In the
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Census Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Drug Enforcement Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
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
Issuance of final airworthiness criteria.
The FAA announces the special class airworthiness criteria for the Zipline International Inc. Model Zip UAS Sparrow unmanned aircraft (UA). This document sets forth the airworthiness criteria the FAA finds to be appropriate and applicable for the UA design.
These airworthiness criteria are effective March 28, 2022.
Christopher J. Richards, Emerging Aircraft Strategic Policy Section, AIR-618, Strategic Policy Management Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 6020 28th Avenue South, Room 103, Minneapolis, MN 55450, telephone (612) 253-4559.
Zipline International Inc. (Zipline) applied to the FAA on March 25, 2019, for a special class type certificate under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17(b) for the Model Zip UAS Sparrow (Zip) unmanned aircraft system (UAS).
The Model Zip consists of an airplane UA and its associated elements (AE) including communication links and components that control the UA. The Model Zip UA has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 50 pounds. It has a wingspan of approximately 11 feet, is approximately 6 feet in length, and 2 feet in height. The Model Zip UA uses battery-powered electric motors for takeoff, landing, and forward flight. The UAS operations would rely on high levels of automation and may include multiple UA operated by a single pilot, up to a ratio of 20 UA to 1 pilot. Zipline anticipates operators will use the Model Zip for transporting medical materials. The proposed concept of operations (CONOPS) for the Model Zip identifies a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL), a maximum cruise speed of 56 knots, operations beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) of the pilot, and operations over human beings. Zipline has not requested type certification for flight into known icing for the Model Zip.
The FAA issued a notice of proposed airworthiness criteria for the Zipline Model Zip, which published in the
Based on the comments received, these final airworthiness criteria reflect the following changes, as explained in more detail under Discussion of Comments: A new section containing definitions; revisions to the CONOPS requirement; changing the term “critical part” to “flight essential part” in D&R.135; changing the basis of the durability and reliability testing from population density to limitations prescribed for the operating environment identified in the applicant's CONOPS per D&R.001; and, for the demonstration of certain required capabilities and functions as required by D&R.310.
Additionally, the FAA re-evaluated its approach to type certification of low-risk UA using durability and reliability testing. Safe UAS operations depend and rely on both the UA and the AE. As explained in FAA Memorandum AIR600-21-AIR-600-PM01, dated July 13, 2021, the FAA has revised the airworthiness criteria to define a boundary between the UA type certification and subsequent operational evaluations and approval processes for the UAS (
To reflect that these airworthiness criteria rely on durability and reliability (D&R) testing for certification, the FAA changed the prefix of each section from “UAS” to “D&R.”
Lastly, the FAA revised D&R.001(g) to clarify that the operational parameters listed in that paragraph are examples and not an all-inclusive list.
The FAA received responses from 19 commenters. The majority of commenters were individuals. In addition to the individuals' comments, the FAA also received comments from the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), unmanned aircraft manufacturers, a helicopter operator, and organizations such as the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), the Commercial Drone Alliance (CDA), Droneport Texas, LLC, the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), Northeast UAS Airspace Integration Research Alliance, Inc. (NUAIR), and the Small UAV Coalition.
“Loss of control” means an unintended departure of an aircraft from controlled flight. It includes control reversal or an undue loss of longitudinal, lateral, and directional stability and control. It also includes an upset or entry into an unscheduled or uncommanded attitude with high potential for uncontrolled impact with terrain. “Loss of control” means a spin, loss of control authority, loss of aerodynamic stability, divergent flight characteristic, or similar occurrence, which could generally lead to a crash.
The FAA proposed a requirement for the applicant to submit a CONOPS describing the UAS and identifying the intended operational concepts. The FAA explained in the preamble of the notice of proposed airworthiness criteria that the information in the CONOPS would determine parameters for testing and flight manual operating limitations.
To address the risks associated with loss of control of the UA, the FAA proposed that the applicant design the control station to provide the pilot with all information necessary for continued safe flight and operation.
EASA and an individual commenter requested the FAA consider flexibility in some of the proposed criteria. EASA stated that the list of information in proposed UAS.100 is too prescriptive and contains information that may not be relevant for highly automated systems. The individual commenter requested that the FAA allow part-time or non-continuous displays of required information that do not influence the safety of the flight.
While the AE items themselves will be outside the scope of the UA type design, the applicant will provide sufficient specifications for any aspect of the AE, including the control station, which could affect airworthiness. The FAA will approve either the specific AE or minimum specifications for the AE, as identified by the applicant, as part of the type certificate by including them as an operating limitation in the type certificate data sheet and flight manual. The FAA may impose additional operating limitations specific to the AE through conditions and limitations for inclusion in the operational approval (
Accordingly, the FAA has revised the criteria by replacing proposed section UAS.100, applicable to the control station design, with D&R.100, UA Signal Monitoring and Transmission, with substantively similar criteria that apply to the UA design. The FAA has also added a new section, D&R.105, UAS AE Required for Safe UA Operations, which requires the applicant to provide information concerning the specifications of the AE. The FAA has moved the alert function requirement proposed in UAS.100(a) to new section D&R.105(a)(1)(i). As part of the clarification of the testing of the interaction between the UA and AE, the FAA has added a requirement to D&R.300(h) for D&R testing to use minimum specification AE. This addition requires the applicant to demonstrate that the limits proposed for those AE will allow the UA to operate as expected throughout its service life. Finally, the FAA has revised references throughout the airworthiness criteria from “UAS” to “UA,” as appropriate, to reflect the FAA determination that the regulations for type design approval, production approval, conformity, certificates of airworthiness, and maintenance apply to only the UA.
The FAA proposed criteria on verification, configuration management, and problem reporting to minimize the existence of errors associated with UAS software.
Because the UA requires a continuous wireless connection, the FAA proposed criteria to address the risks to the UAS from cybersecurity threats.
The FAA proposed criteria requiring that the UAS be designed to
Under the airworthiness criteria, the minimum performance requirements for the C2 link, defining when the link is degraded to an unacceptable level, may vary among different UAS designs. The level of degradation that triggers a loss is dependent upon the specific UA characteristics; this level will be defined by the applicant and demonstrated to be acceptable by testing as required by D&R.305(a)(2) and D&R.310(a)(1).
The FAA proposed criteria to address the risks that would result from a lightning strike, accounting for the size and physical limitations of a UAS that could preclude traditional lightning protection features. The FAA further proposed that without lightning protection for the UA, the Flight Manual must include an operating limitation to prohibit flight into weather conditions with potential lightning.
The FAA proposed criteria either requiring that design characteristics protect the UAS from adverse weather conditions or prohibiting flight into known adverse weather conditions. The criteria proposed to define adverse weather conditions as rain, snow, and icing.
The FAA proposed criteria for critical parts that were substantively the same as those in the existing standards for normal category rotorcraft under § 27.602, with changes to reflect UAS terminology and failure conditions. The criteria proposed to define a critical part as a part, the failure of which could result in a loss of flight or unrecoverable loss of control of the aircraft.
The FAA proposed criteria for the Flight Manual that were substantively the same as the existing standards for normal category airplanes, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.
Under § 23.2620(b)(1), for low-speed level 1 and level 2 airplanes, the FAA only approves the operating limitations. In applying a risk-based approach, the FAA has determined it would not be appropriate to hold the lowest risk UA to a higher standard than what is required for low speed level 1 and level 2 manned aircraft. Accordingly, the FAA has revised the airworthiness criteria to only require FAA approval of the operating limitations.
The FAA proposed durability and reliability testing that would require the applicant to demonstrate safe flight of the UAS across the entire operational envelope and up to all operational limitations, for all phases of flight and all aircraft configurations described in
Basing testing on maximum population density may result in limitations not commensurate with many actual operations. As population density broadly refers to the number of people living in a given area per square mile, it does not allow for evaluating variation in a local operating environment. For example, an operator may have a route in an urban environment with the actual flight path along a greenway; the number of human beings exposed to risk from the UA operating overhead would be significantly lower than the population density for the area. Conversely, an operator may have a route over an industrial area where few people live, but where, during business hours, there may be highly dense groups of people. Specific performance characteristics such as altitude and airspeed also factor into defining the boundaries for safe operation of the UA.
Accordingly, the FAA has revised D&R.300 to require the UA design to be durable and reliable when operated under the limitations prescribed for its operating environment. The information in the applicant's CONOPS will determine the operating environment for testing. For example, the minimum hours of reliability testing will be less for a UA conducting agricultural operations in a rural environment than if the same aircraft will be conducting package deliveries in an urban environment. The FAA will include the limitations that result from testing as operating limitations on the type certificate data sheet and in the UA Flight Manual. The FAA intends for this process to be similar to the process for establishing limitations prescribed for special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft. This allows for added flexibility in determining appropriate operating limitations, which will more closely reflect the operating environment.
Finally, a comparison of these criteria with EASA's SORA approach is beyond the scope of this document because the SORA is intended to result in an operational approval rather than a type certificate.
The FAA proposed criteria to evaluate how the UAS functions after probable failures, including failures related to propulsion systems, C2 link, GPS, critical flight control components with a single point of failure, control station, and any other equipment identified by the applicant.
To avoid confusion pertaining to probable failure testing, the FAA has removed the word “critical” from D&R.305(a)(5). In the final airworthiness criteria, probable failure testing required by D&R.305(a)(5) applies to “Flight control components with a single point of failure.”
The FAA proposed criteria to require the applicant to demonstrate by test the minimum capabilities and functions necessary for the design. UAS.310(a) proposed to require the applicant to demonstrate, by test, the capability of the UAS to regain command and control of the UA after a C2 link loss, the sufficiency of the electrical system to carry all anticipated loads, and the ability of the pilot to override any pre-programming in order to resolve a potential unsafe operating condition in any phase of flight. UAS.310(b) proposed to require the applicant to demonstrate by test certain features if the applicant requests approval of those features (geo-fencing, external cargo, etc.). UAS.310(c) proposed to require the design of the UAS to safeguard against an unintended discontinuation of flight or release of cargo, whether by human action or malfunction.
Honeywell requested the FAA revise paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of the criteria (UAS.310) to allow for either the pilot or an augmenting system to safely discontinue the flight and re-route the UA. The commenter stated that a system comprised of detect and avoid, onboard autonomy, and ground system can be used for these functions. Therefore, the criteria should not require that only the pilot can do them.
An individual commenter requested the FAA remove UAS.310(a)(4) of the proposed criteria because requiring the ability for the pilot to dynamically re-route the UA is too prescriptive and redundant with the proposed requirement in UAS.310(a)(3), the ability of the pilot to discontinue the flight safely.
Therefore, the final airworthiness criteria include D&R.310(a) as proposed (UAS.310(a)).
The FAA proposed to require an evaluation of the UA's performance, maneuverability, stability, and control with a factor of safety.
The FAA received and reviewed several comments that were general, stated the commenter's viewpoint or opposition without a suggestion specific to the proposed criteria, or did not make a request the FAA can act on. These comments are beyond the scope of this document.
These airworthiness criteria, established under the provisions of § 21.17(b), are applicable to the Zipline Model Zip UA. Should Zipline wish to apply these airworthiness criteria to other UA models, it must submit a new type certification application.
This action affects only certain airworthiness criteria for the Zipline Model Zip UA. It is not a standard of general applicability.
The authority citation for these airworthiness criteria is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, and 44701-44702, 44704.
Pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following airworthiness criteria are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Zipline Model Zip unmanned aircraft. The FAA finds that compliance with these criteria appropriately mitigates the risks associated with the design and concept of operations and provides an equivalent level of safety to existing rules.
The applicant must define and submit to the FAA a concept of operations (CONOPS) proposal describing the unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operation in the national airspace system for which unmanned aircraft (UA) type certification is requested. The CONOPS proposal must include, at a minimum, a description of the following information in sufficient detail to determine the parameters and extent of testing and operating limitations:
(a) The intended type of operations;
(b) UA specifications;
(c) Meteorological conditions;
(d) Operators, pilots, and personnel responsibilities;
(e) Control station, support equipment, and other associated elements (AE) necessary to meet the airworthiness criteria;
(f) Command, control, and communication functions;
(g) Operational parameters (such as population density, geographic operating boundaries, airspace classes, launch and recovery area, congestion of proposed operating area, communications with air traffic control, line of sight, and aircraft separation); and
(h) Collision avoidance equipment, whether onboard the UA or part of the AE, if requested.
For purposes of these airworthiness criteria, the following definitions apply.
(a)
(b)
The UA must be designed to monitor and transmit to the AE all information required for continued safe flight and operation. This information includes, at a minimum, the following:
(a) Status of all critical parameters for all energy storage systems;
(b) Status of all critical parameters for all propulsion systems;
(c) Flight and navigation information as appropriate, such as airspeed, heading, altitude, and location; and
(d) Communication and navigation signal strength and quality, including contingency information or status.
(a) The applicant must identify and submit to the FAA all AE and interface conditions of the UAS that affect the airworthiness of the UA or are otherwise necessary for the UA to meet these airworthiness criteria. As part of this requirement—
(1) The applicant may identify either specific AE or minimum specifications for the AE.
(i) If minimum specifications are identified, they must include the critical requirements of the AE, including performance, compatibility, function, reliability, interface, pilot alerting, and environmental requirements.
(ii) Critical requirements are those that if not met would impact the ability to operate the UA safely and efficiently.
(2) The applicant may use an interface control drawing, a requirements document, or other reference, titled so that it is clearly designated as AE interfaces to the UA.
(b) The applicant must show the FAA the AE or minimum specifications identified in paragraph (a) of this section meet the following:
(1) The AE provide the functionality, performance, reliability, and information to assure UA airworthiness in conjunction with the rest of the design;
(2) The AE are compatible with the UA capabilities and interfaces;
(3) The AE must monitor and transmit to the pilot all information required for safe flight and operation, including but not limited to those identified in D&R.100; and
(4) The minimum specifications, if identified, are correct, complete, consistent, and verifiable to assure UA airworthiness.
(c) The FAA will establish the approved AE or minimum specifications as operating limitations and include them in the UA type certificate data sheet and Flight Manual.
(d) The applicant must develop any maintenance instructions necessary to address implications from the AE on the airworthiness of the UA. Those instructions will be included in the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) required by D&R.205.
To minimize the existence of software errors, the applicant must:
(a) Verify by test all software that may impact the safe operation of the UA;
(b) Utilize a configuration management system that tracks, controls, and preserves changes made to software throughout the entire life cycle; and
(c) Implement a problem reporting system that captures and records defects and modifications to the software.
(a) UA equipment, systems, and networks, addressed separately and in relation to other systems, must be protected from intentional unauthorized electronic interactions that may result in an adverse effect on the security or airworthiness of the UA. Protection must be ensured by showing that the security risks have been identified, assessed, and mitigated as necessary.
