAM or their affiliates to directly or indirectly profit from the criminal conduct that is the subject of the Conviction;
(g) Other than with respect to employee benefit plans maintained or sponsored for its own employees or the employees of an affiliate, Citicorp will not act as a fiduciary within the meaning of section 3(2l)(A)(i) or (iii) of ERISA, or section 4975(e)(3)(A) and (C) of the Code, with respect to ERISA-covered plan and IRA assets; provided, however, that Citicorp will not be treated as violating the conditions of this exemption solely because it acted as an investment advice fiduciary within the meaning of section 3(2l)(A)(ii) or section 4975(e)(3)(B) of the Code;
(h)(1) Each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM must continue to maintain, adjust (to the extent necessary), implement and follow written policies and procedures (the Policies). The Policies must require and be reasonably designed to ensure that:
(i) The asset management decisions of the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM are conducted independently of the corporate management and business activities of Citigroup;
(ii) The Citigroup Affiliated QPAM fully complies with ERISA's fiduciary duties and with ERISA and the Code's prohibited transaction provisions, as applicable with respect to each Covered Plan, and does not knowingly participate in any violation of these duties and provisions with respect to Covered Plans;
(iii) The Citigroup Affiliated QPAM does not knowingly participate in any other person's violation of ERISA or the Code with respect to Covered Plans;
(iv) Any filings or statements made by the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM to regulators, including, but not limited to, the Department, the Department of the Treasury, the Department of Justice, and
(v) To the best of the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM's knowledge at the time, the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM does not make material misrepresentations or omit material information in its communications with such regulators with respect to Covered Plans, or make material misrepresentations or omit material information in its communications with Covered Plans;
(vi) The Citigroup Affiliated QPAM complies with the terms of this exemption; and
(vii) Any violation of, or failure to comply with an item in subparagraphs (ii) through (vi), is corrected as soon as reasonably possible upon discovery, or as soon after the QPAM reasonably should have known of the noncompliance (whichever is earlier), and any such violation or compliance failure not so corrected is reported, upon the discovery of such failure to so correct, in writing, to the head of compliance, and the General Counsel (or their functional equivalent) of the relevant line of business that engaged in the violation or failure, and the independent auditor responsible for reviewing compliance with the Policies. A Citigroup Affiliated QPAM will not be treated as having failed to develop, implement, maintain, or follow the Policies, provided that it corrects any instance of noncompliance as soon as reasonably possible upon discovery, or as soon as reasonably possible after the QPAM reasonably should have known of the noncompliance (whichever is earlier), and provided that it adheres to the reporting requirements set forth in this subparagraph (vii);
(2) Each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM must maintain, adjust (to the extent necessary), and implement a program of training (the Training) to be conducted at least annually for all relevant Citigroup Affiliated QPAM asset/portfolio management, trading, legal, compliance, and internal audit personnel. The Training must:
(i) At a minimum, cover the Policies, ERISA and Code compliance (including applicable fiduciary duties and the prohibited transaction provisions), ethical conduct, the consequences for not complying with the conditions of this four-year exemption (including any loss of exemptive relief provided herein), and prompt reporting of wrongdoing;
(ii) Be conducted by a professional who has been prudently selected and who has appropriate technical training and proficiency with ERISA and the Code;
(iii) Be conducted in-person, electronically or via a website; and
(iv) Be verified, through in-training knowledge checks, “graduation” tests, and/or other technological tools designed to confirm that personnel fully and in good faith participate in the Training;
(i)(1) Each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM, which Citigroup identifies in a certificate signed by the officer who will review and certify the Audit Report (as defined in Section III(i)(5)) pursuant to Section III(i)(8), submits to an audit conducted every two years by an independent auditor, who has been prudently selected and who has appropriate technical training and proficiency with ERISA and the Code, to evaluate the adequacy of, each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM's compliance with the Policies and Training conditions described herein. The audit requirement must be incorporated in the Policies. The last audit period under PTE 2017-05 will extend into the Exemption Period under this exemption; therefore, the audit periods under PTE 2017-05 and this exemption are as follows:
(i) Under PTE 2017-05, the first audit covers the period from July 10, 2018 through July 9, 2019 (and must be completed by January 9, 2020); the second audit covers the period from July 10, 2020 through July 9, 2021 (and must be completed by January 9, 2022); and the third audit covers the period from July 10, 2022 through July 9, 2023 (and must be completed by January 9, 2024).
(ii) The first audit under this four-year exemption (the fourth audit under the totality of exemptive relief) covers the period from July 10, 2024 through July 9, 2025 (and must be completed by January 9, 2026); and the second audit (the fifth audit under the totality of exemptive relief) covers the period from July 10, 2026 through January 9, 2027 (must be completed by July 9, 2027). As described above, the fifth audit period is truncated, so that it expires concurrently with the expiration of the Exemption Period. However, the Audit Report (defined below) for the fifth audit period must be completed and delivered timely and despite such report being due to the Department after the expiration of the Exemption Period, the failure to receive such report could impact negatively on Citigroup's ability to claim relief under this exemption during the Exemption Period, if granted.
(2) Within the scope of the audit and to the extent necessary for the auditor, in its sole opinion, to complete its audit and comply with the conditions for relief described herein, and only to the extent such disclosure is not prevented by state or federal statute, or involves communications subject to attorney client privilege, each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM and, if applicable, Citigroup, will grant the auditor unconditional access to its business, including, but not limited to: Its computer systems; business records; transactional data; workplace locations; training materials; and personnel. Such access is limited to information relevant to the auditor's objectives as specified by the terms of this exemption;
(3) The auditor's engagement must specifically require the auditor to determine whether each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM has developed, implemented, maintained, and followed the Policies in accordance with the conditions of this exemption, and has developed and implemented the Training, as required herein;
(4) The auditor's engagement must specifically require the auditor to test each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM's operational compliance with the Policies and Training. In this regard, the auditor must test, for each QPAM, a sample of such QPAM's transactions involving Covered Plans, sufficient in size and nature to afford the auditor a reasonable basis to determine such QPAM's operational compliance with the Policies and Training;
(5) For each audit, on or before the end of the relevant period described in Section III(i)(1) for completing the audit, the auditor must issue a written report (the Audit Report) to Citigroup and the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM to which the audit applies that describes the procedures performed by the auditor during the course of its examination. The auditor, at its discretion, may issue a single consolidated Audit Report that covers all the Citigroup Affiliated QPAMs. The Audit Report must include the auditor's specific determinations regarding:
(i) The adequacy of each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM's Policies and Training; each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM's compliance with the Policies and Training; the need, if any, to strengthen such Policies and Training; and any instance of the respective Citigroup Affiliated QPAM's noncompliance with the written Policies and Training described in Section III(h) above.
The Citigroup Affiliated QPAM must promptly address any noncompliance and promptly address or prepare a written plan of action to address any determination by the auditor regarding the adequacy of the Policies and Training and the auditor's
(ii) The adequacy of the most recent Annual Review described in Section III(m);
(6) The auditor must notify the respective Citigroup Affiliated QPAM of any instance of noncompliance identified by the auditor within five (5) business days after such noncompliance is identified by the auditor, regardless of whether the audit has been completed as of that date;
(7) With respect to each Audit Report, the General Counsel, or one of the three most senior executive officers, of the line of business engaged in discretionary asset management services through the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM with respect to which the Audit Report applies, must certify in writing, under penalty of perjury, that such signatory has reviewed the Audit Report and this exemption; and that, to the best of such signatory's knowledge at the time, such Citigroup Affiliated QPAM has addressed, corrected, or remedied any noncompliance and inadequacy or has an appropriate written plan to address any inadequacy regarding the Policies and Training identified in the Audit Report. Such certification must also include the signatory's determination that, to the best of such signatory's knowledge at the time, the Policies and Training in effect at the time of signing are adequate to ensure compliance with the conditions of this exemption, and with the applicable provisions of ERISA and the Code;
(8) The Risk Management Committee of Citigroup's Board of Directors is provided a copy of each Audit Report; and a senior executive officer of Citigroup or one of its affiliates who reports directly to, or reports to another executive who reports directly to, the highest-ranking compliance officer of Citigroup must review the Audit Report for each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM and must certify in writing, under penalty of perjury, that such officer has reviewed each Audit Report;
(9) Each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM provides its certified Audit Report by electronic mail to:
(10) Each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM and the auditor must submit to OED by electronic mail to:
(11) The auditor must provide the Department, upon request, for inspection and review, access to all the workpapers created and utilized in the course of the audit, provided such access and inspection is otherwise permitted by law; and
(12) Citigroup must notify the Department of a change in the independent auditor no later than two (2) months after the engagement of a substitute or subsequent auditor and must provide an explanation for the substitution or change including a description of any material disputes between the terminated auditor, and Citigroup;
(j) Throughout the Exemption Period, with respect to any arrangement, agreement, or contract between a Citigroup Affiliated QPAM and a Covered Plan, the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM agrees and warrants:
(1) To comply with ERISA and the Code, as applicable with respect to such Covered Plan; to refrain from engaging in prohibited transactions that are not otherwise exempt (and to promptly correct any non-exempt prohibited transactions in accordance with applicable rules under ERISA and the Code); and to comply with the standards of prudence and loyalty set forth in section 404 of ERISA with respect to each such Covered Plan to the extent that section is applicable;
(2) To indemnify and hold harmless the Covered Plan for any actual losses resulting directly from a Citigroup Affiliated QPAM's violation of ERISA's fiduciary duties, as applicable, and of the prohibited transaction provisions of ERISA and the Code, as applicable; a breach of contract by the QPAM; or any claim arising out of the failure of such Citigroup Affiliated QPAM to qualify for the exemptive relief provided by PTE 84-14 as a result of a violation of Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 other than the Conviction. This condition applies only to actual losses caused by the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM's violations. The term Actual losses includes, but is not limited to, losses and related costs arising from unwinding transactions with third parties and from transitioning Plan assets to an alternative asset manager as well as costs associated with any exposure to excise taxes under Code section 4975 as a result of a QPAM's inability to rely upon the relief in the QPAM Exemption.
(3) Not to require (or otherwise cause) the Covered Plan to waive, limit, or qualify the liability of the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM for violating ERISA or the Code or engaging in non-exempt prohibited transactions;
(4) Not to restrict the ability of such Covered Plan to terminate or withdraw from its arrangement with the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM with respect to any investment in a separately managed account or pooled fund subject to ERISA and managed by such QPAM, with the exception of reasonable restrictions, appropriately disclosed in advance, that are specifically designed to ensure equitable treatment of all investors in a pooled fund in the event such withdrawal or termination may have adverse consequences for all other investors. In connection with any of
(5) Not to impose any fees, penalties, or charges for such termination or withdrawal with the exception of reasonable fees, appropriately disclosed in advance, that are specifically designed to prevent generally recognized abusive investment practices or specifically designed to ensure equitable treatment of all investors in a pooled fund in the event such withdrawal or termination may have adverse consequences for all other investors, provided that such fees are applied consistently and in like manner to all such investors;
(6) Not to include exculpatory provisions disclaiming or otherwise limiting liability of the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM for a violation of such agreement's terms. To the extent consistent with ERISA Section 410, however, this provision does not prohibit disclaimers for liability caused by an error, misrepresentation, or misconduct of a plan fiduciary or other party hired by the plan fiduciary who is independent of Citigroup, and its affiliates, or damages arising from acts outside the control of the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM; and
(7) Each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM must provide a notice of its obligations under this Section III(j) to each Covered Plan. For all other prospective Covered Plans, the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM will agree to its obligations under this Section III(j) in an updated investment management agreement between the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM and such clients or other written contractual agreement. This condition will be deemed met for each Covered Plan that received a notice pursuant to PTE 2016-14 or PTE 2017-05 that meets the terms of this condition. This condition will also be met where the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM has already agreed to the same obligations required by this Section III(j) in an updated investment management agreement between the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM and a Covered Plan. Notwithstanding the above, a Citigroup Affiliated QPAM will not violate the condition solely because a Covered Plan client refuses to sign an updated investment management agreement;
(k)
All prospective Covered Plan clients that enter into a written asset or investment management agreement with a Citigroup Affiliated QPAM (including a participation or subscription agreement in a pooled fund managed by a Citigroup Affiliated QPAM) after the date that is ninety (90) days after the effective date of this exemption must receive the proposed and final exemptions with the Summary and the Statement prior to, or contemporaneously with, the client's receipt of a written asset management agreement from the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM (for avoidance of doubt, all Covered Plan clients of a Citigroup Affiliated QPAM during the Exemption Period must receive the disclosures described in this Section by the later of (i) 90 days after the effective date of the exemption or (ii) the date that a Covered Plan client enters into a written asset or investment management agreement with a Citigroup Affiliated QPAM). Disclosures required under this paragraph (k) may be delivered electronically (including by an email that has a link to this exemption);
(l) The Citigroup Affiliated QPAMs must comply with each condition of PTE 84-14, as amended, with the sole exception of the violation of Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 that is attributable to the Conviction;
(m)(1) Citigroup designates a senior compliance officer (the Compliance Officer) who will be responsible for compliance with the Policies and Training requirements described herein. The Compliance Officer must conduct an annual review for each annual period beginning on January 10, 2023 (the Annual Review), to determine the adequacy and effectiveness of the implementation of the Policies and Training. With respect to the Compliance Officer, the following conditions must be met:
(i) The Compliance Officer must be a professional who has extensive experience with, and knowledge of, the regulation of financial services and products, including under ERISA and the Code; and
(ii) The Compliance Officer must be a senior compliance officer of Citigroup Inc. or one of its affiliates who reports directly to (or reports to another compliance officer who reports directly to) Citigroup Inc.'s highest ranking compliance officer (whose title is currently Global Chief Compliance Officer of Citigroup Inc.);
(2) With respect to each Annual Review, the following conditions must be met:
(i) The Annual Review includes a review of the Citigroup Affiliated QPAM's compliance with and effectiveness of the Policies and Training and of the following: Any compliance matter related to the Policies or Training that was identified by, or reported to, the Compliance Officer or others within the compliance and risk control function (or its equivalent) during the previous year; the most recent Audit Report issued pursuant to this exemption (or pursuant to PTE 2017-05 if no audit report has been issued under this exemption); any material change in the relevant business activities of the Citigroup Affiliated QPAMs; and any change to ERISA, the Code, or regulations related to fiduciary duties and the prohibited transaction provisions that may be applicable to the activities of the Citigroup Affiliated QPAMs;
(ii) The Compliance Officer prepares a written report for each Annual Review (each, an Annual Report) that: (A) summarizes their material activities during the preceding year; (B) sets forth any instance of noncompliance discovered during the preceding year, and any related corrective action; (C) details any change to the Policies or Training to guard against any similar instance of noncompliance occurring again; and (D) makes recommendations, as necessary, for additional training, procedures, monitoring, or additional and/or changed processes or systems, and management's actions on such recommendations;
(iii) In each Annual Report, the Compliance Officer must certify in writing that to the best of their knowledge at the time: (A) The report is accurate; (B) the Policies and Training are working in a manner which is reasonably designed to ensure that the Policies and Training requirements described herein are met; (C) any known
(iv) Each Annual Report must be provided to: (A) the person or persons who certify as to the current or most recent preceding Audit Report provided pursuant to Section III(i)(7) above, and (B) the head of compliance and the General Counsel (or their functional equivalent) of the relevant Citigroup Affiliated QPAM; and must be made unconditionally available to the independent auditor described in Section III(i) above;
(v) Each Annual Review, including the Compliance Officer's written Annual Report, must be completed within three (3) months following the end of the period to which it relates;
(n) Citigroup imposes its internal procedures, controls, and protocols to reduce the likelihood of any recurrence of conduct that is the subject of the Conviction;
(o) Citigroup complies in all material respects with the requirements imposed by a U.S. regulatory authority in connection with the Conviction;
(p) Each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM will maintain records necessary to demonstrate that the conditions of this exemption have been met, for six (6) years following the date of any transaction for which such Citigroup Affiliated QPAM relies upon the relief in the exemption;
(q) During the Exemption Period, Citigroup:
(1) Immediately discloses to the Department any Deferred Prosecution Agreement (a DPA) or a Non-Prosecution Agreement (an NPA) with the U.S. Department of Justice, entered into by Citigroup or any of its affiliates in connection with conduct described in Section I(g) of PTE 84-14 or section 411 of ERISA; and
(2) immediately provides the Department any information requested by the Department, as permitted by law, regarding the agreement and/or conduct and allegations that led to the agreement;
(r) Each Citigroup Affiliated QPAM, in its agreements with, or in other written disclosures provided to Covered Plans, clearly and prominently informs Covered Plan clients of the Covered Plan's right to obtain a copy of the Policies or a description (Summary Policies), which accurately summarizes key components of the QPAM's written Policies developed in connection with this exemption. If the Policies are thereafter changed, each Covered Plan client must receive a new disclosure within six (6) months following the end of the calendar year during which the Policies were changed. If the Applicant meets this disclosure requirement through Summary Policies, changes to the Policies shall not result in the requirement for a new disclosure unless, as a result of changes to the Policies, the Summary Policies are no longer accurate. With respect to this requirement, the description may be continuously maintained on a website, provided that such website link to the Policies or the Summary Policies is clearly and prominently disclosed to each Covered Plan;
(s) A Citigroup Affiliated QPAM or a Citigroup Related QPAM will not fail to meet the terms of this exemption, solely because a different Citigroup Affiliated QPAM or Citigroup Related QPAM fails to satisfy a condition for relief described in Sections III(c), (d), (h), (i), (j), (k), (l), (p) and (r); or if the independent auditor described in Section III(i) fails to comply with a provision of the exemption, other than the requirement described in Section III(i)(11), provided that such failure did not result from any actions or inactions of Citigroup or its affiliates; and
(t) All the material facts and representations set forth in the Summary of Facts and Representations are true and accurate.
Signed at Washington, DC.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor's (DOL's), Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed extension for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Petition for Classifying Labor Surplus Areas.” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by March 24, 2023.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation, including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden, may be obtained free by contacting Donald Haughton by telephone at 202-693-2784, TTY 1-877-889-5627, (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce Investment, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room C-4510, Washington DC, 20210; by email:
Donald Haughton by telephone at 202-693-2784 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
Under Executive Orders 12073 and 10582, and 20 CFR parts 651 and 654, the Secretary of Labor is required to classify Labor Surplus Areas (LSA) and disseminate this information for the use of all Federal agencies. This information is used by Federal agencies for various purposes including procurement decisions, waiver decisions for the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program, certain small business loan decisions, as well as other purposes determined by the agencies. The LSA list is issued annually, effective October 1 of each year, utilizing data from the
Department regulations specify that the Department can add other areas to the annual LSA listing under the exceptional circumstance criteria. Such additions are based on information contained in petitions submitted by the state workforce agencies (SWAs) to ETA. These petitions contain specific economic information about an area to provide ample justification for adding the area to the LSA listing under the exceptional circumstances criteria. The petitions submitted by the SWAs concern various aspects of unemployment and the economic condition for a specific area in order to provide justification for adding the area to the LSA list under the exceptional circumstances criteria. Under these criteria, an area may be determined eligible for classification as a LSA if it is experiencing a high rate of unemployment which is not temporary or seasonal and which was not adequately reflected in the unemployment data for the two-year reference period. Instructions designed to assist SWAs in the preparation of such petitions are currently contained on the ETA website:
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, (
Employment and Training Administration (ETA); Department of Labor.
Request for information.
The U.S. Department of Labor's (DOL's) Employment and Training Administration (ETA) requests information on current and planned local and regional sector strategies and partnership models. This request for information (RFI) seeks input from all stakeholders involved directly and indirectly in economic and workforce development, particularly as it relates to the development of sector strategy models that address the workforce needs of specific industry sectors within a local or regional labor market through a strategic sector partnership. This stakeholder input will inform the Department's efforts in developing sustainable and scalable sector strategies through economic development and workforce collaboration to meet local and regional sector needs for skilled workers in quality jobs while meeting broader Administration objectives, such as equity and the inclusion of historically marginalized populations within those sectors, and responsiveness to the needs of businesses and the economy in critical industries during and beyond the pandemic.
Responses may be submitted on a rolling basis but are due no later than 5 p.m. (ET) on March 24, 2023.
Submit all responses to this RFI by email to Hannah Jenuwine at
Please identify your answers by responding to a specific question or topic, if applicable. Please clearly state the specific question to which you are responding. All assumptions, including any assumed government support, shall be clearly identified. All proprietary and restricted information shall be clearly marked. Respondents may answer as many or as few questions as they wish. DOL will not respond to individual submissions. A response to this RFI will not be viewed as a binding commitment to develop or pursue the project or ideas discussed.
• Community, organization, or company (if applicable);
• Contact name; and
• Contact's address, phone number, and email address.
Jenn Smith, Division Chief, Division of Strategic Investments, by telephone at 202-693-3597 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
The Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act of 2014 (WIOA) emphasizes the important role of sector strategies in a dynamic regional workforce development plan. Within WIOA, regional coordination and planning requirements include the necessity of a regional plan that supports the “development and implementation of sector initiatives for in-demand industry sectors or occupations in the regions.” Sector strategies are useful models of local and regional workforce development that are well-positioned to align the collective needs of employers in an in-demand industry with the skilled workforce needed, while ensuring a successful career pathway from training to employment and career progression. There is evidence of the effectiveness of a sector approach but the transition from paper to practice can be challenging. Real-world collaboration can be hard to sustain without dedicated support and focused commitment. Scaling of effective strategies can also be challenging as the context, partnerships, and workforce challenges within specific sectors may involve factors and considerations that vary from those in a local or regional economic development area.
ETA developed a sector strategy framework in 2016, which has been used to inform many of our more recent investments. This framework defines a sector strategy as a partnership of multiple employers within a critical industry that brings together education, economic development, workforce systems, and community organizations to identify and collaboratively meet the workforce needs of that industry within a regional labor market. Sector strategies are a key element of a Career Pathways System, which develops education and training in collaboration with employers to ensure the end product supports the skills and competencies needed by industry. As a systems change approach, there are recognized components of an effective sector strategy. ETA's Sector Strategy Implementation Framework,
• Data-Informed Decision Making—the organization/partnership uses rigorous data to make decisions about target industries and education and training investments.
• Industry Engagement—there is meaningful and continuous involvement of targeted industry sector employers in designing and delivering programs and services.
• Sector-Based Service Delivery—all partners are effectively facilitating the delivery of workforce solutions to be responsive to the needs of workers and the targeted industry sector(s).
• Sustainability and Continuous Improvement—the organization/partnership is able to measure sector strategy outcomes and has an effective and realistic plan to financially sustain sector work over time.
• Organizational Capacity and Alignment—the organization/partnership has the personnel, policies, vision, and resources in place to continually support sector strategy outcomes.
The Department has funded several recent sector strategy initiatives through H-1B-funded grant programs, and evaluations from these projects will support key learnings to support future investments, such as the SECTOR initiative proposed in WIOA reauthorization and the FY 23 President's Budget. The SECTOR proposal encompasses the key capabilities of sector strategies described above but also targets equity by centering services on the most underserved populations and communities while focusing on high-skill, high-wage, and/or in-demand industry sectors or occupations that lead to an economy of good jobs. Additionally, this RFI will provide crucial information on how local and regional areas are considering sector strategies as a response to key workforce needs, particularly in the most critical industries of priority and opportunity—such as those being built out through recent federal investments, including the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), and the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 (CHIPS).