(b) When required by paragraph (a) of this section, procedures and instructions to ensure security protections are maintained must be included in the ICA.
(a) The UA must be designed so that, in the event of a loss of the command and control (C2) link, the UA will automatically and immediately execute a safe predetermined flight, loiter, landing, or termination.
(b) The applicant must establish the predetermined action in the event of a loss of the C2 link and include it in the UA Flight Manual.
(c) The UA Flight Manual must include the minimum performance requirements for the C2 data link defining when the C2 link is degraded to a level where remote active control of the UA is no longer ensured. Takeoff when the C2 link is degraded below the minimum link performance requirements must be prevented by design or prohibited by an operating limitation in the UA Flight Manual.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the UA must have design characteristics that will protect the UA from loss of flight or loss of control due to lightning.
(b) If the UA has not been shown to protect against lightning, the UA Flight Manual must include an operating limitation to prohibit flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning activity.
(a) For purposes of this section, “adverse weather conditions” means rain, snow, and icing.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the UA must have design characteristics that will allow the UA to operate within the adverse weather conditions specified in the CONOPS without loss of flight or loss of control.
(c) For adverse weather conditions for which the UA is not approved to operate, the applicant must develop operating limitations to prohibit flight into known adverse weather conditions and either:
(1) Develop operating limitations to prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather conditions; or
(2) Provide a means to detect any adverse weather conditions for which the UA is not certificated to operate and show the UA's ability to avoid or exit those conditions.
(a) A flight essential part is a part, the failure of which could result in a loss of flight or unrecoverable loss of UA control.
(b) If the type design includes flight essential parts, the applicant must
The applicant must provide a Flight Manual with each UA.
(a) The UA Flight Manual must contain the following information:
(1) UA operating limitations;
(2) UA operating procedures;
(3) Performance information;
(4) Loading information; and
(5) Other information that is necessary for safe operation because of design, operating, or handling characteristics.
(b) Those portions of the UA Flight Manual containing the information specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be approved by the FAA.
The applicant must prepare ICA for the UA in accordance with Appendix A to Part 23, as appropriate, that are acceptable to the FAA. The ICA may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first UA or issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate, whichever occurs later.
The UA must be designed to be durable and reliable when operated under the limitations prescribed for its operating environment, as documented in its CONOPS and included as operating limitations on the type certificate data sheet and in the UA Flight Manual. The durability and reliability must be demonstrated by flight test in accordance with the requirements of this section and completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside the operator's recovery area.
(a) Once a UA has begun testing to show compliance with this section, all flights for that UA must be included in the flight test report.
(b) Tests must include an evaluation of the entire flight envelope across all phases of operation and must address, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Flight distances;
(2) Flight durations;
(3) Route complexity;
(4) Weight;
(5) Center of gravity;
(6) Density altitude;
(7) Outside air temperature;
(8) Airspeed;
(9) Wind;
(10) Weather;
(11) Operation at night, if requested;
(12) Energy storage system capacity; and
(13) Aircraft to pilot ratio.
(c) Tests must include the most adverse combinations of the conditions and configurations in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Tests must show a distribution of the different flight profiles and routes representative of the type of operations identified in the CONOPS.
(e) Tests must be conducted in conditions consistent with the expected environmental conditions identified in the CONOPS, including electromagnetic interference (EMI) and high intensity radiated fields (HIRF).
(f) Tests must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness.
(g) Any UAS used for testing must be subject to the same worst-case ground handling, shipping, and transportation loads as those allowed in service.
(h) Any UA used for testing must use AE that meet, but do not exceed, the minimum specifications identified under D&R.105. If multiple AE are identified, the applicant must demonstrate each configuration.
(i) Any UAS used for testing must be maintained and operated in accordance with the ICA and UA Flight Manual. No maintenance beyond the intervals established in the ICA will be allowed to show compliance with this section.
(j) If cargo operations or external-load operations are requested, tests must show, throughout the flight envelope and with the cargo or external-load at the most critical combinations of weight and center of gravity, that—
(1) The UA is safely controllable and maneuverable; and
(2) The cargo or external-load are retainable and transportable.
The UA must be designed such that a probable failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. This must be demonstrated by test.
(a) Probable failures related to the following equipment, at a minimum, must be addressed:
(1) Propulsion systems;
(2) C2 link;
(3) Global Positioning System (GPS);
(4) Flight control components with a single point of failure;
(5) Control station; and
(6) Any other AE identified by the applicant.
(b) Any UA used for testing must be operated in accordance with the UA Flight Manual.
(c) Each test must occur at the critical phase and mode of flight, and at the highest aircraft-to-pilot ratio.
(a) All of the following required UAS capabilities and functions must be demonstrated by test:
(1) Capability to regain command and control of the UA after the C2 link has been lost.
(2) Capability of the electrical system to power all UA systems and payloads.
(3) Ability for the pilot to safely discontinue the flight.
(4) Ability for the pilot to dynamically re-route the UA.
(5) Ability to safely abort a takeoff.
(6) Ability to safely abort a landing and initiate a go-around.
(b) The following UAS capabilities and functions, if requested for approval, must be demonstrated by test:
(1) Continued flight after degradation of the propulsion system.
(2) Geo-fencing that contains the UA within a designated area, in all operating conditions.
(3) Positive transfer of the UA between control stations that ensures only one control station can control the UA at a time.
(4) Capability to release an external cargo load to prevent loss of control of the UA.
(5) Capability to detect and avoid other aircraft and obstacles.
(c) The UA must be designed to safeguard against inadvertent discontinuation of the flight and inadvertent release of cargo or external load.
The structure of the UA must be shown to withstand the repeated loads expected during its service life without failure. A life limit for the airframe must be established, demonstrated by test, and included in the ICA.
The performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA within the flight envelope described in the UA Flight Manual must be demonstrated at a minimum of 5% over maximum gross weight with no loss of control or loss of flight.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Issuance of final airworthiness criteria.
The FAA announces the special class airworthiness criteria for the Matternet, Inc. Model M2 unmanned aircraft (UA). This document sets forth the airworthiness criteria the FAA finds to be appropriate and applicable for the UA design.
These airworthiness criteria are effective March 28, 2022.
Christopher J. Richards, Emerging Aircraft Strategic Policy Section, AIR-618, Strategic Policy Management Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 6020 28th Avenue South, Room 103, Minneapolis, MN 55450, telephone (612) 253-4559.
Matternet, Inc. (Matternet) applied to the FAA on May 21, 2018, for a special class type certificate under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.17(b) for the Model M2 unmanned aircraft system (UAS).
The Model M2 consists of a rotorcraft UA and its associated elements (AE) including communication links and components that control the UA. The Model M2 UA has a maximum gross takeoff weight of 29 pounds. It is approximately 50 inches in width, 50 inches in length, and 10 inches in height. The Model M2 UA uses battery-powered electric motors for vertical takeoff, landing, and forward flight. The UAS operations would rely on high levels of automation and may include multiple UA operated by a single pilot, up to a ratio of 20 UA to 1 pilot. Matternet anticipates operators will use the Model M2 for transporting medical materials. The proposed concept of operations (CONOPS) for the Model M2 identifies a maximum operating altitude of 400 feet above ground level (AGL), a maximum cruise speed of 39 knots (45 mph), operations beyond visual line of sight (BVLOS) of the pilot, and operations over human beings. Matternet has not requested type certification for flight into known icing for the Model M2.
The FAA issued a notice of proposed airworthiness criteria for the Matternet M2 UAS, which published in the
Based on the comments received, these final airworthiness criteria reflect the following changes, as explained in more detail under Discussion of Comments: A new section containing definitions; revisions to the CONOPS requirement; changing the term “critical part” to “flight essential part” in D&R.135; changing the basis of the durability and reliability testing from population density to limitations prescribed for the operating environment identified in the applicant's CONOPS per D&R.001; and, for the demonstration of certain required capabilities and functions as required by D&R.310.
Additionally, the FAA re-evaluated its approach to type certification of low-risk UA using durability and reliability testing. Safe UAS operations depend and rely on both the UA and the AE. As explained in FAA Memorandum AIR600-21-AIR-600-PM01, dated July 13, 2021, the FAA has revised the airworthiness criteria to define a boundary between the UA type certification and subsequent operational evaluations and approval processes for the UAS (
To reflect that these airworthiness criteria rely on durability and reliability (D&R) testing for certification, the FAA changed the prefix of each section from “UAS” to “D&R.”
Lastly, the FAA revised D&R.001(g) to clarify that the operational parameters listed in that paragraph are examples and not an all-inclusive list.
The FAA received responses from 15 commenters. The majority of the commenters were individuals. Other commenters included the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), unmanned aircraft manufacturers, a helicopter operator, and organizations such as the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA), Droneport Texas, LLC, the National Agricultural Aviation Association (NAAA), Northeast UAS Airspace Integration Research Alliance, Inc. (NUAIR), and the Small UAV Coalition.
“Loss of control” means an unintended departure of an aircraft from controlled flight. It includes control reversal or an undue loss of longitudinal, lateral, and directional stability and control. It also includes an upset or entry into an unscheduled or uncommanded attitude with high potential for uncontrolled impact with terrain. “Loss of control” means a spin, loss of control authority, loss of aerodynamic stability, divergent flight characteristic, or similar occurrence, which could generally lead to a crash.
The FAA proposed a requirement for the applicant to submit a CONOPS describing the UAS and identifying the intended operational concepts. The FAA explained in the preamble of the notice of proposed airworthiness criteria that the information in the CONOPS would determine parameters for testing and flight manual operating limitations.
To address the risks associated with loss of control of the UA, the FAA proposed that the applicant design the control station to provide the pilot with all information necessary for continued safe flight and operation.
EASA and an individual commenter requested the FAA consider flexibility in some of the proposed criteria. EASA stated that the list of information in proposed UAS.100 is too prescriptive and contains information that may not be relevant for highly automated systems. The individual commenter requested that the FAA allow part-time or non-continuous displays of required information that do not influence the safety of the flight.
While the AE items themselves will be outside the scope of the UA type design, the applicant will provide sufficient specifications for any aspect of the AE, including the control station, which could affect airworthiness. The FAA will approve either the specific AE or minimum specifications for the AE, as identified by the applicant, as part of the type certificate by including them as an operating limitation in the type certificate data sheet and flight manual. The FAA may impose additional operating limitations specific to the AE through conditions and limitations for inclusion in the operational approval (
Accordingly, the FAA has revised the criteria by replacing proposed section UAS.100, applicable to the control station design, with D&R.100, UA Signal Monitoring and Transmission, with substantively similar criteria that apply to the UA design. The FAA has also added a new section, D&R.105, UAS AE Required for Safe UA Operations, which requires the applicant to provide information concerning the specifications of the AE. The FAA has moved the alert function requirement proposed in UAS.100(a) to new section D&R.105(a)(1)(i). As part of the clarification of the testing of the interaction between the UA and AE, the FAA has added a requirement to D&R.300(h) for D&R testing to use minimum specification AE. This addition requires the applicant to demonstrate that the limits proposed for those AE will allow the UA to operate as expected throughout its service life. Finally, the FAA has revised references throughout the airworthiness criteria from “UAS” to “UA,” as appropriate, to reflect the FAA determination that the regulations for type design approval, production approval, conformity, certificates of airworthiness, and maintenance apply to only the UA.
The FAA proposed criteria on verification, configuration management, and problem reporting to minimize the existence of errors associated with UAS software.
Because the UA requires a continuous wireless connection, the FAA proposed criteria to address the risks to the UAS from cybersecurity threats.
The FAA proposed criteria requiring that the UAS be designed to automatically execute a predetermined action in the event of a loss of communication between the pilot and the UA. The FAA further proposed that the predetermined action be identified in the Flight Manual and that the UA be precluded from taking off when the quality of service is inadequate.
Under the airworthiness criteria, the minimum performance requirements for the C2 link, defining when the link is degraded to an unacceptable level, may vary among different UAS designs. The level of degradation that triggers a loss is dependent upon the specific UA characteristics; this level will be defined by the applicant and demonstrated to be acceptable by testing as required by D&R.305(a)(2) and D&R.310(a)(1).
The FAA proposed criteria to address the risks that would result from a lightning strike, accounting for the size and physical limitations of a UAS that could preclude traditional lightning protection features. The FAA further proposed that without lightning protection for the UA, the Flight Manual must include an operating limitation to prohibit flight into weather conditions with potential lightning.
The FAA proposed criteria either requiring that design characteristics protect the UAS from adverse weather conditions or prohibiting flight into known adverse weather conditions. The criteria proposed to define adverse weather conditions as rain, snow, and icing.
The FAA proposed criteria for critical parts that were substantively the same as those in the existing standards for normal category rotorcraft under § 27.602, with changes to reflect UAS terminology and failure conditions. The criteria proposed to define a critical part as a part, the failure of which could result in a loss of flight or unrecoverable loss of control of the aircraft.
The FAA proposed criteria for the Flight Manual that were substantively the same as the existing standards for normal category airplanes, with minor changes to reflect UAS terminology.
Under § 23.2620(b)(1), for low-speed level 1 and level 2 airplanes, the FAA only approves the operating limitations. In applying a risk-based approach, the FAA has determined it would not be appropriate to hold the lowest risk UA to a higher standard than what is required for low speed level 1 and level 2 manned aircraft. Accordingly, the FAA has revised the airworthiness criteria to only require FAA approval of the operating limitations.
The FAA proposed durability and reliability testing that would require the applicant to demonstrate safe flight of the UAS across the entire operational envelope and up to all operational limitations, for all phases of flight and all aircraft configurations described in the applicant's CONOPS, with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside the operator's recovery area. The FAA further proposed that the unmanned aircraft would only be certificated for operations within the limitations, and for flight over areas no greater than the maximum population density, as described in the applicant's CONOPS and demonstrated by test.
Basing testing on maximum population density may result in limitations not commensurate with many actual operations. As population density broadly refers to the number of people living in a given area per square mile, it does not allow for evaluating variation in a local operating environment. For example, an operator may have a route in an urban environment with the actual flight path along a greenway; the number of human beings exposed to risk from the UA operating overhead would be significantly lower than the population density for the area. Conversely, an operator may have a route over an industrial area where few people live, but where, during business hours, there may be highly dense groups of people. Specific performance characteristics such as altitude and airspeed also factor into defining the boundaries for safe operation of the UA.