This RFI seeks to grow ETA and partner agencies' understanding of effective sector strategies through the experiences of key stakeholders in local and regional economies to further inform policymakers and workforce practitioners at the federal, state, and local levels. Such information will refine policy responses, technical assistance for adoption and scaling of sector strategies as a response to economic and workforce development needs, and inform the design of future grants. Specifically, understanding what the challenges are to implementing sector strategies, what has resulted in successful sector approaches, who the key partners need to be and what their roles should be, the current level of regional coordination and planning that has been undertaken to support sector partnerships, how the partnerships are funded, and how the success of such partnerships can be measured will benefit the federal government's efforts to effectively engage with local and regional workforce areas to create an impactful response to the current and future training needs in critical industries, such as advanced manufacturing (including semiconductor manufacturing), information technology and cybersecurity, transportation infrastructure modernization, healthcare, and clean energy and energy resilience.
Further, in alignment with the Administration's priority on supporting increased job quality, including through the active inclusion of worker voice, this RFI seeks also to learn about sector strategies that specifically focus on and incorporate equity and worker voice into the training design, supportive service delivery, workforce decision making processes, and ongoing professional development and career growth opportunities. One equity and worker-centered sector strategy example showing promise is the “High Road Training Partnership” (HRTP) sector strategy model from California. Such models align with the Biden-Harris Administration priority on good quality jobs, which can be considered those that provide livable wages of at least $15 an hour, employment benefits, work environments free of discrimination, and opportunities for advancement, as well as supporting worker voice and engagement. For example, the worker-centered sector strategies of HRTP do this by being equity-centered, worker-focused and industry-led, allowing for innovative workforce solutions that create and support job quality using four essential elements: (1) industry-led
ETA is interested in learning more about equity and worker-centered sector strategies such as HRTP, and additional models, to gather feedback on questions such as: Does this approach work across all industry sectors? What workforce strategies have emerged from these efforts—career pathway development, apprenticeships—that have been supported by employer partners? How are these strategies funded and sustained? Do the strategies impact different groups of workers differently? Are any strategies particularly suited to developing the skills and opportunities for historically marginalized communities?
ETA invites workforce and economic development practitioners, education and training institutions, state and local policy makers, industry and professional associations, labor organizations, and funders and researchers to provide information, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
These organizations may submit individual responses or may choose to convene their active sector partnership for a coordinated response. Additionally, DOL has identified next to each Topic Area which responders may be most interested in that Topic Area, but these are suggestions and are not meant to limit any interested party from responding.
This RFI is an initial step in improving DOL's understanding of goals, interests, concerns, challenges, best practices and promising practices, and policy, program, and resource needs of local and regional economic development areas, with respect to sector strategies. This RFI is a general solicitation for public input, which sets forth topics for discussion and comment. Specific questions to which responses are requested for each topic area are listed below. Respondents may provide input regarding any one, several, or all of the topic areas and may address any one several, or all of the questions. These questions may also be considered prompts for additional input and DOL welcomes any additional relevant information that respondents wish to share, even if not the specific topic of a question.
1a. How do you define a sector?
1b. How do you define a sector strategy?
1c. Would sector partnerships benefit from the development of a consensus for other common definitions or key program components? What other consensus-driven common definitions have been developed by sector partnerships?
2a. Who are the local and regional partners necessary to support an effective regional sector partnership?
2b. Which entities are best positioned to lead the sector partnership? Does this vary by geographic or industry scope of the partnership? If so, why?
2c. What degree of industry representation is needed to ensure that the sector partnership is developing a strategy that is broadly responsive to industry need within a given region or locality?
2d. What degree of worker/employee representation is needed to ensure that the sector partnership is developing a strategy that centers and advances equity and worker voice?
2e. What strategies have you employed to recruit key partners to be part of sector partnerships?
2f. What key ingredients must be present for a sector partnership to successfully launch?
2g. What key ingredients must be present for a sector partnership to be effectively sustained?
2h. Are there strategies or incentives that are most beneficial in ensuring partners are effectively engaged at various stages of the partnership?
2i. What does a fully engaged partner look like?
2j. To what extent do successful sector strategies align their efforts with partners who have broader reach and purview (
2k. What specific role should the public workforce system play in developing, expanding, and sustaining sector partnerships?
3a. Are there factors that contribute to sector-based strategies being more effective in some specific sectors than others?
3b. How are sector strategies targeting industries/occupations? What resources/tools are sector partnerships using to target specific occupations?
3c. How are sector partnerships implementing evidence-based models for training, such as Registered Apprenticeship Programs (RAPs)? Are partnerships leveraging existing RAPs and/or developing new RAP pathways?
3d. Are there promising sector strategy models that promote job quality and/or demonstrate improvement in the quality of jobs within an industry or sector (
3e. How are sector strategies recruiting workers for training opportunities developed through sector partnerships? Are there examples of effective recruitment of workers who are under-represented in the industry or occupation, including workers from communities that have been historically marginalized or underserved?
3f. How have sector strategies built in pathways for new entrants to the workforce, particularly youth? Are specific career and technical education strategies being used to support the transition from secondary to post-secondary education and training models? If so, are there specific challenges to this approach? Are there unique partners that must be included?
3g. How have sector strategies supported employee retention and career advancement? Are there particular approaches that have demonstrated improvement in these areas?
3h. What other kinds of non-training services are sector strategies delivering? How do those services support the overarching goals of the sector strategy? Have sector strategies improved supportive service delivery to workers?
3i. How have your sector strategy efforts been informed by the evidence base on sector strategies?
3j. What evidence or research do you have that these sector strategies lead to employment in high-quality jobs (
3k. What evidence, research, or models have shown that sector strategies result in higher wages and/or wage growth for low-wage occupations within their respective industry?
3l. Are there additional questions that you think need to be addressed by future research on sector strategies?
3m. What promising approaches are sector strategies using to prepare workers for employment in the targeted sector or occupation? Might these approaches differ based on the industry? Are there specific success factors that are most important?
3n. Are there working definitions and specific promising practices that differentiate between types of sector strategies?
3o. How have sector partnerships affected the ways in which employer partners manage their recruitment and hiring practices, such as through the assessments they use or approaches to skill-based hiring?
4a. What sector strategies are effective in promoting worker voice and worker-centered workforce development (
4b. Are there specific practices or requirements for worker-centered sector strategies to be effective,
4c. What are the biggest challenges to engaging workers to support workforce development through a worker-centered model? What are effective ways of addressing these challenges?
4d. Are there key strategies to use when developing a worker-centered sector strategy in the absence of a worker or labor-management organization partner in the geographic region or industry focus?
4e. Are there specific industries or sectors where a worker-centered sector strategy has been more effective? If so, why?
5a. What financial resources are already broadly available within the targeted region to support the sector strategy—
5b. With the available financial resources, are there limitations or challenges in terms of uses of such funds?
5c. Are there key areas of work where funding support is most beneficial? Are these areas currently supported by existing funding streams?
5d. What non-financial resources are necessary for an effective sector strategy and are they available in your region?
5e. Do sector strategies require different levels of funding at different points in the process? For example, during the initial phase of start-up, is less funding necessary than at later points, or not necessarily? What costs are most significant at various stages of maturity? Is there a consistent level of administrative funding necessary to support the sustained sector strategy model?
6a. Which “critical” industry sectors demonstrate the greatest need for skilled workers in the next decade and could benefit from additional Federal resources, and why?
6b. What types of funding and other supports—such as data or technical assistance—would be helpful and in what form? Specifically, are there roles the Department of Labor and other federal agencies could play in supporting local or regional sector activity beyond direct investment, including:
• Bringing national industry and labor partners together to engage in key sectors?
• Leveraging federal data insights to assess targeted sector needs?
• Providing technical assistance and capacity building to the field, including learning and exchange across sector-based efforts?
• Specific flexibilities or resources to support regional sector-based efforts at various stages?
6c. Have there been efforts already to align with, or leverage, the recent Federal investments mentioned previously (
7a. What are the most promising approaches to engage employers to increase hiring and retention and
7b. What are effective sector-based strategies in addressing issues of equity, including increasing representation of historically marginalized populations within the identified sector(s) through improved hiring, retention, and advancement in high-quality jobs?
7c. Should the targeted industry sector affect the strategies used to increase equity?
7d. What are challenges to consider in addressing equity through a sector strategy partnership?
7e. How have the inputs from historically marginalized and underrepresented populations been taken into consideration when designing a program to serve them? What are effective approaches for soliciting input from marginalized and underrepresented populations?
8a. How would you define success within a sector strategy model?
8b. Are there specific measurements or milestones that would work best to measure effective partnership development and maturity (
8c. Would sector strategies benefit from the development of consensus for outcomes to measure impact and effectiveness of sector strategies or do unique sector strategy models and partnerships require unique performance measures and milestones?
8d. Are there specific performance measures that would work best to meaningfully assess the impact of a sector strategy on the participants served by it? Are there qualitative measures as well as quantitative ones?
8e. How long does it take to start achieving measurable outcomes? Are there near-term (within 12 months) and long-term (beyond 12 months) outputs and outcomes that can be identified to demonstrate change effectively?
8f. Are you involved in any new program evaluations of a potentially promising sector strategy model? Where can we learn more about this new evidence being produced?
9a. If your regional area has not yet engaged in a sector strategy, why not? Is there a regional plan for workforce development?
9b. Has your regional economic area undertaken a local needs assessment to determine gaps between the supply of skilled workers and hiring practices within identified in-demand industry sectors or occupations? If so, what has this assessment revealed?
10a. What evidence have you used to inform your thinking when designing a new sector strategy partnership or program, or improving your existing program?
10b. Where do you find your evidence?
10c. What is the hardest thing about using evidence in decision-making about your program(s)?
11a. What are the biggest challenges to developing and sustaining effective sector strategies? What are key factors influencing the sustainability of a sector strategy and its partnerships (
11b.What are key factors for successfully scaling sector strategy models at the local, regional, and national levels? For instance, does it matter more what the sectors are, who the employers are, the geographic and cultural context, or some combination of these?
11c. What are the key obstacles to successfully scaling sector strategy models at the local, regional, and national levels? As with the previous question, does it matter more what the sectors are, who the employers are, the geographic and cultural context, or some combination?
12a. What targeted technical assistance would be of most benefit in supporting a sector strategy? What targeted technical assistance would be of most benefit in supporting sector partnerships? What organization(s) or type of organization(s) is best positioned to provide this technical assistance?
12b. What DOL guidance could be helpful and what type of webinar topics or virtual/in-person training would be beneficial for DOL to provide?
This RFI is not a Funding Opportunity Announcement (FOA), prize, or any other type of solicitation; therefore, DOL is not accepting applications at this time. DOL may issue a FOA or other solicitation in the future based on or related to the content and responses to this RFI; however, DOL may also elect not to issue a FOA or solicitation. There is no guarantee that a FOA or solicitation will be issued as a result of this RFI. Responding to this RFI does not provide any advantage or disadvantage to potential applicants if DOL chooses to issue a FOA regarding the subject matter. This RFI does not constitute a formal solicitation for proposals or abstracts. Your response to this notice will be treated as information only. DOL will review and consider all responses in its formulation of program strategies for the identified materials of interest that are the subject of this request. DOL will not provide reimbursement for costs incurred in responding to this RFI.
Respondents are advised that DOL is under no obligation to acknowledge receipt of the information received or provide feedback to respondents with respect to any information submitted under this RFI. Responses to this RFI do not bind DOL to any further actions related to this topic.
Employment and Training Administration, Labor.
Notice.
The Department of Labor (DOL), Employment and Training Administration (ETA) is soliciting comments concerning a proposed revision for the authority to conduct the information collection request (ICR) titled, “Workforce Information Grants to States (WIGS).” This comment request is part of continuing Departmental efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA).
Consideration will be given to all written comments received by March 24, 2023.
A copy of this ICR with applicable supporting documentation; including a description of the likely respondents, proposed frequency of response, and estimated total burden may be obtained free by contacting Donald Haughton by telephone at 202-693-2784, TTY 877-889-5627, (these are not toll-free numbers) or by email at
Submit written comments about, or requests for a copy of, this ICR by mail or courier to the U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration, Office of Workforce Investment, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Room C-4510, Washington DC, 20210; or by email:
Donald Haughton by telephone at 202-693-2784 (this is not a toll-free number) or by email at
The DOL, as part of continuing efforts to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information before submitting them to the OMB for final approval. This program helps to ensure requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements can be properly assessed.
This collection of information is necessary to comply with the reporting requirements of the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) section 308 (29 U.S.C. 491-2), and 20 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 651 and 652.
WIOA section 308 requires the Secretary of Labor to oversee the development, maintenance, and continuous improvement of a nationwide Workforce and Labor Market Information System (workforce information) system; and to evaluate the performance of the system and recommend needed improvements, taking into consideration customer consultation results, with particular attention given to improvements needed at the state, regional and local levels. The WIGS information collection ensures the Secretary of Labor meets WIOA requirements, and the states complete grant deliverables such as state economic analyses or special workforce information/economic studies, and the annual performance report.
The ETA makes use of the information collected from WIGS grantees primarily to serve four customer groups: (1) the public (including job seekers and employers); (2) labor market intermediaries who help individuals find a job or make career decisions (such as employment and school counselors, case managers at American Job Centers, and community-based organizations); (3) policymakers and employment and economic program planners and operators; and (4) miscellaneous other customers, including researchers, commercial data providers, and the news media.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless it is approved by the OMB under the PRA and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid Control Number.
Interested parties are encouraged to provide comments to the contact shown in the
Submitted comments will also be a matter of public record for this ICR and posted on the internet, without redaction. The DOL encourages commenters not to include personally identifiable information, confidential business data, or other sensitive statements/information in any comments.
The DOL is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Office of Workers' Compensation Programs (OWCP)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before February 22, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
OWCP administers the Federal Employees' Compensation Act (FECA). A Peace Corps Volunteer who sustains an injury or contracts an illness overseas while in Peace Corps service may be entitled to benefits under the FECA. DOL authorizes the Peace Corps to furnish medical benefits to a volunteer, who is injured during the volunteer's period of service, for a period of 120 days following termination if the service volunteer's injury meets requirements. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number. See 5 CFR 1320.5(a) and 1320.6.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the final decision to expand the scope of recognition for TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL).
The expansion of the scope of recognition becomes effective on January 23, 2023.
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA hereby gives notice of the expansion of the scope of recognition of TUV Rheinland of North America, Inc. (TUVRNA), as a NRTL. TUVRNA's expansion covers the addition of two recognized testing and certification sites to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition and is not a delegation or grant of government authority. As a result of recognition, employers may use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by a NRTL for initial recognition, or for expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
TUVRNA submitted an application, dated February 8, 2018 (OSHA-2007-0042-0061), to expand recognition as a NRTL to include two additional test sites located at: 295 Foster Street, Suite 100, Littleton, Massachusetts 01460 (TUVRNA Littleton) and 710 Resende Road, Bldg. 199, Webster, New York 14580 (TUVRNA Webster). OSHA staff performed an on-site review of TUVRNA's testing facilities at TUVRNA Littleton on July 12, 2022, and at TUVRNA Webster on July 14, 2022, in which assessors found some nonconformities with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. TUVRNA addressed these issues sufficiently, and OSHA staff preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the application.
OSHA published the preliminary notice announcing TUVRNA's expansion application in the
To obtain or review copies of all public documents pertaining to the TUVAM expansion application, go to
OSHA staff examined TUVRNA's expansion application, conducted a detailed on-site assessment, and examined other pertinent information. Based on review of this evidence, OSHA finds that TUVRNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition, subject to the specified limited and conditions. OSHA, therefore, is proceeding with this final notice to grant TUVRNA's scope of recognition. OSHA limits the expansion of TUVRNA's recognition to include the sites at Littleton, Massachusetts and Webster, New York as listed above. OSHA's recognition of these two sites limits TUVRNA to performing product testing and certifications only to the test standards for which the site has the proper capability and programs, and for test standards in TUVRNA's scope of recognition. This limitation is consistent with the recognition that OSHA grants to other NRTLs that operate multiple sites.
In addition to those conditions already required by 29 CFR 1910.7, TUVRNA also must abide by the following conditions of the recognition:
1. TUVRNA must inform OSHA as soon as possible, in writing, of any change of ownership, facilities, or key personnel, and of any major change in its operations as a NRTL, and provide details of the change(s);
2. TUVRNA must meet all the terms of its recognition and comply with all OSHA policies pertaining to this recognition; and
3. TUVRNA must continue to meet the requirements for recognition, including all previously published conditions on TUVRNA's scope of recognition, in all areas for which it has recognition.
James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Weeks of January 23, 30, February 6, 13, 20, 27, 2023. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public and closed.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of January 30, 2023.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 13, 2023.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 20, 2023.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 27, 2023.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Environmental impact statement and programmatic agreement; issuance; correction.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is correcting a notice that was published in the
January 23, 2023.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2019-0026 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:
•
•
•
Christine Pineda, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-6789, email:
In the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe C2 Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “C2”) proposes to update its Fees 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 the Cboe Data Services, LLC (“CDS”) section of its Fees Schedule, effective January 3, 2023. The Exchange proposes to modify its fees relating to the distribution of the BBO data feed.
The Exchange first proposes to modify its current User Fees. The Exchange currently charges a “User Fee”, payable by a Customer,
The Exchange lastly proposes to establish a $10,000 per month Enterprise Fee that will permit a recipient firm who receives C2 Options Top Data from a Distributor to receive the data for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. The Enterprise Fee is an alternative to User fees and will permit a recipient firm who receives C2 Options Top Data from a Distributor to pay a flat fee to receive the data for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users, which the Exchange proposes to make clear in the Fee Schedule. The Enterprise Fee may provide a recipient an opportunity to reduce its fees. For example, if a recipient firm has 10,000 Professional Users who each receive C2 Options Top at $5.00 per month (as proposed), then that recipient firm will pay $50,000 per month in Professional Users fees. If the recipient firm instead were to purchase the proposed Enterprise license, the recipient firm would alternatively pay a flat fee of $10,000 for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. A recipient firm must pay a separate Enterprise Fee for each Distributor that controls the display of C2 Options Top if it wishes such User to be covered by an Enterprise Fee rather than by per User fees. A recipient firm that pays the Enterprise Fee will not have to report its number of such Users on a monthly basis. Rather, every six months, the recipient firm must provide the Exchange with a count of the total number of authorized person users of each product, including both Professional and Non-Professional Users. The Exchange notes that the purchase of an Enterprise license is voluntary, and a firm may elect to instead use the per User structure and benefit from the proposed per User Fees described above. For example, a firm that does not have a sufficient number of subscribers to benefit from purchase of the license need not do so.
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.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade options. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 18% of the market share.
Moreover, the C2 Options Top Data Feed is distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data available. Accordingly, Distributors and Users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. As described above, market participants have a wide variety of alternative market data products from which to choose, such as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges and consolidated data. Further, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers. Moreover, all broker-dealers involved in order routing must take consolidated data from OPRA, and proprietary data feeds cannot be used to meet that particular requirement. As such, all proprietary data feeds are optional.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Particularly, 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 Exchange believes the proposed changes to adopt new Professional and Non-Professional User fees are reasonable as the User fees continue to be lower than User fees assessed by other exchanges for similar data.
The proposed Enterprise Fee for C2 Options Top Feed is equitable and reasonable as the proposed fee could result in a fee reduction for recipient firms with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. If a recipient firm has a smaller number of Professional Users of C2 Options Top Data, then it may continue using the per User structure and benefit from the proposed per User Fee reductions. By reducing prices for recipient firms with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional Users, the Exchange believes that more firms may choose to receive and to distribute C2 Options Top Data, thereby expanding the distribution of this market data for the benefit of investors.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed Enterprise Fee is reasonable because it will simplify reporting for
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price top-of-book data is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar data products to their customers. Top-of-book data is broadly disseminated by competing U.S. options exchanges and through OPRA. There are therefore a number of alternative products available to market participants and investors, including products offered by certain competing exchanges. In this competitive environment potential subscribers are free to choose which competing product to purchase to satisfy their need for market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as market data customers look to purchase cheaper data products, and quality, as market participants seek to purchase data that represents significant market liquidity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants. As discussed, the proposed fees would apply to all similarly situated recipient firms of C2 Options Top on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes the differentiated fees for Professional and Non-Professional Users of C2 Options Top is appropriate given Professional Users are categorized as such based on their employment and participation in financial markets, and thus, are compensated to participate in the markets. Non-Professional Users too can receive significant financial benefits through their participation in the markets, however the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge more to those Users who are more directly engaged in the markets. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed fee neither favors nor penalizes one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not impose a burden on competition or on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, market participants are not forced to subscribe to C2 Options Top Data, or any of the Exchange's data feeds, as described above. Also as described above, there are numerous substitute products offered by other national securities exchanges, as well as OPRA. Because market data customers can find suitable substitute feeds, an exchange that overprices its market data products stands a high risk that users may substitute another product. These competitive pressures ensure that no one exchange's market data fees can impose an undue burden on competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so here.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
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)
The Exchange proposes to amend its NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges (the “Fee Schedule”) with respect to certain regulatory fees related to the Central Registration Depository (“CRD” or “CRD system”), which are collected by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change on January 3, 2023. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule with respect to certain regulatory fees collected by FINRA for use of CRD.
FINRA collects and retains certain regulatory fees via CRD for the registration of associated persons of Exchange ETP Holders that are not FINRA members (“Non-FINRA ETP Holders”).
FINRA recently amended two of the fees assessed for use of the CRD system.
The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues surrounding regulatory fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP Holders would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is reasonable because the fee will be identical to that adopted by FINRA as of January 2023 for use of the CRD system to submit an initial or amended Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD that includes the initial reporting, amendment, or certification of one or more disclosure events or proceedings and the posting to CRD each set of fingerprints submitted electronically to FINRA. The costs of operating and improving the CRD system are similarly borne by FINRA when a Non-FINRA ETP Holder uses the CRD system; accordingly, the fees collected for such use should, as proposed by the Exchange, mirror the fees assessed to FINRA members. In addition, as FINRA noted in amending its fees, it believes that its proposed
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges, and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, and dealers. The fee applies equally to all individuals and firms required to report information the CRD system, and the proposed change will result in the same regulatory fees being charged to all ETP Holders required to report information to CRD and for services performed by FINRA regardless of whether such ETP Holders are FINRA members. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the fee collected for such use should increase in lockstep with the fee adopted by FINRA as of January 2023, as is proposed by the Exchange.
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Rebates (the “Fee Schedule”) with respect to certain regulatory fees related to the Central Registration Depository (“CRD” or “CRD system”), which are collected by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change on January 3, 2023. The proposed change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule with respect to certain regulatory fees collected by FINRA for use of CRD.
FINRA collects and retains certain regulatory fees via CRD for the registration of associated persons of Exchange ETP Holders that are not FINRA members (“Non-FINRA ETP Holders”).
FINRA recently amended two of the fees assessed for use of the CRD system.