Accordingly, the FAA has revised D&R.300 to require the UA design to be durable and reliable when operated under the limitations prescribed for its operating environment. The information in the applicant's CONOPS will determine the operating environment for testing. For example, the minimum hours of reliability testing will be less for a UA conducting agricultural operations in a rural environment than if the same aircraft will be conducting package deliveries in an urban environment. The FAA will include the limitations that result from testing as operating limitations on the type certificate data sheet and in the UA Flight Manual. The FAA intends for this process to be similar to the process for establishing limitations prescribed for special purpose operations for restricted category aircraft. This allows for added flexibility in determining appropriate operating limitations, which will more closely reflect the operating environment.
Finally, a comparison of these criteria with EASA's SORA approach is beyond the scope of this document because the SORA is intended to result in an operational approval rather than a type certificate.
The FAA proposed criteria to evaluate how the UAS functions after probable failures, including failures related to propulsion systems, C2 link, GPS, critical flight control components with a single point of failure, control station, and any other equipment identified by the applicant.
To avoid confusion pertaining to probable failure testing, the FAA has removed the word “critical” from D&R.305(a)(5). In the final airworthiness criteria, probable failure testing required by D&R.305(a)(5) applies to “Flight control components with a single point of failure.”
The FAA proposed criteria to require the applicant to demonstrate by test the minimum capabilities and functions necessary for the design. UAS.310(a) proposed to require the applicant to demonstrate, by test, the capability of the UAS to regain command and control of the UA after a C2 link loss, the sufficiency of the electrical system to carry all anticipated loads, and the ability of the pilot to override any pre-programming in order to resolve a potential unsafe operating condition in any phase of flight. UAS.310(b) proposed to require the applicant to demonstrate by test certain features if the applicant requests approval of those features (geo-fencing, external cargo, etc.). UAS.310(c) proposed to require the design of the UAS to safeguard against an unintended discontinuation of flight or release of cargo, whether by human action or malfunction.
Honeywell requested the FAA revise paragraphs (a)(3) and (a)(4) of the criteria (UAS.310) to allow for either the pilot or an augmenting system to safely discontinue the flight and re-route the UA. The commenter stated that a system comprised of detect and avoid, onboard autonomy, and ground system can be used for these functions. Therefore, the
An individual commenter requested the FAA remove UAS.310(a)(4) of the proposed criteria because requiring the ability for the pilot to dynamically re-route the UA is too prescriptive and redundant with the proposed requirement in UAS.310(a)(3), the ability of the pilot to discontinue the flight safely.
Therefore, the final airworthiness criteria include D&R.310(a) as proposed (UAS.310(a)).
The FAA proposed to require an evaluation of the UA's performance, maneuverability, stability, and control with a factor of safety.
The FAA received and reviewed several comments that were general, stated the commenter's viewpoint or opposition without a suggestion specific to the proposed criteria, or did not make a request the FAA can act on. These comments are beyond the scope of this document.
These airworthiness criteria, established under the provisions of § 21.17(b), are applicable to the Matternet Model M2 UA. Should Matternet wish to apply these airworthiness criteria to other UA models, it must submit a new type certification application.
This action affects only certain airworthiness criteria for the Matternet Model M2 UA. It is not a standard of general applicability.
The authority citation for these airworthiness criteria is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, and 44701-44702, 44704.
Pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following airworthiness criteria are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Matternet Model M2 unmanned aircraft. The FAA finds that compliance with these criteria appropriately mitigates the risks associated with the design and concept of operations and provides an equivalent level of safety to existing rules.
The applicant must define and submit to the FAA a concept of operations (CONOPS) proposal describing the unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operation in the national airspace system for which unmanned aircraft (UA) type certification is requested. The CONOPS proposal must include, at a minimum, a description of the following information in sufficient detail to determine the parameters and extent of testing and operating limitations:
(a) The intended type of operations;
(b) UA specifications;
(c) Meteorological conditions;
(d) Operators, pilots, and personnel responsibilities;
(e) Control station, support equipment, and other associated elements (AE) necessary to meet the airworthiness criteria;
(f) Command, control, and communication functions;
(g) Operational parameters (such as population density, geographic operating boundaries, airspace classes, launch and recovery area, congestion of proposed operating area, communications with air traffic control, line of sight, and aircraft separation); and
(h) Collision avoidance equipment, whether onboard the UA or part of the AE, if requested.
For purposes of these airworthiness criteria, the following definitions apply.
(a)
(b)
The UA must be designed to monitor and transmit to the AE all information required for continued safe flight and operation. This information includes, at a minimum, the following:
(a) Status of all critical parameters for all energy storage systems;
(b) Status of all critical parameters for all propulsion systems;
(c) Flight and navigation information as appropriate, such as airspeed, heading, altitude, and location; and
(d) Communication and navigation signal strength and quality, including contingency information or status.
(a) The applicant must identify and submit to the FAA all AE and interface conditions of the UAS that affect the airworthiness of the UA or are otherwise necessary for the UA to meet these airworthiness criteria. As part of this requirement—
(1) The applicant may identify either specific AE or minimum specifications for the AE.
(i) If minimum specifications are identified, they must include the critical requirements of the AE, including performance, compatibility, function,
(ii) Critical requirements are those that if not met would impact the ability to operate the UA safely and efficiently.
(2) The applicant may use an interface control drawing, a requirements document, or other reference, titled so that it is clearly designated as AE interfaces to the UA.
(b) The applicant must show the FAA the AE or minimum specifications identified in paragraph (a) of this section meet the following:
(1) The AE provide the functionality, performance, reliability, and information to assure UA airworthiness in conjunction with the rest of the design;
(2) The AE are compatible with the UA capabilities and interfaces;
(3) The AE must monitor and transmit to the pilot all information required for safe flight and operation, including but not limited to those identified in D&R.100; and
(4) The minimum specifications, if identified, are correct, complete, consistent, and verifiable to assure UA airworthiness.
(c) The FAA will establish the approved AE or minimum specifications as operating limitations and include them in the UA type certificate data sheet and Flight Manual.
(d) The applicant must develop any maintenance instructions necessary to address implications from the AE on the airworthiness of the UA. Those instructions will be included in the instructions for continued airworthiness (ICA) required by D&R.205.
To minimize the existence of software errors, the applicant must:
(a) Verify by test all software that may impact the safe operation of the UA;
(b) Utilize a configuration management system that tracks, controls, and preserves changes made to software throughout the entire life cycle; and
(c) Implement a problem reporting system that captures and records defects and modifications to the software.
(a) UA equipment, systems, and networks, addressed separately and in relation to other systems, must be protected from intentional unauthorized electronic interactions that may result in an adverse effect on the security or airworthiness of the UA. Protection must be ensured by showing that the security risks have been identified, assessed, and mitigated as necessary.
(b) When required by paragraph (a) of this section, procedures and instructions to ensure security protections are maintained must be included in the ICA.
(a) The UA must be designed so that, in the event of a loss of the command and control (C2) link, the UA will automatically and immediately execute a safe predetermined flight, loiter, landing, or termination.
(b) The applicant must establish the predetermined action in the event of a loss of the C2 link and include it in the UA Flight Manual.
(c) The UA Flight Manual must include the minimum performance requirements for the C2 data link defining when the C2 link is degraded to a level where remote active control of the UA is no longer ensured. Takeoff when the C2 link is degraded below the minimum link performance requirements must be prevented by design or prohibited by an operating limitation in the UA Flight Manual.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, the UA must have design characteristics that will protect the UA from loss of flight or loss of control due to lightning.
(b) If the UA has not been shown to protect against lightning, the UA Flight Manual must include an operating limitation to prohibit flight into weather conditions conducive to lightning activity.
(a) For purposes of this section, “adverse weather conditions” means rain, snow, and icing.
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, the UA must have design characteristics that will allow the UA to operate within the adverse weather conditions specified in the CONOPS without loss of flight or loss of control.
(c) For adverse weather conditions for which the UA is not approved to operate, the applicant must develop operating limitations to prohibit flight into known adverse weather conditions and either:
(1) Develop operating limitations to prevent inadvertent flight into adverse weather conditions; or
(2) Provide a means to detect any adverse weather conditions for which the UA is not certificated to operate and show the UA's ability to avoid or exit those conditions.
(a) A flight essential part is a part, the failure of which could result in a loss of flight or unrecoverable loss of UA control.
(b) If the type design includes flight essential parts, the applicant must establish a flight essential parts list. The applicant must develop and define mandatory maintenance instructions or life limits, or a combination of both, to prevent failures of flight essential parts. Each of these mandatory actions must be included in the Airworthiness Limitations Section of the ICA.
The applicant must provide a Flight Manual with each UA.
(a) The UA Flight Manual must contain the following information:
(1) UA operating limitations;
(2) UA operating procedures;
(3) Performance information;
(4) Loading information; and
(5) Other information that is necessary for safe operation because of design, operating, or handling characteristics.
(b) Those portions of the UA Flight Manual containing the information specified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be approved by the FAA.
The applicant must prepare ICA for the UA in accordance with Appendix A to Part 23, as appropriate, that are acceptable to the FAA. The ICA may be incomplete at type certification if a program exists to ensure their completion prior to delivery of the first UA or issuance of a standard airworthiness certificate, whichever occurs later.
The UA must be designed to be durable and reliable when operated under the limitations prescribed for its operating environment, as documented in its CONOPS and included as operating limitations on the type certificate data sheet and in the UA Flight Manual. The durability and reliability must be demonstrated by flight test in accordance with the requirements of this section and completed with no failures that result in a loss of flight, loss of control, loss of containment, or emergency landing outside the operator's recovery area.
(a) Once a UA has begun testing to show compliance with this section, all flights for that UA must be included in the flight test report.
(b) Tests must include an evaluation of the entire flight envelope across all phases of operation and must address, at a minimum, the following:
(1) Flight distances;
(2) Flight durations;
(3) Route complexity;
(4) Weight;
(5) Center of gravity;
(6) Density altitude;
(7) Outside air temperature;
(8) Airspeed;
(9) Wind;
(10) Weather;
(11) Operation at night, if requested;
(12) Energy storage system capacity; and
(13) Aircraft to pilot ratio.
(c) Tests must include the most adverse combinations of the conditions and configurations in paragraph (b) of this section.
(d) Tests must show a distribution of the different flight profiles and routes representative of the type of operations identified in the CONOPS.
(e) Tests must be conducted in conditions consistent with the expected environmental conditions identified in the CONOPS, including electromagnetic interference (EMI) and high intensity radiated fields (HIRF).
(f) Tests must not require exceptional piloting skill or alertness.
(g) Any UAS used for testing must be subject to the same worst-case ground handling, shipping, and transportation loads as those allowed in service.
(h) Any UA used for testing must use AE that meet, but do not exceed, the minimum specifications identified under D&R.105. If multiple AE are identified, the applicant must demonstrate each configuration.
(i) Any UAS used for testing must be maintained and operated in accordance with the ICA and UA Flight Manual. No maintenance beyond the intervals established in the ICA will be allowed to show compliance with this section.
(j) If cargo operations or external-load operations are requested, tests must show, throughout the flight envelope and with the cargo or external-load at the most critical combinations of weight and center of gravity, that—
(1) The UA is safely controllable and maneuverable; and
(2) The cargo or external-load are retainable and transportable.
The UA must be designed such that a probable failure will not result in a loss of containment or control of the UA. This must be demonstrated by test.
(a) Probable failures related to the following equipment, at a minimum, must be addressed:
(1) Propulsion systems;
(2) C2 link;
(3) Global Positioning System (GPS);
(4) Flight control components with a single point of failure;
(5) Control station; and
(6) Any other AE identified by the applicant.
(b) Any UA used for testing must be operated in accordance with the UA Flight Manual.
(c) Each test must occur at the critical phase and mode of flight, and at the highest aircraft-to-pilot ratio.
(a) All of the following required UAS capabilities and functions must be demonstrated by test:
(1) Capability to regain command and control of the UA after the C2 link has been lost.
(2) Capability of the electrical system to power all UA systems and payloads.
(3) Ability for the pilot to safely discontinue the flight.
(4) Ability for the pilot to dynamically re-route the UA.
(5) Ability to safely abort a takeoff.
(6) Ability to safely abort a landing and initiate a go-around.
(b) The following UAS capabilities and functions, if requested for approval, must be demonstrated by test:
(1) Continued flight after degradation of the propulsion system.
(2) Geo-fencing that contains the UA within a designated area, in all operating conditions.
(3) Positive transfer of the UA between control stations that ensures only one control station can control the UA at a time.
(4) Capability to release an external cargo load to prevent loss of control of the UA.
(5) Capability to detect and avoid other aircraft and obstacles.
(c) The UA must be designed to safeguard against inadvertent discontinuation of the flight and inadvertent release of cargo or external load.
The structure of the UA must be shown to withstand the repeated loads expected during its service life without failure. A life limit for the airframe must be established, demonstrated by test, and included in the ICA.
The performance, maneuverability, stability, and control of the UA within the flight envelope described in the UA Flight Manual must be demonstrated at a minimum of 5% over maximum gross weight with no loss of control or loss of flight.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions; request for comments.
These special conditions are issued for the Dassault Aviation (Dassault) Model Falcon 6X airplane. This airplane will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design feature is side-stick controllers for pitch and roll control. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
This action is effective on Dassault on February 25, 2022. Send comments on or before April 11, 2022.
Send comments identified by Docket No. FAA-2020-1041 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Troy Brown, Performance and Environment Section, AIR-625, Technical Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and Innovation Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 1801 S. Airport Rd., Wichita, KS 67209-2190; telephone and fax 405-666-1050; email
The substance of these special conditions has been published in the
The FAA invites interested people to take part in this rulemaking by sending written comments, data, or views. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the special conditions, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data.
The FAA will consider all comments received by the closing date for comments. The FAA may change these special conditions based on the comments received.
On July 1, 2012, Dassault applied for a type certificate for its new Model Falcon 5X airplane. However, Dassault has decided not to release an airplane under the model designation Falcon 5X, instead choosing to change that model designation to Falcon 6X.
In February of 2018, due to engine supplier issues, Dassault extended the type certificate application date for its Model Falcon 5X airplane under new Model Falcon 6X. This airplane is a twin-engine business jet with seating for 19 passengers, and has a maximum takeoff weight of 77,460 pounds.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.17, Dassault must show that the Model Falcon 6X airplane meets the applicable provisions of part 25, as amended by amendments 25-1 through 25-146.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane must comply with the fuel-vent and exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.17(a)(2).
The Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
Side-stick controllers for pitch and roll control.
Current part 25 airworthiness regulations account for conventional wheel-and-column airplane controls. Regulatory requirements pertaining to conventional wheel-and-column controls, such as pilot strength and controllability, are not directly applicable to side-stick controls. In addition, pilot-control authority may be uncertain because the side sticks are not mechanically interconnected to controlled surfaces, as are conventional wheel and column controls.