The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues surrounding regulatory fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that ETP Holders would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is reasonable because the fee will be identical to that adopted by FINRA as of January 2023 for use of the CRD system to submit an initial or amended Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD that includes the initial reporting, amendment, or certification of one or more disclosure events or proceedings and the posting to CRD each set of fingerprints submitted electronically to FINRA. The costs of operating and improving the CRD system are similarly borne by FINRA when a Non-FINRA ETP Holder uses the CRD system; accordingly, the fees collected for such use should, as proposed by the Exchange, mirror the fees assessed to FINRA members. In addition, as FINRA noted in amending its fees, it believes that its proposed pricing structure is reasonable and correlates fees with the components that drive its regulatory costs to the extent feasible. The Exchange further believes that the change is reasonable because it will provide greater specificity regarding the CRD system fees that are applicable to Non-FINRA ETP Holders. All similarly situated ETP Holders are subject to the same fee structure, and every ETP Holder must use the CRD system for registration and disclosure. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the fees collected for such use should likewise increase in lockstep with the fees assessed to FINRA members, as is proposed by the Exchange.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges, and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, and dealers. The fee applies equally to all individuals and firms required to report information the CRD system, and the proposed change will result in the same regulatory fees being charged to all ETP Holders required to report information to CRD and for services performed by FINRA regardless of whether such ETP Holders are FINRA members. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the fee collected for such use should increase in lockstep with the fee adopted by FINRA as of
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 NYSE Arca Equities Fees and Charges (“Fee Schedule”) to amend the fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to amend the fee for Retail
The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective January 3, 2023.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. 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.”
While Regulation NMS has enhanced competition, it has also fostered a “fragmented” market structure where trading in a single stock can occur across multiple trading centers. When multiple trading centers compete for order flow in the same stock, the Commission has recognized that “such competition can lead to the fragmentation of order flow in that stock.”
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can move order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products. While it is not possible to know a firm's reason for shifting order flow, the Exchange believes that one such reason is because of fee changes at any of the registered exchanges or non-exchange venues to which a firm routes order flow. The competition for Retail Orders is even more stark, particularly as it relates to exchange versus off-exchange venues.
The Exchange thus needs to compete in the first instance with non-exchange venues for Retail Order flow, and with the 15 other exchange venues for that Retail Order flow that is not directed off-exchange. Accordingly, competitive forces compel the Exchange to use exchange transaction fees and credits, particularly as they relate to competing for Retail Order flow, because market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable.
To respond to this competitive environment, the Exchange has established a number of Retail Tiers, which are designed to provide an incentive for ETP Holders to route Retail Orders to the Exchange by providing higher credits for adding liquidity correlated to an ETP Holder's higher trading volume in Retail Orders on the Exchange. Under three of these four tiers,
The proposed rule change is designed to be available to all ETP Holders on the Exchange and is intended to provide ETP Holders an opportunity to not pay a fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity from the Exchange. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to adopt new footnote (f) under the Retail Tiers table.
As noted above, ETP Holders that qualify for Retail Tiers 1, 2, 3 and Retail Step-Up Tier currently do not pay a fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity from the Exchange. ETP Holders that do not currently qualify for Retail Tiers 1, 2, 3 and Retail Step-Up Tier would benefit from this proposed rule change by increasing the amount of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that add and remove liquidity by 0.05% over their May 2022 CADV. ETP Holders that meet the proposed lower volume requirement would qualify to not pay a fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity. ETP Holders that qualify for the proposed no fee would also continue to receive the standard credit of ($0.0032) per share for Retail Orders that add liquidity.
To illustrate the application of the proposed fee reduction, assume an ETP Holder's activity of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day in the current month is equal to 0.08% of CADV, which is less than Retail Tier 4's requirement of 0.10% of CADV. Assume further that this ETP Holder has a Step-Up of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day from April 2018 of 0.02% of CADV, which is less than Retail Step-Up Tier's requirement of 0.075% of CADV. Based on this activity, the ETP Holder in this example would receive the standard credit of ($0.0032) per share for adding Retail liquidity and would pay the standard fee of $0.0030 per share for removing Retail liquidity, unless the ETP Holder qualifies for better rates under other pricing tiers.
Assume further that the same ETP Holder's activity of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day in May 2022 was equal to 0.02% of CADV. Under the proposed rule change, this ETP Holder would qualify for the proposed no fee because it had an increase of Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that add and remove liquidity over May 2022 of 0.06% (0.08% in the current month minus 0.02% in May 2022), which meets the proposed requirement that an ETP Holder's increase of Retail
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to encourage greater participation from ETP Holders and promote additional liquidity in Retail Orders. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to adopt a lower volume requirement to qualify for the proposed fee reduction would incentivize ETP Holders to direct a greater number of Retail Orders to the Exchange that add and remove liquidity. As described above, ETP Holders have a choice of where to send their Retail Orders that add and remove liquidity. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to reduce fees paid by ETP Holders for Retail Orders could lead to more ETP Holders choosing to route such orders for execution to the Exchange rather than to a competing exchange.
The Exchange does not know how much Retail Order flow ETP Holders choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. Without having a view of ETP Holders' activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would result in any ETP Holder sending more of its Retail Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange cannot predict with certainty how many ETP Holders would avail themselves of this opportunity, but additional liquidity of Retail Orders would benefit all market participants because it would provide greater execution opportunities on the Exchange.
The proposed changes are not otherwise intended to address any other issues, and the Exchange is not aware of any significant problems that market participants would have in complying with the proposed changes.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
As discussed above, the Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market. 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.”
Given this competitive environment, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt to attract additional order flow to the Exchange.
As noted above, the competition for Retail Order flow is stark given the amount of retail limit orders that are routed to non-exchange venues. The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. ETP Holders can choose from any one of the 16 currently operating registered exchanges, and numerous off-exchange venues, to route such order flow. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain exchange transaction fees, particularly as they relate to competing for retail orders. Stated otherwise, changes to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposal to adopt lower volume requirement to qualify for the proposed fee reduction is reasonable because it is designed to encourage greater participation from ETP Holders and promote additional liquidity in Retail Orders. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to require ETP Holders to meet the applicable volume threshold to qualify for the proposed no fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity, which the Exchange believes will encourage ETP Holders to direct more of their Retail Orders to the Exchange. Further, the proposed change is reasonable as it would allow ETP Holders that do not presently qualify for Retail Tiers 1, 2, 3 and Retail Step-Up Tier an additional opportunity to qualify and not pay a fee for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to adopt reduced fees for ETP Holders that meet the proposed volume requirement is a reasonable means to encourage additional liquidity on the Exchange because ETP Holders would benefit from the greater amounts of displayed liquidity present on a public exchange. The Exchange believes that the proposed lower volume requirement would incentivize additional liquidity to a public exchange to qualify for lower fees for Retail Orders with a time-in-force of Day that remove liquidity, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for ETP Holders. The proposal is thus reasonable because all ETP Holders would benefit from such increased levels of liquidity. The Exchange notes that ETP Holders are free to shift their order flow to competing venues if they believe other markets offer more favorable fees and credits.
On the backdrop of the competitive environment in which the Exchange currently operates, the proposed rule change is a reasonable attempt to increase liquidity on the Exchange and improve the Exchange's market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange believes that, for the reasons discussed above, the proposed rule change is an equitable allocation of its fees and credits. The proposed rule change is intended to provide ETP Holders an incentive to send a greater number of Retail Orders to the Exchange in order to qualify and not pay a fee for such orders when removing liquidity from the Exchange, thereby increasing the number of orders that are executed on the Exchange, promoting price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities and improving overall liquidity on a public exchange. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is equitable because it would apply to all similarly situated ETP Holders that remove liquidity. As previously noted, the Exchange operates in a competitive environment, particularly as it relates to attracting Retail Orders to the Exchange. The Exchange does not know how much order flow ETP Holders choose to route to other exchanges or to off-exchange venues. The Exchange believes that pricing is just one of the factors that ETP Holders consider when determining where to direct their order flow. Among
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change would improve market quality for all market participants on the Exchange and, as a consequence, attract more Retail Orders to the Exchange, thereby improving market-wide quality and price discovery.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to adopt a lower volume requirement to qualify for the proposed fee reduction is not unfairly discriminatory. In the prevailing competitive environment, ETP Holders are free to disfavor the Exchange's pricing if they believe that alternatives offer them better value. Moreover, the proposal neither targets nor will it have a disparate impact on any particular category of market participant. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change will incentivize ETP Holders to direct a greater number of Retail Orders to a public exchange to qualify for the proposed reduced fee for removing liquidity, thereby promoting price discovery and transparency and enhancing order execution opportunities for ETP Holders. The proposal does not permit unfair discrimination because the proposed volume requirement for removing liquidity would be applied to all similarly situated ETP Holders, who would all be eligible to not pay a fee on an equal basis. Accordingly, no ETP Holder already operating on the Exchange would be disadvantaged by this allocation of fees. The Exchange believes it is not unfairly discriminatory to provide lower fees for removing liquidity as the proposed fee would be provided on an equal basis to all ETP Holders that remove liquidity by meeting the proposed volume requirement. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed reduced fee would provide an incentive for ETP Holders to execute more of their Retail Orders on the Exchange. The Exchange also believes that the proposed change is not unfairly discriminatory because it is reasonably related to the value to the Exchange's market quality associated with higher volume.
In addition, the submission of orders to the Exchange is optional for ETP Holders in that they could choose whether to submit orders to the Exchange and, if they do, the extent of its activity in this regard.
Finally, the Exchange believes that it is subject to significant competitive forces, as described below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the Act.
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change could promote competition between the Exchange and other execution venues, including those that currently offer similar order types and comparable transaction pricing, by encouraging additional orders to be sent to the Exchange for execution.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
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 BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX 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 the Fee Schedule, effective January 3, 2023. The Exchange proposes to modify its market data fees for BZX Options Top.
The Exchange first proposes to reduce the Professional and Non-Professional User fees for BZX Options Top. The Exchange currently charges Internal Distributors and External Distributors that redistribute any of the BZX Options Data Feeds different fees for their Professional Users
The Exchange next proposes to increase the current monthly Enterprise Fee. The Enterprise Fee permits a recipient firm who receives BZX Options Top from a Distributor to receive the data for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. Currently, the Exchange assesses an Enterprise Fee of $3,500 per month. The Exchange proposes to increase the Enterprise Fee to $20,000 per month. For example, if a recipient firm had 15,000 Professional Users who each receive BZX Options Top at $5.00 per month (as proposed), then that recipient firm will pay $75,000 per month in Professional Users fees. Under the proposed Enterprise Fee, the recipient firm will pay a flat fee of $20,000 for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. A recipient firm must pay a separate Enterprise Fee for each Distributor that controls the display of BZX Options Top if it wishes such User to be covered by an Enterprise Fee rather than by per User fees. A recipient firm that pays the Enterprise Fee will not have to report its number of such Users on a monthly basis. However, every six months, a recipient firm must provide the Exchange with a count of the total number of authorized users of BZX Options Top, including both Professional and Non-Professional Users.
The Exchange lastly proposes to add references to “Depth Feed” in the description of the Enterprise Fee under the BZX Options Depth Feed table to clarify which data feed such Enterprise fee currently applies to, thereby alleviating potential confusion.
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.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade options. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 18% of the market share.
Moreover, the BZX Options Top is distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data available. Accordingly, Distributors and Users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. As described above, market participants have a wide variety of alternative market data products from which to choose, such as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges and consolidated data. Further, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers. Moreover, all broker-dealers involved in order routing must take consolidated data from OPRA, and proprietary data feeds cannot be used to meet that particular requirement. As such, all proprietary data feeds are optional.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Particularly, 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 Exchange believes the proposed changes to reduce the current Professional and Non-Professional User fees are reasonable as recipient firms will be subject to lower User fees. Additionally, the User fees continue to be lower than User fees assessed by other exchanges for similar data.
The Exchange believes the proposed change to start charging separate User fees for BZX Options Top and BZX Options Depth Feed is equitable and reasonable because the Exchange has not charged for separate User Fees for both feeds since BZX Options Top was adopted in March 2018 and the Exchange no longer wishes to continue to have a single fee.
The proposed increased Enterprise Fee for BZX Options Top Feed is equitable and reasonable as the proposed fee could still result in a fee reduction for recipient firms with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. If a recipient firm has a smaller number of Professional Users of BZX Options Top, then it may continue using the per User structure and benefit from the proposed per User Fee reductions. By reducing prices for recipient firms with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional Users, the Exchange believes that more firms may choose to receive and to distribute BZX Options Top Data, thereby expanding the distribution of this market data for the benefit of investors.
The Exchange further believes that the Enterprise Fee, even as amended, is reasonable because it simplifies reporting for certain recipients that have large numbers of Professional and Non-Professional Users. Firms that pay the proposed Enterprise Fee do have to report the number of Users on a monthly basis as they currently do, but rather only have to count authorized users every six months, which is a significant reduction in administrative burden. Finally, as described above the Enterprise Fee is entirely optional. A firm that does not have a sufficient number of subscribers to benefit from purchase of the license need not do so.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price top-of-book data is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar data products to their customers. Top-of-book data is broadly disseminated by competing U.S. options exchanges and through OPRA. There are therefore a number of alternative products available to market participants and investors, including products offered by certain competing exchanges. In this competitive environment potential subscribers are free to choose which competing product to purchase to satisfy their need for market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as market data customers look to purchase cheaper data products, and quality, as market participants seek to purchase data that represents significant market liquidity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants. As discussed, the proposed fees would apply to all similarly situated recipient firms of BZX Options Top on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes the differentiated fees for Professional and Non-Professional Users of BZX Options Top is appropriate given Professional Users are categorized as such based on their employment and participation in financial markets, and thus, are compensated to participate in the markets. Non-Professional Users too can receive significant financial benefits through their participation in the markets, however the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge more to those Users who are more directly engaged in the markets. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed fee neither favors nor penalizes one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not impose a burden on competition or on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, market participants are not forced to subscribe to BZX Options Top, or any of the Exchange's data feeds, as described above. Also as described above, there are numerous substitute products offered by other national securities exchanges, as well as OPRA. Because market data customers can find suitable substitute feeds, an exchange that overprices its market data products stands a high risk that users may substitute another product. These competitive pressures ensure that no one exchange's market data fees can impose an undue burden on competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so here.
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)
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX Options”) proposes to amend its Fees 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 self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to adopt new Membership fees. First, the Exchange proposes to establish a monthly Participant Fee for Options Members of the Exchange of $500. Additionally, EDGX Options Market Makers would be assessed a Market Maker Participant Fee of $750 per month (
The Exchange also proposes to adopt fees relating to Market Maker appointments (set forth in the “Market Maker Appointments Sliding Scale”) which will be based on an Appointment Unit Tier schedule that assigns an appointment weight to each class within a tier. Particularly, EDGX Options Market Makers must select class appointments in the classes they seek to make markets electronically.
The Exchange will rebalance the above tiers (excluding the “AA” tier above) once each calendar quarter, which may result in additions or deletions to their composition and announces such rebalances pursuant to Exchange Rule 16.3 at least 10 business days before the rebalance takes effect. The proposed appointment unit tier assignment and rebalances are based on national average daily volume. When a class changes tiers, it will be assigned the appointment unit of that tier. Appointment weights for each assigned class will be summed for each Market Maker ID used to trade to obtain the total appointment units. If the sum of appointments is a fractional amount, the total will be rounded up to the next highest whole Appointment Unit. Total quantity will be determined by the highest quantity used at any point during the month. The following lists the proposed progressive monthly fees for Appointment Units:
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.
The Exchange believes that there is value in becoming a Member of the Exchange and that the proposed Participant Fees are reasonable. The proposed fees are also significantly lower than the membership fees imposed by several other options exchanges that charge such fees.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Participant Fees are not unfairly discriminatory because it would be assessed uniformly across all Members or firms that seek to become Members. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are not unfairly discriminatory because no broker-dealer is required to become a Member of the Exchange. There is also no regulatory requirement that Market Makers connect and access any one options exchange or that any market participant connect to any one particular options exchange. Moreover, a Market Maker membership is not a requirement to participate on the Exchange and participation on an exchange in any capacity is completely voluntary. Indeed, while the Exchange currently has 51 members that trade options, Cboe BZX has 63 members that trade options, Cboe Options has 98 Trading Permit Holders (“TPHs”) (
Accordingly, the vigorous competition among national securities exchanges provides many alternatives for firms to voluntarily decide whether membership to the Exchange is appropriate and worthwhile, and as noted above, no broker-dealer is required to become a Member of the Exchange. Indeed, there are currently 15 other registered options exchanges that trade options and one additional options exchange expected to launch in 2023. Further, low barriers to entry mean that new exchanges may rapidly and inexpensively enter the market and offer additional substitute platforms to further compete with the Exchange and the products it offers. For example, there are 3 exchanges that have been added in the U.S. options markets in the last 5 years (
The Exchange believes its proposed Market Maker Appointments Sliding Scale fees are also reasonable as its affiliated exchange, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Cboe Options”), offers the same structure with respect to fees for appointment classes and as the proposed fees are significantly lower than the Cboe Options fees that were adopted recently in 2020.
Moreover, as discussed above, there is no regulatory requirement that any market participant, including Market Makers, connect to any one particular options exchange. This is evidenced by the fact that no firm is an EDGX Options only member and further illustrated by the analysis described above by BOX in which it found 42 of 62 market making firms across three exchanges access only one of those three exchanges. Also as noted, a Market Maker membership is not a requirement to participate on the Exchange and participation on an exchange in any capacity is completely voluntary. Accordingly, Market Makers choose if and how to access a particular exchange and because it is a choice; if a Market Maker deems a particular exchange as charging excessive fees to participate, such Market Maker may not connect, and existing Market Makers would disconnect from the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposed Market Maker Appointments Sliding Scale fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Market Makers, and all similarly situated Market Makers (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed fee change will not impact intramarket competition because it will apply to all similarly situated Members equally. The Exchange also believes that the proposed Market Maker Participant and Market Maker Appointments Sliding Scale fees do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because the proposed fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the fee rates are designed in order to provide objective criteria for Market Makers of different sizes and business models that best matches their quoting activity on the Exchange. Further, as noted above, Market Makers generally consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network.
The Exchange's proposed Participant Fees, including the Market Maker Participant Fee, will be lower than the cost of membership on other exchanges as described in detail above and therefore, may stimulate intermarket competition by attracting additional firms to become Members on the Exchange or at least should not deter interested participants from joining the Exchange. In addition, as discussed in the statutory basis section above, participant fees are subject to competition from other exchanges. Accordingly, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, the Exchange can, and likely will, see a decline in membership as a result. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can determine whether or not to join the Exchange based on the value received compared to the cost of joining and maintaining membership on the Exchange.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 the Fee Schedule, effective January 3, 2023. The Exchange proposes to modify its market data fees for EDGX Options Top.
The Exchange first proposes to reduce the Professional and Non-Professional User fees for EDGX Options Top. The Exchange currently charges Internal Distributors and External Distributors that redistribute any of the EDGX Options Data Feeds different fees for their Professional Users
The Exchange lastly proposes to establish a $20,000 per month Enterprise Fee that will permit a recipient firm who receives EDGX Options Top Data from a Distributor to receive the data for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. The Enterprise Fee is an alternative to User fees and will permit a recipient firm who receives EDGX Options Top Data from a Distributor to pay a flat fee to receive the data for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users, which the Exchange proposes to make clear in the Fee Schedule. The Enterprise Fee may provide a recipient an opportunity to reduce its fees. For example, if a recipient firm has 15,000 Professional Users who each receive EDGX Options Top at $5.00 per month (as proposed), then that recipient firm will pay $75,000 per month in Professional Users fees. If the recipient firm instead were to purchase the proposed Enterprise license, the recipient firm would alternatively pay a flat fee of $20,000 for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. A recipient firm must pay a separate Enterprise Fee for each Distributor that controls the display of EDGX Options Top if it wishes such User to be covered by an Enterprise Fee rather than by per User fees. A recipient firm that pays the Enterprise Fee will not have to report its number of such Users on a monthly basis. Rather, every six months, the recipient firm must provide the Exchange with a count of the total number of authorized person users of each product, including both Professional and Non-Professional Users. The Exchange notes that the purchase of an Enterprise license is
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.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade options. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 18% of the market share.
Moreover, the EDGX Options Top is distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data available. Accordingly, Distributors and Users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. As described above, market participants have a wide variety of alternative market data products from which to choose, such as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges and consolidated data. Further, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers. Moreover, all broker-dealers involved in order routing must take consolidated data from OPRA, and proprietary data feeds cannot be used to meet that particular requirement. As such, all proprietary data feeds are optional.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Particularly, 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 Exchange believes the proposed changes to reduce the current Professional and Non-Professional User fees are reasonable as recipient firms will be subject to lower User fees. Additionally, the User fees continue to be lower than User fees assessed by other exchanges for similar data.
The Exchange believes the proposed change to start charging separate User fees for EDGX Options Top is equitable and reasonable because the Exchange has not charged for separate User Fees for both feeds since EDGX Options Top was adopted in January 2018 and the Exchange now wishes to have separate User fees for EDGX Options Top.
The proposed Enterprise Fee for EDGX Options Top Feed is equitable and reasonable as the proposed fee could result in a fee reduction for recipient firms with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. If a recipient firm has a smaller number of Professional Users of EDGX Options Top Data, then it may continue using the per User structure and benefit from the proposed per User Fee reductions. By reducing prices for recipient firms with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional Users, the Exchange believes that more firms may choose to receive and to distribute EDGX Options Top Data, thereby expanding the distribution of this market data for the benefit of investors.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed Enterprise Fee is reasonable because it will simplify reporting for certain recipients that have large numbers of Professional and Non-Professional Users. Firms that pay the proposed Enterprise Fee will not have to report the number of Users on a monthly basis as they currently do, but rather will only have to count authorized users every six months, which is a significant reduction in administrative burden. Finally, as described above the Enterprise Fee is entirely optional. A firm that does not have a sufficient number of subscribers to benefit from purchase of the license need not do so.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price top-of-book data is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar data products to their customers. Top-of-book data is broadly disseminated by competing U.S. options exchanges and through OPRA. There are therefore a number of alternative products available to market participants and investors, including products offered by certain competing exchanges. In this competitive environment potential subscribers are free to choose which competing product to purchase to satisfy their need for market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as market data customers look to purchase cheaper data products, and quality, as market participants seek to purchase data that represents significant market liquidity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants. As discussed, the proposed fees would apply to all similarly situated recipient firms of EDGX Options Top on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes the differentiated fees for Professional and Non-Professional Users of EDGX Options Top is appropriate given Professional Users are categorized as such based on their employment and participation in financial markets, and thus, are compensated to participate in the markets. Non-Professional Users too can receive significant financial benefits through their participation in the markets, however the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge more to those Users who are more directly engaged in the markets. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed fee neither favors nor penalizes one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not impose a burden on competition or on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, market participants are not forced to subscribe to EDGX Options Top, or any of the Exchange's data feeds, as described above. Also as described above, there are numerous substitute products offered by other national securities exchanges, as well as OPRA. Because market data customers can find suitable substitute feeds, an exchange that overprices its market data products stands a high risk that users may substitute another product. These competitive pressures ensure that no one exchange's market data fees can impose an undue burden on competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so here.