Current FAA regulations do not specifically address the use of side-stick controllers for pitch and roll control. The unique features of the side stick must therefore be demonstrated through flight and simulator tests to have suitable handling and control characteristics when considering the following:
1. The handling-qualities tasks and requirements of the Dassault Falcon Model 6X airplane Special Conditions and other 14 CFR part 25 requirements for stability, control, and maneuverability, including the effects of turbulence.
2.
3. Inadvertent input in turbulence.
4. Inadvertent pitch-roll crosstalk.
These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Dassault Model Falcon 6X airplane. Should Dassault apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model incorporating the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for the Dassault Aviation Model Falcon 6X airplane.
1.
2.
3.
4.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain MARS A.S. emergency parachutes. This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI identifies the unsafe condition as the length of the ripcord between the pins being too long, which could cause a malfunction of the emergency parachute. This AD requires removing emergency parachutes with certain manufacture dates or serial numbers from service. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 14, 2022.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by April 11, 2022.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this AD, contact MarS a.s., Okružní II 239, 569 43 Jevíčko, Czech Republic; phone: +420 461 353 841; email:
You may examine the AD docket at
Darren Gassetto, COS Program Manager, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (516) 228-7323; email:
The European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Union, has issued EASA Emergency AD 2022-0018-E, dated January 28, 2022 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to address an unsafe condition on certain MARS A.S. ATL-88/90-1B (commercially known as ATL-15 SL) emergency parachutes. The MCAI states:
During the yearly inspection of one of the affected emergency parachutes, it has been found that the length of the ripcord between the pins was too large and, in some cases, only one of 2 loops of the parachute could be opened when the manual ripcord was pulled. Subsequent inspection revealed that the dimensions of the static line extension were out of production tolerances. It is expected that the manufacturer will develop a modification to restore the airworthiness of affected emergency parachutes.
This condition, if not corrected, could cause a malfunction of the emergency parachute.
To address this unsafe condition EASA issued Emergency AD 2022-0017-E to require removal from service of the affected emergency parachutes.
Since that [EASA] AD was issued, it was determined that the Applicability of that [EASA] AD was incorrect.
For the reasons described above, this [EASA] AD retains the requirements of EASA Emergency AD 2022-0017-E, which is superseded, but with a different Applicability.
This [EASA] AD is considered to be an interim measure and further [EASA] AD action may follow.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed MarS a.s. letter titled “Information for dealers and users of the ATL-15 SL emergency parachute (ATL-88/90-1B),” dated January 27, 2022. This letter provides information for identifying and suspending the use of affected emergency parachutes, which have an extension of static line made of Microline cord that was manufactured outside of production tolerances.
This AD applies to emergency parachutes with certain manufacture dates or serial numbers and requires removing those emergency parachutes from service.
The MCAI requires storing emergency parachutes in the unrigged condition in storage containers and visibly mark those storage containers with the words “Parachute not airworthy. Do not use until further notice,” while this AD requires removing the emergency parachutes from service.
This AD also requires removing from service any emergency parachute where the serial number or manufacture date is unknown, and the MCAI does not include that requirement.
The FAA considers this AD to be an interim action. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that requires the immediate adoption of this AD without providing an opportunity for public comments prior to adoption. The FAA has found that the risk to the flying public justifies waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of an emergency parachute to deploy when needed will lead to the parachutist freefalling to the surface without being slowed, resulting in serious injury or death. Thus, the affected parachutes must be removed from service as of the effective date of this AD. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
The FAA has also found that the risk to the flying public justifies foregoing notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because there are no affected emergency parachutes used in the United States and thus, it is unlikely that the FAA will receive any adverse comments or useful information about this AD from U.S. operators. Accordingly, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are unnecessary pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and comment.
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this AD contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this AD, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent Darren Gassetto, COS Program Manager, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD does not affect any emergency parachutes used in the United States. According to the manufacturer, none of the affected emergency parachutes were sold through its distributors in the United States. In the event an affected emergency parachute is brought into the United States, the following is an estimate of the costs to comply with this AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective March 14, 2022.
None.
This AD applies to MARS A.S. ATL-88/90-1B (commercially known as ATL-15 SL) emergency parachutes with an extension of static line made of Microline cord and that meet any of the criterion in paragraph (c)(1), (2), or (3) of this AD:
(1) The parachute has a date of manufacture between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2020, inclusive;
(2) The parachute has a serial number (S/N) 2145001 through S/N 2145005 inclusive, and S/N 2145023 through S/N 2145034 inclusive; or
(3) The date of manufacture or the S/N of the parachute is unknown.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 2563, Parachute.
This AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI identifies the unsafe condition as the length of the ripcord between the pins being too long, which could cause a malfunction of the emergency parachute. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in failure of the emergency parachute to deploy when needed.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
As of the effective date of this AD, remove each emergency parachute from service.
Special flight permits are prohibited.
(1) The Manager, Boston ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Darren Gassetto, COS Program Manager, Boston ACO Branch, Compliance & Airworthiness Division, FAA, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803; phone: (516) 228-7323; email:
(2) Refer to European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) Emergency AD 2022-0018-E, dated January 28, 2022, for more information. You may examine the EASA AD in the AD docket at
None.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action amends the Class E airspace at Corsicana, TX. This action is the result of an airspace review as part of the decommissioning of the Powell non-directional beacon (NDB). The geographic coordinates of the airport are also being updated to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
Effective 0901 UTC, May 19, 2022. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at C. David Campbell Field-Corsicana Municipal Airport, Corsicana, TX, 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 JO 7400.11F, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designations listed in this document will be published subsequently in FAA Order JO 7400.11.
This document amends FAA Order JO 7400.11F, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, dated August 10, 2021, and effective September 15, 2021. FAA Order JO 7400.11F is publicly available as listed in the
This amendment to 14 CFR part 71 amends the Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to within a 6.6-mile (increased from a 6.5-mile) radius of C. David Campbell Field-Corsicana Municipal Airport, Corsicana, TX; removes the Powell NDB and associated extensions from the airspace legal description; removes the city associated with the airport in the header of the airspace legal description to comply with changes to FAA Order JO 7400.2N, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters; and updates the geographic coordinates of the airport to coincide with the FAA's aeronautical database.
This action is the result of an airspace review as part of the decommissioning of the Powell NDB which provided guidance to instrument procedures at this airport.
FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, is published yearly and effective on September 15.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current, is non-controversial and unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. It, therefore: (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.6-mile radius of C. David Campbell Field-Corsicana Municipal Airport.
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense.
Final rule; correction.
Department of the Air Force (DAF) is correcting a final rule that
This correction is effective February 25, 2022.
Adriane S. Paris, Department of the Air Force Federal Register Office, (703) 614-8500.
In FR Doc. 2021-27304, appearing on page 71570 in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2022 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Virginia. This adjustment to the 2022 fishing year quota is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2022 commercial quotas for North Carolina and Virginia.
Effective February 23, 2022, through December 31, 2022.
Laura Deighan, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9184.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102 and final 2022 allocations were published on December 23, 2021 (86 FR 72859).
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan (FMP), as published in the
North Carolina is transferring 12,259 lb (5,561 kg) to Virginia through mutual agreement of the states. This transfer was requested to repay landings made by an out-of-state permitted vessel under a safe harbor agreement. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2022 are: North Carolina, 3,349,310 lb (1,519,221 kg) and Virginia, 2,788,501 lb (1,264,843 kg).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.162(e)(1)(i) through (iii), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of New York is transferring a portion of its 2022 commercial summer flounder quota to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. This adjustment to the 2022 fishing year quota is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2022 commercial quotas for New York and Massachusetts.
Effective February 23, 2022, through December 31, 2022.
Laura Deighan, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9184.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.110. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102 and final 2022 allocations were published on December 23, 2021 (86 FR 72859).
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder Fishery Management Plan (FMP), as published in the
New York is transferring 1,944 lb (882 kg) to Massachusetts through mutual agreement of the states. This transfer was requested to repay landings made by a vessel with landing privileges in both states that landed catch in Massachusetts in excess of the state limit under a safe harbor agreement when weather prevented the vessel from landing in the intended New York port. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2022 are: New York, 1,468,835 lb (666,252 kg) and Massachusetts, 1,393,790 lb (632,213 kg).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.162(e)(1)(i) through (iii), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; inseason adjustment.
This action increases the possession and trip limits of Gulf of Maine cod, Cape Cod/Gulf of Maine yellowtail flounder, and witch flounder for Northeast multispecies common pool vessels for the remainder of the 2021 fishing year. This action will provide the common pool fishery greater opportunity to harvest, but not exceed, the annual quotas for these stocks.
These possession and trip limit adjustments are effective February 24, 2022, through April 30, 2022.
Spencer Talmage, Fishery Management Specialist, 978-281-9232.
The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator to adjust the possession and trip limits for common pool vessels in order to help avoid overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas.
Based on the most recent catch information, the common pool fishery has caught low amounts of the following species relative to the annual quotas for each of these stocks (Table 1): Gulf of Maine (GOM) cod; Cape Cod (CC)/GOM yellowtail flounder; and witch flounder. At the current rate of fishing, we project that the common pool fishery will not fully harvest the annual quotas for these stocks by the end of fishing year 2021. Providing vessels an opportunity to possess and land greater amounts of catch should provide greater incentive to fish and more opportunity to catch available quota. Based on our review of past fishing effort and performance under various possession and trip limits, we project that this action's increases in the possession and trip limits for these stocks should provide additional fishing opportunities and flexibility to facilitate catching available quota while ensuring that the common pool does not exceed its annual quotas.
Effective February 24, 2022, until April 30, 2022, NMFS increases the possession and trip limits summarized in Tables 2 and 3.
Weekly quota monitoring reports for the common pool fishery can be found on our website at:
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act consistent with 50 CFR 648.86(o), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866. The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA, finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) to waive prior notice and the opportunity for public comment and the 30-day delayed effectiveness period because this action relieves possession and landing restrictions, and delayed implementation would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest.
The regulations at § 648.86(o) authorize the Regional Administrator to adjust the possession and trip limits for common pool vessels in order to help avoid overharvest or underharvest of the common pool quotas. Our analysis indicates that this action's increased possession and trip limit adjustments for these stocks should help the fishery achieve catching the allocated amounts for each stock. Any delay in this action would limit the benefits to common pool vessels that the increased landing and possession limits are intended to provide.
The time necessary to provide for prior notice and comment, and a 30-day delay in effectiveness, would keep NMFS from implementing the necessary possession and trip limit before the end of the fishing year on April 30, 2022, which could prevent the fishery from catching the allocated amounts for each stock and cause negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery. This would undermine management objectives of the Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan and cause unnecessary negative economic impacts to the common pool fishery. The public received prior notice and an opportunity to comment on the Regional Administrator's exercise of this authority. The fishing industry participants have experienced these adjustments and have become accustomed to this process. There is additional good cause to waive the delayed effective period because this action relieves restrictions on fishing vessels by increasing a trip limit.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notification of a webinar and availability of preliminary technical support document.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE” or “the Department”) will hold a webinar to discuss and receive comments on the preliminary analysis it has conducted for purposes of evaluating energy conservation standards for external power supplies (“EPSs”). The meeting will cover the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE is using to evaluate potential standards for this product; the results of preliminary analyses performed by DOE for this product; the potential energy conservation standard levels derived from these analyses that DOE could consider for this product should it determine that proposed amendments are necessary; and any other issues relevant to the evaluation of energy conservation standards for EPSs. In addition, DOE encourages written comments on these subjects. To inform interested parties and to facilitate this process, DOE has prepared an agenda, a preliminary technical support document (“TSD”), and briefing materials, which are available on the DOE website at:
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
1.
2.
No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section IV of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of the ongoing coronavirus 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
The docket web page can be found at
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
Ms. Nisha R. Kumar, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8625. Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
EPCA, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140 (“EISA”), also defined a subset of EPSs, called Class A EPSs—devices that are “able to convert to only 1 AC or DC output voltage at a time” and have “nameplate output power that is less than or equal to 250 watts” among other characteristics.
Following the EISA amendments, Congress further amended EPCA to exclude EPSs used for certain security and life safety alarms and surveillance systems manufactured prior to July 1, 2017, from the statutorily-prescribed “no-load” energy conservation standards. (Pub. L. 111-360 (January 4, 2011) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)).
EPCA's EPS provisions were again amended by the Power and Security Systems (“PASS”) Act, which extended the rulemaking deadline and effective date established under the EISA amendments for the second rulemaking cycle from July 1, 2015, and July 1, 2017, to July 1, 2021, and July 1, 2023, respectively. (Pub. L. 115-78 (November 2, 2017) (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii))). The PASS Act also extended the exclusion of certain security and life safety alarms and surveillance systems from no-load standards until the effective date of the final rule issued under 42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(D)(ii) and allows the Secretary to treat some or all EPSs designed to be connected to a security or life safety alarm or surveillance system as a separate product class or to further extend the exclusion. (42 U.S.C. 6295(u)(3)(E)(ii) and (iv))
On January 12, 2018, the EPS Improvement Act of 2017, Public Law 115-115, amended EPCA to exclude the following devices from the EPS definition: Power supply circuits, drivers, or devices that are designed exclusively to be connected to and power (1) light-emitting diodes providing illumination, (2) organic light-emitting diodes providing illumination, or (3) ceiling fans using direct current motors.
EPCA further provides that, not later than 6 years after the issuance of any final rule establishing or amending a standard, DOE must publish either a notification of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(1)) Not later than three years after issuance of a final determination not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice of determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6295(m)(3)(B))
Under EPCA, any new or amended energy conservation standard must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that DOE determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, the new or amended standard must result in a significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
DOE completed the first of the two required rulemaking cycles in 2014 by adopting amended performance standards for EPSs manufactured on or after February 10, 2016. 79 FR 7845 (February 10, 2014) (setting amended standards to apply starting on February 10, 2016) (“February 2014 Final Rule”).
DOE is publishing this Preliminary Analysis to collect data and information to inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including EPSs. As noted, EPCA requires that any new or amended energy conservation standard prescribed by the Secretary of Energy (“Secretary”) be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency (or water efficiency for certain products specified by EPCA) that is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) Furthermore, DOE may not adopt any standard that would not result in the significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)) The Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard that will not result in significant conservation of energy, or is not technologically feasible or economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3))
To adopt any new or amended standards for a covered product, DOE must determine that such action would result in significant energy savings. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) Although the term “significant” is not defined in EPCA, the U.S. Court of Appeals, for the District of Columbia Circuit in
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.
Accordingly, DOE is evaluating the significance of energy savings on a case-by-case basis. In doing this evaluation, DOE will review the amount of FFC savings, the corresponding reduction in GHG emissions, and the need to confront the global climate crisis. DOE has initially determined the energy savings for the candidate standard levels evaluated in this preliminary analysis rulemaking are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B).
To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the requirements within EPCA.
Further, EPCA
EPCA also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Additionally, EPCA specifies requirements when promulgating an energy conservation standard for a covered product that has two or more subcategories. DOE must specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that has the same function or intended use, if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) Consume a different kind of
Finally, pursuant to the amendments contained in the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140 (December 19, 2007), any final rule for new or amended energy conservation standards promulgated after July 1, 2010, is required to address standby mode and off mode energy use. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)) Specifically, when DOE adopts a standard for a covered product after that date, it must, if justified by the criteria for adoption of standards under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)), incorporate standby mode and off mode energy use into a single standard, or, if that is not feasible, adopt a separate standard for such energy use for that product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(gg)(3)(A)-(B)) DOE's current test procedures and energy conservation standards for EPSs address no-load mode (standby mode) energy use.
Before proposing a standard, DOE typically seeks public input on the analytical framework, models, and tools that DOE intends to use to evaluate standards for the product at issue and the results of preliminary analyses DOE performed for the product.
DOE is examining whether to amend the current standards pursuant to its obligations under EPCA. This notification announces the availability of the preliminary Technical Support Document (“TSD”), which details the preliminary analyses and summarizes the preliminary results of DOE's analyses. In addition, DOE is announcing a public webinar to solicit feedback from interested parties on its analytical framework, models, and preliminary results.
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“appendix A”), DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Section 6(a)(2) of appendix A states that if the Department determines it is appropriate to proceed with a rulemaking, the preliminary stages of a rulemaking to issue or amend an energy conservation standard that DOE will undertake will be a framework document and preliminary analysis, or an advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANOPR”). DOE is opting to deviate from this step by publishing a preliminary analysis without a framework document. A framework document is intended to introduce and summarize generally the various analyses DOE conducts during the rulemaking process and requests initial feedback from interested parties. As discussed further in the following section, prior to this notification of the preliminary analysis, DOE issued a request for information on May 20, 2020 (“May 2020 RFI”) in which DOE discussed the previous EPS energy conservation standards given in the February 2014 Final Rule. 85 FR 30636. In that RFI, DOE requested comment on whether there were changes to the technologies considered as part of the February 2014 Final Rule that would affect potential amended standards and on any aspect of its economic justification analysis. 85 FR 30636, 30639-30648. While DOE received comments on the assumptions employed in the analysis conducted in support of the February 2014 Final Rule (
Further, section 6(d)(2) of appendix A specifies that the length of the public comment period for pre-NOPR rulemaking documents will vary depending upon the circumstances of the particular rulemaking, but will not be less than 75 calendar days. For this preliminary analysis, DOE has opted to instead provide a 60-day comment period.
As stated, DOE requested comment in the May 2020 RFI on the analysis conducted in support of the February 2014 Final Rule and provided stakeholders a 75-day comment period. DOE, however, did not receive comments suggesting a need to substantively change the analytical approach previously taken. Given that the analysis will largely remain the same, and in light of the 75-day comment period DOE has already provided with its May 2020 RFI, DOE has determined that a 60-day comment period is sufficient to enable interested parties to review the tentative methodologies and accompanying analysis to develop meaningful comments in response to the preliminary TSD.
In the February 2014 Final Rule, DOE prescribed the current energy conservation standards for EPSs manufactured on and after February 10, 2016. 79 FR 7846. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 430.32(w) and are repeated in Table II.1.
On May 20, 2020, DOE published the May 2020 RFI, initiating a review to determine whether any new or amended standards would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended energy conservation standard for EPSs. 85 FR 30636. Specifically, through the published notice and request for information, DOE sought data and information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a “no new standard” determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing.
Comments received to date as part of the current process have helped DOE identify and resolve issues related to the preliminary analyses. Chapter 2 of the preliminary TSD summarizes and addresses the comments received.
For the products covered in this preliminary analysis, DOE conducted in-depth technical analyses in the following areas: (1) Engineering; (2) markups to determine product price; (3) energy use; (4) life cycle cost (“LCC”) and payback period (“PBP”); and (5) national impacts. The preliminary TSD that presents the methodology and results of each of these analyses is available at:
DOE also conducted, and has included in the preliminary TSD, several other analyses that support the major analyses or are preliminary analyses that will be expanded if DOE determines that a NOPR is warranted to propose amended energy conservation standards. These analyses include: (1) The market and technology assessment; (2) the screening analysis, which contributes to the engineering analysis; and (3) the shipments analysis, which contributes to the LCC and PBP analysis and the national impact analysis (“NIA”). In addition to these analyses, DOE has begun preliminary work on the manufacturer impact analysis and has identified the methods to be used for the consumer subgroup analysis, the emissions analysis, the employment impact analysis, the regulatory impact analysis, and the utility impact analysis. DOE will expand on these analyses in the NOPR should one be issued.
DOE develops information in the market and technology assessment that provides an overall picture of the market for the products concerned, including general characteristics of the products, the industry structure, manufacturers, market characteristics, and technologies used in the products. This activity includes both quantitative and qualitative assessments, based primarily on publicly available information. The subjects addressed in the market and technology assessment include: (1) A determination of the scope of the rulemaking and product classes, (2) manufacturers and industry structure, (3) existing efficiency programs, (4) shipments information, (5) market and industry trends, and (6) technologies or design options that could improve the energy efficiency of the product.
See chapter 3 of the preliminary TSD for further discussion of the market and technology assessment.
DOE uses the following five screening criteria to determine which technology options are suitable for further consideration in an energy conservation standards rulemaking:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
If DOE determines that a technology, or a combination of technologies, meets one or more of the listed five screening criteria, it will be excluded from further consideration in the engineering analysis.
See chapter 4 of the preliminary TSD for further discussion of the screening analysis.
The purpose of the engineering analysis is to establish the relationship between the efficiency and cost of EPSs. There are two elements to consider in the engineering analysis; the selection of efficiency levels to analyze (
DOE converts the MPC to the manufacturer selling price (“MSP”) by applying a manufacturer markup. The MSP is the price the manufacturer charges its first customer, when selling into the product distribution channels. The manufacturer markup accounts for manufacturer non-production costs and profit margin. DOE developed the manufacturer markup by examining publicly available financial information for manufacturers of the covered product.
See Chapter 5 of the preliminary TSD for additional detail on the engineering analysis.
At each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of the product to cover business costs and profit margins. The markups analysis develops appropriate markups (
DOE developed baseline and incremental markups for each actor in the distribution chain. Baseline markups are applied to the price of products with baseline efficiency, while incremental markups are applied to the difference in price between baseline and higher-efficiency models (the incremental cost increase). The incremental markup is typically less than the baseline markup and is designed to maintain similar per-unit operating profit before and after new or amended standards.
Chapter 6 of the preliminary TSD provides details on DOE's development of markups for EPSs.
The purpose of the energy use analysis is to determine the annual energy consumption of EPSs at different efficiencies in representative U.S. homes and business, and to assess the energy savings potential of increased EPS efficiency. The energy use analysis estimates the range of energy use of EPSs as they are actually used by consumers to establish a distribution of efficiencies. The energy use analysis provides the basis for other analyses DOE performed, particularly assessments of the energy savings and the savings in consumer operating costs that could result from adoption of amended or new standards.
Chapter 7 of the preliminary TSD addresses the energy use analysis.
The effect of new or amended energy conservation standards on individual consumers usually involves a reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost. DOE used the following two metrics to measure consumer impacts:
• The LCC is the total consumer expense of an appliance or product over the life of that product, consisting of total installed cost (manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, and sales tax) plus operating costs (expenses for energy use). To compute the operating costs, DOE discounts future operating costs to the time of purchase and sums them over the lifetime of the product.
• The PBP is the estimated amount of time (in years) it takes consumers to recover the increased purchase cost (including installation) of a more-efficient product through lower operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP by dividing the change in purchase cost at higher efficiency levels by the change in annual operating cost for the year that amended or new standards are assumed to take effect.
Chapter 8 of the preliminary TSD addresses the LCC and PBP analyses.
The NIA estimates the national energy savings (“NES”) and the net present value (“NPV”) of total consumer costs and savings expected to result from amended standards at specific efficiency levels (referred to as candidate standard levels).
DOE evaluates the impacts of new or amended standards by comparing a case without such standards with standards-case projections (“no-new-standards case”). The no-new-standards case characterizes energy use and consumer costs for each product class in the absence of new or amended energy
DOE uses a spreadsheet model to calculate the energy savings and the national consumer costs and savings from each efficiency level. Interested parties can review DOE's analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet model uses typical values (as opposed to probability distributions) as inputs. Critical inputs to this analysis include shipments projections, estimated product lifetimes, product installed costs and operating costs, product annual energy consumption, the base case efficiency projection, and discount rates.
DOE estimates a combined total of 0.9 quads of site energy savings at the max-tech efficiency levels for EPSs. Combined site energy savings at Efficiency Level 1 for all product classes are estimated to be 0.05 quads.
Chapter 10 of the preliminary TSD addresses the NIA.
DOE invites public participation in this process through participation in the webinar and submission of written comments and information. After the webinar and the closing of the comment period, DOE will consider all timely-submitted comments and additional information obtained from interested parties, as well as information obtained through further analyses. Following such consideration, the Department will publish either a determination that the standards for EPSs need not be amended or a NOPR proposing to amend those standards. The NOPR, should one be issued, would include proposed energy conservation standards for the products covered by that rulemaking, and members of the public would be given an opportunity to submit written and oral comments on the proposed standards.
The time and date for the webinar meeting are listed in the
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this document, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit such request to
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present a general overview of the topics addressed in the preliminary assessment, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the webinar.
A transcript of the webinar meeting will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the
DOE invites all interested parties, regardless of whether they participate in the webinar, to submit in writing by April 26, 2022, comments and information on matters addressed in this notification and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservations standards for EPSs. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other information using any of the methods described in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. If this instruction is followed, persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notification of a webinar and availability of preliminary technical support document.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 7, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice of proposed rulemaking and announcement of public meeting.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) proposes to amend the test procedures for commercial warm air furnaces (“CWAFs”) to incorporate the latest versions of the industry standards that are currently incorporated by reference. DOE also proposes to establish a new metric, Thermal Efficiency Two (“TE2”), and corresponding test procedure. Use of the newly proposed test procedure would become mandatory at such time as compliance with amended energy conservation standards based on TE2 is required, should DOE adopt such standards. DOE also proposes additional specifications for CWAFs with multiple vent hoods or small-diameter vent hoods. DOE is seeking comment from interested parties on the proposal.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposal no later than April 26, 2022. See section V, “Public Participation,” for details. DOE will hold a webinar on Tuesday, March 29, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. See section V, “Public Participation,” for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants. If no participants register for the webinar, it will be cancelled.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
1.
2.
No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section V of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of the ongoing coronavirus 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
The docket web page can be found at
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting (if one is held), contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following industry standards into 10 CFR part 431:
American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) Z21.47-2021, “Gas-fired Central Furnaces”;
ANSI/The American Scociety of Mechanical Engineers (“ASME”) PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004), “Part 3: Temperature Measurement, Instruments and Apparatus”;
ANSI/American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers (“ASHRAE”) Standard 103-2017, “Method of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers”;
Copies of ANSI Z21.47-2021, ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004) and ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017, can be obtained from American National Standards Institute, 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or online at:
Underwriters Laboratories (“UL”) standard UL 727-2018 “Standard for Safety Oil-Fired Central Furnaces”;
Copies of UL 727-2018 can be obtained from Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 2600 NW, Lake Rd., Camas, WA 98607-8542, (360) 817-5500 or online at:
ANSI/Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (“AHRI”) 1500-2015 “Performance Rating of Commercial Space Heating Boilers”;
Copies of AHRI 1500-2015 can be obtained from Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or online at:
ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 “Standard Specification for Temperature-Electromotive Force (emf) Tables for Standardized Thermocouples”;
ASTM D240-09 “Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter”;
ASTM D396-14a “Standard Specification for Fuel Oils”;
ASTM D4809-09a “Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method)”;
ASTM D5291-10 “Standard Test Methods for Instrumental Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products and Lubricants”;
Copies of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17, ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a, ASTM D4809-09a, and ASTM D5291-10, and can be obtained from ASTM, International, 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909-2786 or by going online at:
National Fire Protection Association (“NFPA”) 97-2003 “Standard Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys, Vents, and Heat-Producing Appliances”.
Copies of NFPA 97-2003 can be obtained from National Fire Protection Association, 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, (617) 770-3000 or by going online at:
For a further discussion of these standards, see section IV.M of this document.
CWAFs are included in the list of “covered equipment” for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(J)) DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for CWAFs are currently prescribed at subpart D of part 431 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test procedures for CWAFs and relevant background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (“EPCA”),
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D); 42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA requires that the test procedure for CWAFs be those generally accepted industry testing procedures developed or recognized by the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) or by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such industry test procedure is amended, DOE must amend its test procedure to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure, unless DOE determines, by rule published in the
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including CWAF, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
If the Secretary determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test procedures in the
DOE's current test procedure for CWAFs is codified at 10 CFR 431.76, “Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces.” The currently applicable test procedure incorporates by reference two industry standards for testing gas-fired CWAFs: American National Standards Institute (“ANSI”) Z21.47-2012, “Standard for Gas-fired Central Furnaces” (“ANSI Z21.47-2012”), which is used for all types of gas-fired CWAFs; and ANSI/American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and Air-conditioning Engineers (“ASHRAE”) Standard 103-2007, “Method of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers” (“ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007”), which is specifically used for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs. 10 CFR
DOE most recently amended the test procedure for CWAFs in a final rule published on July 17, 2015, which updated the test procedure for gas-fired CWAFs to incorporate by reference the latest versions of the industry standards available at the time (
On May 5, 2020, DOE published a request for information (“RFI”) soliciting public comments, data, and information on aspects of the existing DOE test procedure for CWAFs, including whether there are any issues with the current test procedure and whether it is in need of updates or revisions. 85 FR 26626 (“May 2020 RFI”).
DOE received comments in response to the May 2020 RFI from the interested parties listed in Table I.1.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A (“appendix A”), DOE notes that it is deviating from the provision in appendix A regarding the pre-NOPR stages for a test procedure rulemaking.