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”),
Cboe Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “Cboe Options”) proposes to update the Cboe Data Services, LLC 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 the Cboe Data Services, LLC (“CDS”) Fee Schedule, effective January 3, 2023. The Exchange proposes to modify its fees relating to the distribution of the BBO data feed.
The Exchange first proposes to modify the current monthly Data Fee for Cboe Options Top Data. Currently, the Exchange assesses a “Data Fee”, payable by a Customer, of $9,000 per month for internal use and external redistribution of the Cboe Options Top Data Feed.
The Exchange next proposes to modify its current User Fees. The Exchange currently charges a “User Fee”, payable by a Customer, of $50 per month per Device or user ID for use of the data in the Cboe Options Top Data Feed by “Display Only Service”
Next, the Exchange proposes to eliminate a fee waiver for Customers of Cboe Options Top Data. In particular, the CDS Fee Schedule currently provides that the monthly data fee of $9,000 per month for the Book Depth Data Feed
The Exchange lastly proposes to establish a $300,000 per month Enterprise Fee that will permit a recipient firm who receives Cboe Options Top Data from a Distributor to receive the data for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. The Enterprise Fee is an alternative to User fees and will permit a recipient firm who receives Cboe Options Top Data from a Distributor to pay a flat fee to receive the data for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users, which the Exchange proposes to make clear in the CDS Fee Schedule. The Enterprise Fee may provide a recipient an opportunity to reduce their fees. For example, if a recipient firm has 20,000 Professional Users who each receive EDGX Options Top at $15.50 per month (as proposed), then that recipient firm will pay $310,000 per month in Professional Users fees. If the recipient firm instead were to purchase the proposed Enterprise license, the recipient firm would alternatively pay a flat fee of $300,000 for an unlimited number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. A recipient firm must pay a separate Enterprise Fee for each Distributor that controls the display of Cboe Options Top if it wishes such User to be covered by an Enterprise Fee rather than by per User fees. A recipient firm that pays the Enterprise Fee will not have to report its number of such Users on a monthly basis. Rather, every six months, the recipient firm must provide the Exchange with a count of the total number of authorized users (both Professional and Non-Professional Users) of Cboe Options Top Data. The Exchange notes that the purchase of an Enterprise license is voluntary, and a firm may elect to instead use the per User structure and benefit from the proposed per User Fees described above. For example, a firm that does not have a sufficient number of subscribers to benefit from purchase of the license need not do so.
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.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive environment. Indeed, there are currently 16 registered options exchanges that trade options. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 18% of the market share.
Moreover, the Cboe Options Top Data Feed is distributed and purchased on a voluntary basis, in that neither the Exchange nor market data distributors are required by any rule or regulation to make this data available. Accordingly, Distributors and Users can discontinue use at any time and for any reason, including due to an assessment of the reasonableness of fees charged. As described above, market participants have a wide variety of alternative market data products from which to choose, such as similar proprietary data products offered by other exchanges and consolidated data. Further, the Exchange is not required to make any proprietary data products available or to offer any specific pricing alternatives to any customers. Moreover, all broker-dealers involved in order routing must take consolidated data from OPRA, and proprietary data feeds cannot be used to meet that particular requirement. As such, all proprietary data feeds are optional.
The Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Particularly, 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 Exchange believes the proposed External Distribution fee is reasonable as it would represent a decreased fee for External Distributors for top-of-book data that has proven valuable for investors. By providing lower cost access to U.S. options market data, Cboe Options Top benefits a wide range of investors that participate in the national market system and makes it more broadly available. The Exchange believes the proposed fees for external distribution of Cboe Options Top will also continue to be allocated fairly and equitably among subscribers, and are not unfairly discriminatory, as the proposed fees will apply equally to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to Cboe Options Top and distribute that data to external subscribers. As proposed, all External Distributors of Cboe Options Top will be subject to the same external distribution fee, regardless of the type of business that they operate, or the use they plan to make of the data feed. Thus, all External Distributors would have access to Cboe Options Top on the same equitable and non-discriminatory terms.
The Exchange believes that it is also fair and equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to charge different fees for internal and external distribution of the Cboe Options Top. Although the proposed distribution fee charged to External Distributors will be lower than the existing distribution fee charged to Internal Distributors, External Distributors are subject to Non-Professional user fees to which Internal Distributors are not subject, in addition to Professional User fees (or alternatively the proposed Enterprise Fee). Furthermore, the proposal is designed to incentivize External Distributors to subscribe to Cboe Options Top Data.
The Exchange believes the proposed changes to adopt new Professional and Non-Professional User fees are reasonable as the User fees continue to be lower than User fees assessed by other exchanges for similar data.
The Exchange also believes eliminating the fee waiver of the data fee for Book Depth Data Feed for External Distributors of Cboe Options Top is equitable and reasonable because it has been available, without change, since adopted in January 1, 2015 and the Exchange no longer feels it necessary to incentivize further
The proposed Enterprise Fee for Cboe Options Top Feed is equitable and reasonable as the proposed fee could result in a fee reduction for recipient firms with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional Users. If a recipient firm has a smaller number of Professional Users of Cboe Options Top Data, then it may continue using the per User structure and benefit from the proposed per User Fee reductions. By reducing prices for recipient firms with a large number of Professional and Non-Professional Users, the Exchange believes that more firms may choose to receive and to distribute Cboe Options Top Data, thereby expanding the distribution of this market data for the benefit of investors.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed Enterprise Fee is reasonable because it will simplify reporting for certain recipients that have large numbers of Professional and Non-Professional Users. Firms that pay the proposed Enterprise Fee will not have to report the number of Users on a monthly basis as they currently do, but rather will only have to count authorized users every six months, which is a significant reduction in administrative burden. Finally, as described above the Enterprise Fee is entirely optional. A firm that does not have a sufficient number of subscribers to benefit from purchase of the license need not do so.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price top-of-book data is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar data products to their customers. Top-of-book data is broadly disseminated by competing U.S. options exchanges and through OPRA. There are therefore a number of alternative products available to market participants and investors, including products offered by certain competing exchanges. Further, the Exchange's proposal to eliminate the waiver of Book Depth Data data fee for External Distributors of Cboe Options Top Data involves no change to the existing fees, but simply eliminates a waiver. Other exchanges are free to adopt a similar waiver if they choose. In this competitive environment potential subscribers are free to choose which competing product to purchase to satisfy their need for market information. Often, the choice comes down to price, as market data customers look to purchase cheaper data products, and quality, as market participants seek to purchase data that represents significant market liquidity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not put any market participants at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants. As discussed, the proposed fees and eliminated waiver would apply to all similarly situated recipient firms of Cboe Options Top on an equal and non-discriminatory basis. The Exchange believes the reduced fees for External Distributors and not Internal Distributors of Cboe Options Top is appropriate given External Distributors are subject to the proposed Non-Professional user fees to which Internal Distributors are not subject, in addition to the proposed Professional User fees. The Exchange believes the differentiated fees for Professional and Non-Professional Users of Cboe options Top is appropriate given Professional Users are categorized as such based on their employment and participation in financial markets, and thus, are compensated to participate in the markets. Non-Professional Users too can receive significant financial benefits through their participation in the markets, however the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge more to those Users who are more directly engaged in the markets. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed fee neither favors nor penalizes one or more categories of market participants in a manner that would impose an undue burden on competition.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees do not impose a burden on competition or on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In particular, market participants are not forced to subscribe to Cboe Options Top Data, or any of the Exchange's data feeds, as described above. Also as described above, there are numerous substitute products offered by other national securities exchanges, as well as OPRA. Because market data customers can find suitable substitute feeds, an exchange that overprices its market data products stands a high risk that users may substitute another product. These competitive pressures ensure that no one exchange's market data fees can impose an undue burden on competition, and the Exchange's proposed fees do not do so here.
The Exchange has not solicited, and does not intend to solicit, comments on this proposed rule change. The Exchange has not received any written comments from members or other interested parties.
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)
The Exchange proposes to amend its Schedule of Fees and Rebates (the “Fee Schedule”) with respect to certain regulatory fees related to the Central Registration Depository (“CRD” or “CRD system”), which are collected by the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”). The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change on January 3, 2023. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule with respect to certain regulatory fees collected by FINRA for use of CRD.
FINRA collects and retains certain regulatory fees via CRD for the registration of associated persons of Exchange Participants that are not FINRA members (“Non-FINRA Participants”).
FINRA recently amended two of the fees assessed for use of the CRD system.
The Exchange notes that the proposed change is not otherwise intended to address any other issues surrounding regulatory fees, and the Exchange is not aware of any problems that Participants would have in complying with the proposed change.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is reasonable because the fee will be identical to that adopted by FINRA as of January 2023 for use of the CRD system to submit an initial or amended Form U4, Form U5 or Form BD that includes the initial reporting, amendment, or certification of one or more disclosure events or proceedings and the posting to CRD each set of fingerprints submitted electronically to FINRA. The costs of operating and improving the CRD system are similarly borne by FINRA when a Non-FINRA Participant uses the CRD system; accordingly, the fees collected for such use should, as proposed by the Exchange, mirror the fees assessed to FINRA members. In addition, as FINRA noted in amending its fees, it believes that its proposed pricing structure is reasonable and correlates fees with the components that drive its regulatory costs to the extent feasible. The Exchange further believes that the change is reasonable because it will provide greater specificity regarding the CRD system fees that are applicable to Non-FINRA Participants. All similarly situated Participants are subject to the same fee structure, and every Participant must use the CRD system for registration and disclosure. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the fees collected for such use should likewise increase in lockstep with the fees assessed to FINRA members, as is proposed by the Exchange.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed fee change provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges, and does not unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, and dealers. The fee applies equally to all individuals and firms required to report information the CRD system, and the proposed change will result in the same regulatory fees being charged to all Participants required to report information to CRD and for services performed by FINRA regardless of whether such Participants are FINRA members. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the fee collected for such use should increase in lockstep with the fee adopted by FINRA as of January 2023, as is proposed by the Exchange.
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such 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 under section 19(b)(2)(B)
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 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 modifying the existing NBBO Setter Program and deleting a definition that is no longer applicable, effective January 3, 2023.
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 $0.0016 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.
Under footnote 20 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange offers the NBBO Setter Program, which is designed to improve market quality on the Exchange in certain securities. Specifically, qualifying orders in specific securities that yield fee codes B,
Now, the Exchange proposes to increase the applicable additional rebate of the NBBO Setter Tier to $0.0007 per share and to modify the criteria as follows:
(1) MPID has a Step-Up ADAV
(2) MPID has a Current Setter ADAV
Based on the above proposed change, the Exchange also proposes to delete the definition of Step-Up Setter ADAV from the Fee Schedule as it is no longer applicable.
The Exchange notes that the NBBO Setter Program will continue to be available to all Members and MPIDs and will provide Members and MPIDs an opportunity to receive an additional enhanced rebate (
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.
In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed modified NBBO Setter Tier is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. The proposed NBBO Setter Tier reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange and enhance market quality in NBBO Setter Securities. Particularly, the Exchange believes the NBBO Setter Program tier, which provides an additional rebate to qualifying orders, continues to provide a reasonable means to encourage overall growth in Members' MPID order flow that establishes a Setter NBBO in NBBO Setter Securities. The Exchange believes the proposed first prong of the criteria under the NBBO Setter Program Tier 1 is also reasonably designed to incentivize overall growth in Members' MPID liquidity adding order flow in all securities. An overall increase in activity would deepen the Exchange's liquidity pool, offer more narrow spreads, support the quality of price discovery, promote market transparency, and improve market quality for all investors.