As discussed in section I.B of this NOPR, the May 2020 RFI requested submission of such comments, data, and information pertinent to test procedures for CWAFs. In response to the May 2020 RFI, stakeholders provided substantial comments and information, which DOE has found sufficient to identify the need to modify the test procedures for CWAFs. Section III of this NOPR discusses in detail the comments received and how early stakeholder feedback has been considered in forming DOE's proposals to amend the CWAF test procedure.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update its test procedures for CWAFs as follows:
(1) Reorganize the setup and testing provisions in 10 CFR 431.76 related to the determination of thermal efficiency into the newly established 10 CFR part 431, subpart D, appendix A (“appendix A”);
(2) Incorporate by reference the most recent versions of the currently referenced industry standards:
• UL 727-2018 (previously UL 727-2006) for testing oil-fired CWAFs;
• AHRI 1500-2015 (previously HI BTS-2000) for performing fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue loss of oil-fired CWAFs;
• ANSI Z21.47-2021 (previously ANSI Z21.47-2012) for testing gas-fired CWAFs; and
• ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 (previously ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007) for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs;
(3) Incorporate by reference the standards referenced in UL 727-2018 (
(4) Clarify how to test units with multiple vent hoods, and units with vent hoods that are 2 inches or smaller in diameter; and
(5) Establish a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 431, subpart D, appendix B (“appendix B”), which would generally require testing as in appendix A, but which would establish a new metric, “TE2.” The new TE2 metric would account for jacket losses and part-load operation in addition to accounting for flue losses. If adopted, manufacturers could use proposed new appendix B to make voluntary representations of TE2; this proposed test procedure would become mandatory at such time as compliance is required with amended energy conservation standards based on TE2, should DOE adopt such standards.
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the current test procedure as well as the reason for the proposed change.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments for the test procedure at appendix A described in section III of this document would not alter the measured efficiency of CWAFs, that the proposed test procedures would not be unduly burdensome to conduct, and that the proposed test procedures more accurately produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of CWAFs during a representative average use cycle.
The additional proposed amendments for the newly proposed appendix B would alter the reported efficiency of CWAFs, as discussed in the relevant section of this document. However, as proposed, testing in accordance with these specific proposed changes would not be required until such time as compliance is required with any amended energy conservation standards based on appendix B.
Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are discussed in detail in section III of this document.
In the following sections, DOE describes the proposed amendments to the test procedures for CWAFs. DOE seeks input from the public to assist with its consideration of the proposed amendments presented in this document. In addition, DOE welcomes comments on other relevant issues that may not specifically be identified in this document.
This rulemaking applies to CWAFs. EPCA defines “warm air furnace” as a self-contained oil-fired or gas-fired furnace designed to supply heated air through ducts to spaces that require it and includes combination warm air furnace/electric air conditioning units, but does not include unit heaters and duct furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(A)) DOE codified the statutory definition of “warm air furnace” at 10 CFR 431.72. DOE defines a CWAF as a warm air furnace that is industrial equipment, and that has a capacity (rated maximum input) of 225,000 British thermal units (“Btu”) per hour or more. 10 CFR 431.72.
DOE did not receive any comments in response to the May 2020 RFI related to the scope of the CWAF test procedure or relevant definitions for CWAFs. DOE is not proposing any changes to the scope of equipment covered by its CWAF test procedures, or to the relevant definitions.
As discussed, DOE currently incorporates by reference in 10 CFR part 431, subpart D, the following industry test procedures: UL 727-2006, HI-BTS 2000, ANSI Z21.47-2012, and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007. Updates of each of these test standards have been published since they were incorporated into the current test procedure. These updated test standards are UL 727-2018 (update to UL 727-2006), AHRI 1500-2015 (update to HI-BTS 2000), ANSI Z21.47-2021
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted several differences between the industry standards currently incorporated by reference and the updated industry standards and sought comment on these changes. 85 FR 26626, 26629-26631. Each change in the updated versions of
As discussed, the DOE test procedure for CWAFs is specified in 10 CFR 431.76. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to establish appendix A to subpart D of 10 CFR part 431. DOE is reorganizing the CWAF setup and testing provisions currently proscribed in 10 CFR 431.76 into appendix A to clarify the test provisions that are necessary for determining thermal efficiency. DOE is reorganizing 10 CFR 431.76 in the way because, as discussed in section III.C of this document, DOE is also establishing appendix B for determining the proposed thermal efficiency two metric. DOE has tentatively determined that creating separate appendixes for the determination of the two different metrics would help clarify which appendix corresponds to which metric (
The CWAF test procedure at 10 CFR 431.76 requires use of those procedures contained in UL 727-2006 that are relevant to the steady-state efficiency measurement (
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that the language in section 1 of the UL 727-2018 test standard regarding the scope of the standard has been changed from that in UL 727-2006. 85 FR 26626, 26630. Section 1.3 in UL 727-2006 references the NFPA “Standard for Installation of Oil-Burning Equipment,” NFPA 31, and codes such as the “Building Officials Code Administrators International National Mechanical Code,” the “State Building Code Council Standard Mechanical Code,” and the “International Association of Plumbing and Mechanical Officials Uniform Mechanical Code” for requirements for the installation and use of oil-burning equipment. In contrast, Section 1.3 of UL 727-2018 references the NFPA “Standard for Installation of Oil-Burning Equipment,” NFPA 31, the “International Mechanical Code,” and the “Uniform Mechanical Code” regarding installation and use of oil-burning equipment.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE explained that DOE defines the scope for the testing of CWAFs in 10 CFR 431.76(a), and that the scope of applicability of the DOE test procedure is independent from the scope defined by UL-727-2006. 85 FR 26626, 26630. Although DOE references the scope of UL 727-2006 in its test provisions at 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2), only the procedures within UL 727-2006 that are pertinent to the measurement of the steady-state efficiency are included in the DOE test procedure. 10 CFR 431.76(b). Therefore, any provisions within the scope of UL 727-2006 that do not relate to the measurement of the steady-state efficiency do not apply to the DOE test procedure.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE sought comment on whether there is a need to identify more specifically the provisions of UL 727-2006 that apply to the DOE test procedure.
DOE has tentatively determined that the scope section of UL 727-2018 is inapplicable to the DOE test procedure because the scope of the DOE test procedure is defined separately in 10 CFR 431.76(a), and only the provisions in UL 727-2018 that relate to the measurement of steady-state efficiency apply to the DOE test procedure. While DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference UL 727-2018 in its entirety, DOE is proposing to explicitly identify the provisions of UL 727-2018 that are applicable to the DOE test procedure for CWAF, which would not include the scope section of that industry standard, since the scope of the DOE test procedure is defined separately in 10 CFR 431.76(a).
The DOE test procedure currently incorporates Section 40 of UL 727-2006 for the test set-up for oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces. 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2). In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that Section 40.6.1 of UL 727-2018, which pertains to temperature measurements using potentiometers and thermocouples, has different language from UL 727-2006 and incorporates different ANSI references. 85 FR 26626, 26629-26630. Specifically, UL 727-2006 specifies that the thermocouple wire must conform to the requirements specified in the Initial Calibration Tolerances for Thermocouples table (
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment regarding the changes resulting from UL 727-2018 referencing ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17. Specifically, DOE asked for comment on whether the additional references and changes to the thermocouple and thermocouple extension wire requirements would impact the representativeness of the measured test results or test burden of the DOE CWAF test procedure, if adopted.
AHRI encouraged DOE to evaluate how any additions or changes to the thermocouple and thermocouple extension wire requirements to determine the full impact any differences may have on current products' ability to remain compliant. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 2) AHRI also commented that ANSI/ISA MC96.1 is an obsolete standard that was last published in 1982 and was administratively withdrawn by ISA in 2011. Additionally, AHRI stated that the ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 standard represents current technologies and is maintained on a periodic basis in accordance with the ASTM standards development procedures. (AHRI, No. 7 at pp. 2-3)
DOE has confirmed that ANSI/ISA MC96.1 was administratively withdrawn by ISA. As the ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 standard is the current industry standard regarding thermocouples, it is expected that thermocouples currently being used for testing meet the specifications of that industry standard. Furthermore, DOE notes that the requirements in ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 allow additional thermocouple wires for testing, in addition to those that were specified in ANSI/ISA MC96.1. Therefore, DOE expects units tested according to the previous requirements in ANSI/ISA MC96.1 would subsequently meet those in ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17. DOE received no additional comments on this topic. Absent data and information to indicate that the requirements in ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 are not appropriate or result in a significant change from the provisions in ANSI/ISA MC96.1. DOE has tentatively determined that there is not sufficient evidence to indicate ANSI/ASTME230/E230M-17 would not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3), related to representative use and test burden. Additionally, if DOE were to continue to reference a test procedure that is administratively withdrawn, industry may find it difficult to obtain copies of the obsolete standard. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate the ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 thermocouple provisions referenced in UL 727-2018 (
Sections 3.11 and 3.27 of UL 727-2018 state that the definitions of terms “combustible” and “noncombustible” are the definitions found within NFPA 97M, “Standard Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys, Gas Vents and Heat Producing Appliances” (“NFPA 97M”). UL 727-2018 does not specify which version of NFPA 97M is being referenced in the standard, nor does it include a publication date of version number of the NFPA 97M standard. The latest version of NFPA 97M of which DOE is aware is a version published in 1967. DOE also notes that NFPA's website does not contain a NFPA 97M publication, and instead contains NFPA 97-2003 “Standard Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys, Vents, and Heat-Producing Appliances” (NFPA 97-2003). NFPA 97-2003 contains definitions for “combustible material” and “noncombustible material,” however NFPA 97M only contains a definition for “combustible material.” DOE notes that there are minor differences between the definitions for “combustible material” in both standards, and that DOE tentatively concludes that there are no substantial differences.
DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that NFPA 97M is an outdated standard that has been superseded by NFPA 97-2003. DOE seeks comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference NFPA 97-2003 in 10 CFR part 431, subpart D.
DOE's test procedure for oil-fired CWAFs references sections of HI BTS-2000 that are relevant to fuel oil analysis and calculating percent flue loss (
In 2015, HI BTS-2000 was redesignated by AHRI as AHRI 1500-2015. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE identified two substantive changes in the sections relevant to the DOE test procedure in the update from HI BTS-2000 to AHRI 1500-2015 regarding fuel oil analysis and calculation of flue loss. 85 FR 26626, 26630. DOE requested comment generally regarding whether any of the differences between Sections 8.2.2, 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2 of HI BTS-2000 and AHRI 1500-2015 are relevant to the DOE test procedure, and if so, how such differences would impact the representativeness of measurements and the associated test burden of the DOE commercial warm air furnaces test procedure, if adopted.
DOE's test procedure for oil-fired CWAFs includes fuel oil analysis requirements that reference Section 8.2.2 of HI BTS-2000. 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2). As noted in the May 2020 RFI, Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500-2015 (previously Section 8.2.2 of HI BTS-2000) specifies different fuel oil
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment regarding the differences between the fuel oil analysis requirements in each standard, whether the differences between the two would yield different results during testing, and whether adopting AHRI 1500-2015 would add or reduce burden to the current testing requirements of the DOE test procedure. 85 FR 26626, 26631.
The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to ensure that fuel oil analysis requirements are consistent across applicable test procedures. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 4) AHRI stated that the two standards show no significant changes and that adoption of AHRI 1500-2015 would not yield different results during testing. AHRI reiterated its support for the adoption of the most current edition of this standard, stating that this edition represents the most current technology and information available at the time of publication, and that HI BTS-2000 is an obsolete standard no longer maintained by AHRI. Furthermore, AHRI stated that it has determined that there is no change in the burden by adopting AHRI 1500-2015. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 4)
DOE has not received any information or data indicating that updating the HI BTS-2000 reference to AHRI 1500-2015 would result in a test procedure that would not meet the representativeness requirements or be unduly burdensome to conduct. DOE has confirmed that HI BTS-2000 is no longer maintained by AHRI and has tentatively determined that it is an obsolete standard. AHRI 1500-2015 represents the industry's most up to date requirements for fuel oil analysis, and no issues or differences between the new and old standards that would impact results or require retesting have been reported to DOE. Because of this, and based on stakeholder comment, DOE has tentatively determined that incorporating AHRI 1500-2015 into the DOE test procedure would not impact the performance of a CWAF under test or require CWAFs to be retested. Additionally, if DOE were to continue to reference a test procedure that is administratively withdrawn, industry may find it difficult to obtain copies of the obsolete standard. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that AHRI 1500-2015, the successor industry standard to the currently referenced HI BTS-2000, contains fuel oil analysis requirements that are equivalent to the requirements in HI BTS-2000 and are currently being used by test facilities. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 1500-2015, including its fuel oil analysis specifications.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that Section 11.1.4 of HI BTS-2000 requires that the carbon dioxide (“CO
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on whether the option to calculate CO
DOE has identified O
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to adopt the optional method specified in AHRI 1500-2015 that allows for calculating CO
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that the test method in 10 CFR 431.76 for gas-fired CWAFs requires the use of procedures contained in ANSI Z21.47-2012 that are relevant to the steady-state efficiency measurement (
Since the publication of the May 2020 RFI, an updated version of the ANSI Z21.47 standard was published in 2021: ANSI Z21.47-2021. DOE notes that the only substantive difference between the 2016 and 2021 versions relevant to the sections referenced by the DOE test procedure is related to burner operating characteristics tests specified in Section 5.4a of both ANSI Z21.47-2016 and ANSI Z21.47-2021.
The updates to ANSI Z21.47-2012 in ANSI Z21.47-2016 and ANSI Z21.47-2021, as well as the scope of the industry standard, are discussed in further detail in the following sections. As previously mentioned in section III.B of this document, DOE is proposing to amend the DOE test procedure to reference ANSI Z21.47-2021, as it is the most recent version of the industry test procedure.
DOE's test procedure for CWAFs currently includes reference to the scope Section (section 1.1) of ANSI Z21.47-2012. 10 CFR 431.76(c). As previously stated in section III.B.1.a of this document, DOE defines the scope for the testing of CWAFs in 10 CFR 431.76(a), and DOE's test procedure for CWAFs requires use of ANSI Z21.47 only for provisions pertinent to the measurement of the steady-state efficiency.
While DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47-2021 in its entirety, DOE is proposing to explicitly identify the provisions of ANSI Z21.47-2021 that are applicable to the DOE test procedure for CWAFs, which would not include the scope section of that industry standard.
Section 2.3.2(c) of ANSI Z21.47-2012 and the corresponding Section 5.3.2(c) of ANSI Z21.47-2021 provide installation requirements for horizontal furnaces. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI Z21.47-2016 appears to contain a typographical error by referencing “Figure 4, Enclosure types for alcove and closet installation tests for horizontal furnaces.” 85 FR 26626, 26630. The title of Figure 4 in ANSI Z21.47-2016 is “Enclosure types for alcove and closet installation tests for up-flow and down-flow furnaces,” and as titled, Figure 4 applies only to up-flow and down-flow furnaces. It appears that the appropriate reference in Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI Z21.47-2016 should be to Figure 5, “Enclosed types for alcove and closet installation tests for horizontal furnaces.”
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on whether Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) of ANSI Z21.47-2016 should refer to Figure 5 in the test procedure, rather than Figure 4.
In the update to the industry standard, ANSI Z21.47-2021 corrected this typographical error by having Section 5.3.2(c)(iii) reference Figure 5. Therefore, the typographical error in ANSI Z21.47-2016 is no longer relevant because DOE is now proposing to incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47-2021.
DOE also asked for comment regarding any differences between ANSI Z21.47-2012 and ANSI Z21.47-2016, and specifically whether there are any differences other than those already identified by DOE in the May 2020 RFI.
DOE notes that ANSI Z21.47-2021 also uses the term “propane” in place of “liquified petroleum gas.” DOE tentatively agrees with AHRI and Trane that the use of “propane” instead of “liquified petroleum gas” is for clarification only, and, therefore, does not affect the test procedure. Therefore, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference ASNI Z21.47-2021 and specify use of the sections that correspond to the sections currently referenced in the DOE test procedure (
Section 2.4a of ANSI Z21.47-2012 is referenced in the current DOE test procedure for CWAFs. 10 CFR 431.76(c)(2). This section states that three separate tests (each specified in Sections 2.9.1(a), 2.10.1, and 2.11.3, respectively, of ANSI Z21.47-2012) shall be performed prior to the performance test to ensure that there is no burner flashback and that the ignition system is working properly. Section 2.4a states that these three burner operating characteristics tests shall be conducted with test gas G (
DOE seeks comment on whether the option provided in Section 5.4a of ANSI Z21.47-2021 to use test gas H when performing the three burner characteristics tests would impact the representativeness or burden of the thermal efficiency test.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that DOE's test procedure for gas-fired condensing CWAFs references Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, 9.2, 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2007. 10 CFR 431.76; 85 FR 26626, 26630. DOE did not identify any substantive changes in the sections currently referenced by the DOE test procedure in the update from ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007 to ANSI/
AHRI commented that Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 in ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 were modified to replace a fixed numerical value with mathematical expressions, but that there were no significant changes to the clauses specified in the DOE test procedure. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3) Trane stated that equations were modified only in terms from numeric to mathematical, but that this did not change the outcomes of the measurements. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 2)
DOE acknowledges that the two equations in Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 have been modified. ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007 includes variables in each equation that are defined as constants in the list of variables below each equation (
As previously discussed, EPCA requires that the test procedures for CWAFs be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or ASHRAE, as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry test procedure or rating procedure is amended, the Secretary shall amend the test procedure for the product as necessary to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure or rating procedure unless the Secretary determines, by rule, published in the
As discussed in further detail in the sub-sections that immediately follow, DOE has tentatively determined that a test procedure that includes jacket loss and accounts for part-load operation would better produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of CWAFs during a representative average use cycle. CWAFs are typically installed outdoors and as a result jacket losses can be a significant source of energy loss. Further, for models with multiple heating stages, performance can vary at the maximum input heating stage as compared to reduced input stage(s). Therefore, DOE is proposing to account for these factors by establishing a new test procedure and metric for CWAFs, termed “Thermal Efficiency Two” (“TE2”), which would generally adopt the same changes proposed for the current test procedure at appendix A, but would additionally account for jacket losses and part load operation. The proposed TE2 test procedure would account for flue losses in the same manner as the current TE metric. DOE proposes to establish a new appendix B to 10 CFR part 431, which would contain the test method for TE2.
If adopted, manufacturers would be permitted to make voluntary representations using TE2. Mandatory use of the TE2 test procedure would be required at such time as compliance is required with amended energy conservation standards based on TE2, should DOE adopt such standards. DOE is, therefore, also proposing to retain the test method for TE, which is proposed to be modified as discussed elsewhere in this document, in appendix A for use until such time as TE2 becomes mandatory.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to establish a new test procedure (
As discussed, the current energy efficiency metric for CWAFs is TE. 10 CFR 431.77. TE for a CWAF is defined in 10 CFR 431.72 as 100 percent minus the percent flue loss, and is calculated, as specified in 10 CFR 431.76(e), by following the procedure specified in Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47-2012 for gas-fired CWAFs and Sections 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2 of HI BTS-2000 for oil-fired CWAFs.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether jacket loss should be accounted for in the calculation of TE. Specifically, DOE asked for comment regarding information and data on whether and to what extent inclusion of jacket loss would provide results that would more appropriately reflect energy efficiency during a representative average use cycle, and also information and data as to the test burden that would be associated with potential inclusion of jacket loss as part of the DOE CWAF test procedure.
ASAP, NEEA,
AHRI, Carrier,
On May 12, 2020, DOE published an energy conservation standards RFI (“May 2020 ECS RFI”) for air-cooled CUACs, commercial unitary heat pumps, and CWAFs. 85 FR 27941. DOE received multiple comments from stakeholders in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI that are related to jacket loss and that are relevant to DOE's consideration of whether to incorporate jacket losses into the test procedure for CWAFs. Specifically, the Joint Advocates recommended that DOE amend the CWAF test procedure to include effects of improved insulation.
Regarding Goodman's reference to the jacket loss requirement for CWAFs in ASHRAE 90.1-2019, DOE notes that as part of a final rule published on May 16, 2012 (“May 2012 final rule”) amending energy conservation standards and test procedures for commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment, DOE addressed the ASHRAE 90.1 requirement pertaining to jacket loss.
As noted, DOE is generally required to adopt a test procedure for CWAFs that is consistent with the generally accepted industry testing procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or by ASHRAE, as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such industry test procedure (
For the reasons that follow, DOE has tentatively determined that incorporating a jacket loss measurement into the test procedure and metric for CWAFs would improve the representativeness of the test procedure by capturing an attribute of CWAFs other than combustion efficiency (
The current TE is essentially a measure of combustion efficiency. However, the energy efficiency of the equipment is influenced by factors in addition to combustion efficiency (
DOE is proposing that, for CWAFs that are designed for outdoor installation (including but not limited to CWAFs that are weatherized, or approved for resistance to wind, rain, or snow) or designed for indoor installation in an unheated space (
As previously mentioned, DOE references Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47-2012 (now Section 5.40 in ANSI Z21.47-21), which includes a test procedure for determining jacket loss. DOE does not currently reference Annex J of ANSI Z21.47-2012, which includes the equation used to calculate jacket loss. Annex J also includes Figures J.1 and J.2 which are used to determine the coefficient of convection and coefficient of radiation for the surface, which are two coefficients used in the calculation of jacket loss. DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the jacket loss test procedure specified in Section 5.40 of ANSI Z21.47-2021, which includes a reference to Annex J of ANSI Z21.47-2021, for both gas-fired and oil-fired CWAFs. Specifically, DOE is proposing to adopt this test procedure for measuring jacket loss when testing to newly proposed appendix B to determine TE2.
To the extent that manufacturers participate in the industry certification program under ASHRAE 90.1, such manufacturers should already be measuring jacket loss according to the test procedure proposed in this NOPR due to the prescriptive jacket loss requirement in ASHRAE 90.1. Based on a review of models on the market, DOE found the majority of CWAFs indicate in product literature that they comply with the requirements of ASHRAE 90.1, which indicates that many CWAFs are already tested for jacket loss.
DOE is proposing to adopt the industry test standard for determining jacket loss that DOE has tentatively determined is currently being used by industry, and as such would not be unduly burdensome. Additionally, testing according to appendix B would be mandatory only at such time as compliance is required with amended energy conservation standards based on TE2, should DOE adopt such standards. Therefore, DOE proposes to incorporate jacket loss in the proposed TE2 metric.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require jacket loss be measured when testing CWAFs designed for outdoor
In response to the May 2020 RFI, DOE received comments from NEEA and the CA IOUs encouraging DOE to adopt a metric and test procedure that account for operation at part load. (NEEA, No. 10 pp. 1-2; CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 1) NEEA and the CA IOUs both asserted that CWAFs spend the majority of their time in a low fire mode (
AHRI commented that any additional requirements beyond the current test procedure provisions would be a burden to manufacturers, and that any changes that affect testing or calculations are likely to be overly burdensome compared to any benefits, due to what AHRI characterized as the relatively small market for these appliances. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 77)
DOE reviewed the current CWAF market and found that the vast majority of CWAFs certified to DOE have two or more stages of heating. DOE notes that CWAFs with two or more stages can operate at reduced firing rates to meet the building load. Under the current DOE test procedure, TE reflects the efficiency of the burner and the efficiency of the heat exchanger at full load. When a CWAF burner operates at a reduced input rate (
Specifically, DOE proposes to require that, for two-stage or modulating burner models, the flue loss of the unit under test be determined as specified in section 2 of appendix A (formerly 10 CFR 431.76(c)) at both the maximum and minimum input rates on the nameplate of the unit. The jacket loss (as described in section III.C.1 of this document) would be determined at the maximum input rate and optionally be determined at the minimum input rate. If the jacket loss were determined only at the maximum input rate, it would be assigned an equivalent value at the minimum input rate. TE2 would then be calculated as the average of the efficiencies determined at both the maximum and minimum input rates using the flue loss and jacket loss determined at each input rate.
Averaging the performance at the maximum and minimum input rate weights both full-load and part-load CWAF operation equally (
DOE also considered relying on the part-load and full-load burner operating hour calculations for two-stage and modulating furnaces specified in Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017. However, DOE tentatively determined that this approach would not be representative because the calculations specified in Appendix C of ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 include assumptions that are specific to residential furnaces (
DOE tentatively finds that CWAFs spend a substantive amount of time in part-load. Absent nationally representative data or information to support weighting factors for full-load and part-load performance that are more representative of an average use cycle, DOE has tentatively determined that weighting both equally is appropriate at this time, however DOE seeks comment on this tentative determination.
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to add a part-load test procedure to be incorporated into the newly proposed TE2 metric. DOE also seeks comment on its proposal to calculate TE2 by averaging performance at the maximum and minimum fire rate and seeks and any related data. DOE also requests comment on alternate weighting values, including those discussed, that may be more nationally representative of an
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that the DOE test procedure for CWAFs does not include any measurement of electrical consumption in its determination of the efficiency of CWAFs, including electrical consumption of blowers/fans, controls, or other auxiliary electrical consumption. 85 FR 26626, 26632. DOE explained that CWAFs are typically part of a single package that also includes air-conditioning equipment, and that the test method and metrics for commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment (
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on whether it should consider including the electrical consumption of CWAFs in the CWAF efficiency metric or test procedure, as well as on the merits and burdens of such approach.
ASAP, the CA IOUs, and NEEA recommended that DOE account for electrical consumption of the CWAF. (CA IOUs, No. 8 at p. 2; ASAP, No. 5 at p. 1; NEEA, No. 10 at p. 4) More specifically, ASAP urged DOE to ensure that all electrical consumption associated with CWAFs (including CWAF auxiliary electrical consumption) is captured in either the CWAF test procedure or the test procedure for CUACs. Specifically, regarding auxiliary electrical consumption, ASAP stated that capturing auxiliary electrical consumption would better reflect the efficiency of CWAFs during a representative average use cycle, thus providing better information to purchasers. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 2) ASAP also stated that the term sheet from the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (“ASRAC”) working group for CUACs and CWAFs contained a recommendation that DOE amend the test procedure for CUACs to better capture total fan energy use, including the energy use associated with the supply fan operation when the unit is in heating mode. (ASAP, No. 5 at p. 1) The CA IOUs also noted that the ASRAC term sheet includes a recommendation to update the CUAC test procedure to “better represent total fan energy use, including considering (a) alternative external static pressures; and (b) operation other than mechanical cooling and heating.” (ASAP, No. 5 at pp. 1-2; CA IOUs, No. 8 at pp. 2-3) Similarly, NEEA stated that electrical energy should be considered in total energy consumption in all operating modes, citing that RTUs spend the majority of their time in ventilation mode, and that electrical energy consumption of an RTU is 4 to 11 percent of total seasonal energy consumption. (NEEA, No. 10 at p. 4) Additionally, NEEA stated that the current CWAF test procedure does not capture many energy efficient features that are currently available on the market and, therefore, does not effectively allow manufacturers to distinguish more efficient equipment.
AHRI, Carrier, and Trane recommended against including the electrical consumption of CWAFs in the efficiency metric or test procedure. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6; Trane, No. 9 at p. 4; Carrier, No. 4 at p. 3) AHRI stated that the electrical energy consumption of CWAF components is minimal compared to the fossil fuel energy used for heating. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6) Trane explained that combustion fan motor wattage is very small as a percentage of these commercial furnaces (Trane, No. 9 at p. 4) More specifically, AHRI stated that the energy consumption of a combustion fan is a fraction of a percent of the total energy consumption. Carrier similarly asserted that the power draw of the inducer fan used to create the draft through the furnace is minimal compared to the energy of combustion. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 3) AHRI and Trane asserted that the extra burden from retesting and certifying to a new metric is not worth adding electrical consumption into a new efficiency metric. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6; Trane, No. 9 at p. 4) AHRI and Carrier noted that CWAFs are often sold as part of a packaged unit (
DOE agrees with stakeholders that CWAFs are typically installed within a CUAC, and that the energy consumption of the supply air fan is captured in the current CUAC test procedure. DOE notes that the energy consumption of the supply air fan during furnace-only operation is not captured within the CUAC test procedure; however, DOE has tentatively determined that such energy consumption would be better addressed in a future amendment to the CUAC test procedure, rather than also integrating supply fan consumption into the CWAF test procedure. This approach would allow for the supply air fan's energy consumption to be captured in a single test procedure. Similarly, DOE notes that many of the components that were referenced by NEEA are related to CUAC performance. As such, DOE has tentatively determined that these components would be better addressed a future CUAC test procedure amendment. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined not to include supply fan energy consumption in the CWAF metric.
DOE also considered whether to include the electrical energy consumption of other auxiliary components of CWAFs within the DOE test procedure. In a final rule published on May 4, 2016, amending the energy conservation standards for CWAFs, DOE analyzed the auxiliary energy consumption of CWAFs, finding that on average, auxiliary power consumption for the draft inducer was 100 W for gas-fired CWAFs and 220 W for oil-fired CWAFs. (
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that neither the DOE test procedure nor the ANSI Z21.47 test procedure specifies how to perform the flue temperature measurement if a unit has multiple vent hoods, and that models are currently available on the market with multiple vent hoods. 85 FR 26626, 26631. DOE notes that in this NOPR, as in the May 2020 RFI, DOE's references to a “vent hood” are synonymous with a “vent pipe.”