The Exchange believes that allowing MPIDs to qualify for the additive rebate under the NBBO Setter Tier by meeting the proposed criteria will promote price discovery and market quality in NBBO Setter Securities and, further, that the tightened spreads and increased liquidity from the proposal will benefit all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, offering the potential for execution at more aggressive prices, supporting the quality of price discovery, enhancing quoting competition across exchanges, promoting market transparency, and improving investor protection.
The Exchange notes that the NBBO Setter Tier, even as amended, is not dissimilar from other volume-based rebates and fees (“Volume Tiers”) that have been widely adopted by exchanges, including the Exchange, and are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is open to all Members on an equal basis and provides a rebate that is reasonably related to the value of an Exchange's market quality. Much like Volume Tiers are generally designed to incentivize higher levels of liquidity on the Exchange, the NBBO Setter Tier is designed to incentivize enhanced market quality on the Exchange through tighter spreads, greater size at the inside, and greater quoting depth in NBBO Setter Securities by offering an additive rebate in NBBO Setter Securities. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed additive rebate in qualifying orders for NBBO Setter Securities will act to enhance liquidity and competition across exchanges in NBBO Setter Securities by providing a rebate reasonably related to such enhanced market quality to the benefit of all investors, thereby promoting the principles discussed in section 6(b)(5) of the Act. Additionally, the Exchange notes that the tier, even as amended, is comparable to other pricing tiers adopted by the Exchange and other exchanges that provide an enhanced rebate or supplemental incentive for firms that achieve a specified volume threshold in a specified group of securities.
The Exchange also believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges because the criteria necessary to achieve the tier encourages Members to add liquidity on the Exchange. Further, the Exchange believes the proposed criteria, while more stringent than the current criteria, is commensurate with the proposed rebate, which is higher than the current rebate.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is also not unfairly discriminatory because all Members and MPIDs will continue to be eligible for the NBBO Setter Tier rebates and have the opportunity to meet the Tier's criteria and receive the corresponding additional rebate if such criteria is met. Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether these proposed changes would definitely result in any Members qualifying for the NBBO Setter Tier. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the proposed changes will impact Member activity, based on the prior months volume the Exchange anticipates
The Exchange also believes that the clarifying change to delete a non-applicable definition (
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange 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. Particularly, the NBBO Setter Tier, as proposed, will continue to be eligible to all Members and MPIDs equally in that all Members and MPIDs have the opportunity to submit orders that could set the Setter NBBO and therefore qualify for the proposed increased additive rebate in NBBO Setter Securities. Furthermore, the Exchange believes that the proposed NBBO Setter Tier would incentivize Members to submit additional aggressively priced displayed 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 proposed non-substantive change to the Definitions section of the Fee Schedule is similarly non-burdensome as it will be available to all Members and provide a clear description of the terms applicable to the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange notes that as proposed the NBBO Setter Program does not impose a burden on intermarket competition as the proposal is intended to increase competition in U.S. equity securities that the Exchange believes will contribute to a deeper and more liquid market in these securities, which would in turn promote 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. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes represent a significant departure from pricing current 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 15% 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.
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Chosen Memories: Contemporary Latin American Art from the Patricia Phelps de Cisneros Gift and Beyond” at The Museum of Modern Art, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its 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
Elliot Chiu, Attorney-Adviser, 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 “Near East to Far West: Fictions of French and American Colonialism” at the Denver Art Museum, Denver, Colorado, 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
Elliot Chiu, Attorney-Adviser, 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 “Portals: The Visionary Architecture of Paul Goesch” at the Sterling and Francine Clark Art Institute, Williamstown, 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
Elliot Chiu, Attorney-Adviser, 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 a certain object being imported from abroad pursuant to an agreement with its foreign owner or custodian for temporary display in the exhibition “Cecily Brown: Death and the Maid” at The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is of cultural significance, and, further, that its 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
Elliot Chiu, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The
Written comments should be submitted by February 22, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Sandy Liu by email at:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice announces recent statutory changes affecting the monetary thresholds for the limited Federal financial assistance categorical exclusions (CE) established by FHWA and FTA in regulations. This notice also announces an amendment to the timeframe that FHWA and FTA will use for the annual index for inflation of the monetary thresholds for those CEs, from January (calendar year) to October (fiscal year) of each year.
FHWA and FTA incorporated the annual adjustment for inflation of the monetary thresholds for the limited Federal financial assistance CEs on October 1, 2022, and will incorporate future annual adjustments in October of subsequent years.
For FHWA: Diane Mobley, Senior Attorney-Advisor, Office of the Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1366, or Robert Washington, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, (202) 366-4651. For FTA: Mark Montgomery, Attorney-Advisor, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-1017, or Dee Phan, Environmental Protection Specialist, Office of Environmental Programs, (202) 366-1799. FHWA and FTA are located at 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC. 20590. Office hours are from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), Public Law 112-141, 126 Stat. 405, signed into law on July 6, 2012, contained new requirements that FHWA and FTA (hereafter referred to as “the Agencies”) must meet in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
Subsequently, the Fixing America's Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, enacted on December 4, 2015, amended section 1317 of MAP-21 by inserting “(as adjusted annually by the Secretary to reflect any increases in the Consumer Price Index prepared by the U.S. Department of Labor)” after “$5,000,000” in paragraph (1)(A) and after “$30,000,000” in paragraph (1)(B) of the CE for projects receiving limited Federal financial assistance. In a subsequent final rule, published in the
On November 15, 2021, President Biden signed into law the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), Public Law 117-58, 135 Stat. 429, which amended the thresholds for the CEs for projects receiving limited Federal financial assistance established by section 1317 of MAP-21. Section 11317 of BIL replaced “5,000,000” with “6,000,000” in paragraph (1)(A) and “30,000,000” with “35,000,000” in paragraph (1)(B). While the Agencies intend to update 23 CFR 771.117(c)(23) and 23 CFR 771.118(c)(13) to reflect these new thresholds in a subsequent rulemaking, the new thresholds are self-executing as of the effective date of BIL, which was October 1, 2021. The Agencies determined that the CPI adjustment required by the FAST Act would occur one year from that effective date. Notice is hereby given that the Agencies incorporated the adjustment for inflation on October 1, 2022, for the period from June 1, 2021, to May 31, 2022, and the Agencies will incorporate future annual adjustments in October of each subsequent year for the preceding period from June 1 to May 31. The Agencies plan to do so by providing information about the annual adjustment on their respective websites (
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on November 30, 2022, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPBX), which owns and operates Caltrain, petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 215 (Railroad Freight Car Safety
Specifically, JPBX requested to extend its special approval pursuant to 49 CFR 215.203,
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by March 24, 2023 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated November 29, 2022, Alaska Railroad Corporation (ARRC) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 238 (Passenger Equipment Safety Standards). The relevant FRA Docket Number is FRA-2008-0161.
Specifically, ARRC requests to extend its relief from § 238.303,
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by March 24, 2023 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated December 7, 2022, Virginia & Truckee Railroad Company (VTRR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 230.17,
Specifically, VTRR requests relief for steam locomotive VTRR 29, which is used in public tourist excursions in
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by March 24, 2023 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that by letter dated November 21, 2022, Black River & Western Railroad Company (BRW) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR 230.17,
Specifically, BRW requests relief for steam locomotive No. 60, which is used in public tourist excursions. Regarding the locomotive's 1472 service day inspection, BRW requests to extend the period in which the inspection is due from May 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023. BRW states that No. 60 did not enter service until August 2011 and is expected to accrue only 350 service days by May 1, 2023. In support of its request, BRW states that the locomotive has been stored inside in a locked facility, has operated without incident, and had a successful annual inspection on August 30, 2022.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by March 24, 2023 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology (OST-R), Department of Transportation.
Notice to continue to collect confidential close call transit data.
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the intention of the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to use the approved OMB Number 2138-0044, and continue to collect the following information: Confidential Close Call Transit Data for the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA or the Authority), which includes but is not
Written comments should be submitted by March 24, 2023.
To ensure that your comments are not entered more than once into the docket, submit comments by only one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Identify all transmissions with “Docket Number RITA-2008-0002” at the beginning of each page of the document.
Demetra V. Collia, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, U.S. Department of Transportation, Office of Safety Data and Analysis, RTS-31, E36-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; Phone No. (202) 366-1610; Fax No. (202) 366-3383; email:
The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35; as amended) and 5 CFR part 1320 require each Federal agency to obtain OMB approval to initiate an information collection activity. BTS is seeking OMB approval to continue the following BTS information collection activity:
A close call is a situation or circumstance that had the potential for safety consequences, but did not result in an adverse safety event. Knowledge of a close call presents an opportunity to address unsafe work conditions and encourage a culture of safety in the workplace. It is estimated that the time to complete a close call report and participate in a brief confidential interview will be no than 60 minutes for a maximum total burden of 150 hours (150 reports * 60 minutes/60 = 150 hours). Reports are submitted when there is a qualifying event,
WMATA deployed the Close Call program in April 2013, and in May 2016 the program expanded to include bus employees. The Confidential Close Call Program is a Cooperative Agreement between BTS, WMATA management, the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU) Local 689, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) Local 922 and Office & Professional Employees International Union (OPEIU) Local 2. This program provides a confidential platform to facilitate the voluntary reporting of close call events without fear of discipline. Collecting data on the nation's transportation system is an important component of BTS' mission and responsibility to the transportation community as stated in its authorizing statute (49 U.S.C. 6302). BTS and WMATA/ATU, IBT Local 922 and OPEIU Local 2, share a common interest in promoting rail transit and bus safety using timely, accurate, and relevant data. WMATA/ATU, IBT Local 922 and OPEIU Local 2, is sponsoring the Confidential Close Call Program for Transit Rail and Bus System to improve transit rail and bus safety by studying the effectiveness of its own systems through the data and information collected from reported close call events.
Any situation or circumstance that has the potential for safety consequences, but did not result in an adverse safety event is defined as a close call. Knowledge about a close call presents an opportunity to address unsafe work conditions and practices, prevent accidents, contribute to policy making decisions and improve overall safety in the workplace.
BTS collects close call reports submitted by WMATA employees, conducts employee interviews, develop and maintain an analytical database containing reported data and other pertinent information, provides statistical analysis to WMATA, and protects the confidentiality of these data through its own statute (49 U.S.C. 6302) and CIPSEA. Only statistical and non-sensitive information will be made available through publications and reports.
Voluntary reporting of close calls to a confidential system provides a tool to identify and correct weaknesses within WMATA and prevents accidents. Close Call reporting fosters a voluntary, cooperative, non-punitive environment to communicate safety concerns for the greater good. Through the analysis of the data that is reported, WMATA receives information about factors that contribute to unsafe events, which becomes the catalyst to develop new training programs and identify root causes of adverse events. The database also provides researchers with valuable information regarding precursors to safety risks and contributes to research and development of intervention programs aimed at averting accidents and fatalities.
Employees involved in reporting a close call incident are asked to fill out a report and participate in a brief, confidential interview. Employees submit the report electronically to BTS. Participants will be asked to provide information such as: (1) name and contact information; (2) time and location of the event; (3) a short description of the event; (4) contributing factors to the close call; and (5) any other information that might be useful in determining a root cause for such events.
BTS requests comments on any aspects of this information collection request, including: (1) the accuracy of the estimated burden of 150 hours detailed in section I; (2) ways to enhance the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the collected information; and (3) ways to minimize the collection burden without reducing the quality of the information collected, including additional use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning proceeds of bonds used for reimbursement.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2023 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, at (202) 317-6009, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of 1information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 5227, Split-Interest Trust Information Return.
Written comments should be received on or before March 24, 2023 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to LaNita Van Dyke, at (202) 317-6009, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.