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested comment on how CWAFs with more than one vent hood are currently tested and whether it should consider adding provisions in the DOE test procedures to address measuring the flue gas temperature of a unit with multiple vent hoods. DOE also asked how best to measure flue gas temperature in such units.
AHRI stated that the manufacturers' installation instructions should include information regarding the use of multiple vents and each vent's functionality. AHRI stated that if the vent hood modules are the same size, the results are averaged; however, if they are different sizes, the test results for each vent hood should be adjusted accordingly before averaging the results. AHRI stated that, for example, if one vent is intended to exhaust two-thirds of the flue product and the second is intended to exhaust the remaining one-third, then this should be specified in the installation instructions, and a weighted average used to determine the flue gas temperature. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 5)
Trane stated that DOE should use the instructions in both the installation operation manuals as well as the supplemental testing instruction (“STI”) supplied when a model is certified to DOE for determining how to measure flue gas for models with multiple vent hoods. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 3)
Carrier stated that the procedure it uses for models with multiple vent hoods is to analyze combustion products and measure flue temperature separately in each vent hood, and then use the averaged data of all vents to calculate TE. (Carrier, No. 4 at p. 2)
DOE tentatively agrees that results should be measured in each vent hood and weighted proportionally to the size of each vent hood when calculating TE. For units with multiple vent hoods of the same size, this approach would result in the measurements being averaged. Therefore, in order to ensure consistency between tests, DOE is proposing to add instructions to clarify the test method for models with multiple vent hoods. DOE proposes that measurements used to calculate TE (
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to provide instructions in the DOE test procedure for testing units with multiple vent hoods.
DOE seeks comment on its assumption that the amount (
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that Section 2.16 of ANSI Z21.47-2012 and Section 5.16 of ANSI Z21.47-2016 both specify measuring the flue gas temperature in the vent pipe using nine individual thermocouples placed in specific locations; however, these sections do not provide guidance on how to measure the flue gas temperature if the vent size constrains the space where the thermocouples are to be placed to the point that normal operation of the unit is inhibited when nine thermocouples are installed. 85 FR 26626, 26631-26632. DOE notes this is also true of Section 5.16 in ANSI Z21.47-2021. In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that a vent may be so small (if, for example, a unit has multiple vents) that it is not practical to measure the flue gas temperature using nine thermocouples. DOE also explained that during testing of one unit with a particularly small vent hood, DOE found that placing nine
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on how CWAFs with vent size constraints are currently tested and whether DOE should consider adding provisions in the DOE test procedure to address measuring the flue gas temperature when space limitations preclude the use of nine thermocouples. DOE also asked how best to measure flue gas temperature in such units. 81 FR 26626, 26632.
AHRI stated that the manufacturer's test instructions may specify that the number of thermocouples be limited due to space constraints within the draft hood. In such instances, the testing laboratory will follow the manufacturer's test instructions for set-up. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 6) Trane stated that it believes the manufacturer will communicate how measurements were performed either in the STI or installation manual to achieve the performance metric rating that is certified, and that DOE should follow those instructions. (Trane, No. 9 at p. 3) Carrier acknowledged that, at times, it is impossible to fit nine thermocouples adequately in a smaller vent and stated that it uses the procedure from ANSI/ASHRAE 103, which specifies the number of thermocouples depending on
In order to ensure consistency and repeatability in the application of the test method for models with small vent hoods, DOE recognizes the need to specify how to perform the DOE test procedure when nine thermocouples do not fit inside the vent hood. Although AHRI and Trane suggest allowing the manufacturer to specify how the thermocouples should be installed, this could lead to inconsistent test set-up and results for models with small vents if manufacturers choose different approaches for testing. Therefore, DOE is proposing to align its test procedure with ASHRAE 103-2017. More specifically, DOE is proposing to specify in the DOE test procedure that when testing gas- and oil-fired CWAFs, the flue gas temperatures shall be measured in the vent hood using nine individual thermocouples when the vent hood is larger than 2 inches in diameter and may optionally be measured using five individual thermocouples when the vent hood is 2 inches or smaller in diameter.
DOE seeks comment on the proposal to specify in the DOE test procedure that when testing gas- and oil-fired CWAFs, the flue gas temperatures shall be measured in the vent hood using nine individual thermocouples, or if the vent hood is 2 inches or smaller in diameter, five thermocouples may optionally be used.
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE noted that its test procedure for gas-fired CWAFs references the test method in ANSI Z21.47, and that the thermal efficiency test in Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47 requires that the test be conducted at normal inlet pressure and at 100 percent of normal input rate (
In the May 2020 RFI, DOE asked for comment on whether industry uses a tolerance when testing to ANSI Z21.47, and if so, what tolerance is used. DOE also asked whether a tolerance should be specified for the input rate during testing of gas-fired CWAFs, and if so, what tolerance would be appropriate.
Carrier stated that it uses a minor plus-and-minus tolerance on input rate and that it understands that this approach is not included in ANSI Z21.47, but it has been used on furnace testing at Carrier for many years.
DOE notes that Sections 5.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47-2016 and 5.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47-2021 both specify a ±2 percent tolerance on the manufacturer's specified hourly Btu input rating, and that the same ±2 percent input rate tolerance is also specified in Section 2.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47-2012, which is currently incorporated by reference in the current DOE test procedure. As discussed in section III.B.3 of this document, DOE is proposing to reference the Sections of ANSI Z21.47-2021 that correspond to the sections in ANSI Z21.47-2012 that are currently referenced, including Section 5.5 of ANSI Z21.47-2021. This proposal, therefore, incorporates Section 5.5.4 of ANSI Z21.47-2021, which includes the ±2 percent tolerance on the manufacturer's specified hourly Btu input rating.
Section 2.39 of ANSI Z21.47-2012 and Section 5.40 ANSI Z21.47-2021 reference Annex I for the determination of flue loss that is used in the TE calculation. Annex I includes two methods for determining flue loss—one method that uses a calculation, and one method that uses nomographs shown in Figures I.1 and I.2 of ANSI Z21.47-2021. The nomograph method may only be used when the heating value, specific gravity, and flue gas CO
DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the calculation method specified in Annex I of ANSI Z21.47-2021 be used when determining flue loss, and not the nomograph method.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for CWAF for determining TE by incorporating by reference the most up-to-date versions of the industry standards currently referenced in the DOE test procedure, and by providing additional detail for the test setup for models with multiple vent hoods and models with vent hoods having space limitations. DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed amendments for determining TE would not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct, and that the proposed test procedures for this equipment are consistent with the industry test procedure updates. DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to the test procedure for determining TE would improve the representativeness, accuracy, and reproducibility of the test results and would not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct. DOE expects that the proposed test procedure in appendix A for measuring and TE would not increase testing costs.
DOE also is proposing to establish a new TE2 metric and establish a new appendix B, which would include the test procedure for determining TE2. DOE estimates that the additional test cost due to the additional part-load test and jacket loss test required for the TE2
In accordance with 10 CFR 429.41, CWAF manufacturers may elect to use an alternative efficiency determination method (“AEDM”) to rate models for the TE2 metric, which significantly reduces testing costs to industry. DOE estimates the per-manufacturer cost to develop and validate an AEDM to determine TE2 for CWAF equipment to be $17,300. DOE estimates a cost of $46 per basic model for determining energy efficiency using a validated AEDM.
Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed appendix B test procedure and TE2 calculation would alter the measured energy efficiency of a CWAF.
As previously discussed, the proposed test procedure provisions regarding TE2 would not be mandatory unless and until compliance is required with amended energy conservation standards that rely on TE2. Because DOE is not referencing a prevailing industry test procedure for determination of TE2, DOE expects that the updated DOE test procedure in appendix B would increase the testing burden on CWAF manufacturers if use of appendix B were required in the future. However, DOE has tentatively determined that the test procedure amendments, if finalized, would not require manufacturers to redesign any of the covered equipment, would not require changes to how the equipment is manufactured, and would not impact the utility of the equipment.
DOE seeks comment on its understanding of the impact of the test procedure proposals in this NOPR, specifically with respect to DOE's estimated test costs, and DOE's initial conclusion regarding the testing costs associated with the proposed test procedure for TE2 as compared to the current test procedure.
DOE's established practice is to adopt relevant industry standards as DOE test procedures unless such methodology would be unduly burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, water use (as specified in EPCA) or estimated operating costs of that product during a representative average use cycle. 10 CFR 431.4; section 8(c) of appendix A 10 CFR part 430 subpart C. In cases where the industry standard does not meet EPCA statutory criteria for test procedures, DOE will make appropriate modifications to the DOE test procedure through the rulemaking process.
The current test procedures for CWAF at 10 CFR 431.76 incorporates by reference UL 727-2006 for testing oil-fired CWAFs, HI BTS-2000 for performing fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue loss of oil-fired CWAFs, ANSI Z21.47-2012 for testing gas-fired CWAFs, and ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007 for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs. As discussed, the proposed amendments to the DOE test procedure for determining TE would update the references to the incorporated industry testing standards. Also as discussed, DOE is proposing to adopt a new metric, TE2, for CWAFs. There is no industry testing standard that provides for determining TE2. However, the test procedure provisions that provide the measured inputs for determining TE2 rely on the same industry testing standards DOE is proposing to reference for determining TE.
DOE requests comments on the benefits and burdens of the proposed updates and additions to industry standards referenced in the test procedure for CWAFs.
DOE recognizes that adopting industry standards with modifications imposes a burden on industry
EPCA prescribes that if DOE amends a test procedure, all representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in accordance with an amended test procedure, beginning 360 days after publication of such a test procedure final rule in the
To the extent the modified test procedure proposed in this document is required only for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, use of the modified test procedure, if finalized, would not be required until the compliance date of updated standards.
The Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) has determined that this test procedure rulemaking does not constitute a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (“E.O.”) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (“OIRA”) in OMB.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
The following sections detail DOE's IRFA for this test procedure rulemaking.
DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE test procedures for CWAFs in satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)).
EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C
Further, if such an industry test procedure is amended, DOE must amend its test procedure to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure, unless DOE determines, by rule published in the
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including CWAFs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 63146314(a)(1)(A))
For manufacturers of CWAFs, the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as “small businesses” for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule.
DOE reviewed the test procedures proposed in this NOPR under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. DOE's analysis relied on publicly available databases to identify potential small businesses that manufacture equipment covered in this rulemaking. DOE utilized the California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System (“MAEDbS”),
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for CWAFs when determining TE by incorporating by reference the most up-to-date versions of the industry standards currently referenced in the DOE test procedure, and to provide additional detail for the test setup for models with multiple vent hoods and models with vent hoods having space limitations. DOE proposes to update appendix A (formerly 10 CFR 431.76), “Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces” as follows:
(1) Incorporate by reference UL 727-2018 (previously UL 727-2006) for testing oil-fired CWAFs;
(2) Incorporate by reference AHRI 1500-2015 (previously HI BTS-2000) for performing fuel oil analysis and for calculating flue loss of oil-fired CWAFs;
(3) Incorporate by reference ANSI Z21.47-2021 (previously ANSI Z21.47-2012) for testing gas-fired CWAFs;
(4) Incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 (previously ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2007) for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs;
(5) Incorporate by reference the standards referenced in UL 727-2018 (
(6) Clarify how to test units with multiple vent hoods, and units with vent hoods that are 2 inches in diameter or smaller; and
DOE also proposes to establish a new test procedure and metric for “TE2” in a new appendix B to 10 CFR 431.72, which manufacturers could use to make voluntary representations, and which would be mandatory only at such time as compliance is required with amended energy conservation standards based on TE2, should DOE adopt such standards. The proposed new TE2 metric accounts for flue losses in a manner identical to the existing TE metric, and accounts for jacket losses and part-load operation.
Items (1) through (5) incorporate by reference the most up-to-date versions of the industry standards currently referenced in the DOE test procedure. Item (6) includes clarifications intended to improve consistency and reproducibility of test procedure results. The industry test procedure ANSI Z21.47 does not specify how to test units with multiple vent hoods or units with vent hoods that are too small to fit the required number of thermocouples. DOE is proposing to add clarifications and guidance to address these scenarios. DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed amendments in this NOPR would improve the representativeness, accuracy, and reproducibility of the test results and would not increase third-party laboratory testing costs.
In item (7), DOE proposes to adopt appendix B, which includes the relevant test procedure requirements for measuring TE2, an efficiency metric proposed by DOE which incorporates jacket loss and CWAF performance at reduced firing rates. The proposed NOPR amendments would not require
Should DOE adopt energy conservation standards based on the TE2 metric in proposed appendix B in the future, DOE anticipates manufacturers would incur costs to re-rate models as result of the standards. DOE expects the proposed test procedure in appendix B for measuring TE2 would increase testing costs compared to the current DOE test procedure. The current DOE test procedure costs approximately $4,200 per unit for third-party laboratory testing. DOE estimates the cost for third-party laboratory testing according to the proposed appendix B to be $6,400 per unit.
If CWAF manufacturers conduct testing to certify a basic model, two units are required to be tested per basic model. The test cost, according to the proposed amendments, would be $12,800 per basic model.
DOE estimates the range of potential costs for the one domestic, small OEM. When developing cost estimates for the small OEM, DOE considers the cost to develop the AEDM simulation tool, the costs to validate the AEDM through testing, and the cost to rate basic models using the AEDM.
DOE research indicates that the one small manufacturer has average annual revenues of $3.3 million. DOE understands this OEM to manufacture four basic models. Therefore, DOE estimates that the associated re-rating costs for this manufacturer to be approximately $17,400 when making use of AEDMs. The cost for this small manufacturer to re-rate all basic models is estimated to be less than 1 percent of annual revenue.
DOE requests comment on the number of small OEMs DOE identified. DOE also seeks comment on the potential costs this small manufacturer may incur.
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
DOE proposes to reduce burden on manufacturers, including small businesses, by allowing AEDMs in lieu of physically testing all basic models. The use of an AEDM is less costly than physical testing of CWAF models. Without AEDMs, DOE estimates the cost to physically test all CWAF basic models for the identified small manufacturer to be approximately $51,200.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally, manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may apply to DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 430, subpart E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.
Manufacturers of CWAFs must certify to DOE that their products comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including CWAFs. (
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number.
In this NOPR, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for CWAFs. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (“UMRA”) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, “Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights” 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for measuring the energy efficiency of CWAFs is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects.
Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-
The proposed modifications to the test procedure for CWAF would incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the following commercial standards: UL 727-2018, AHRI 1500-2015 ANSI Z21.47-2021, and ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017. DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following standards:
(1) UL 727-2018. This test standard provides instruction for how to test oil-fired CWAFs.
Copies of UL 727-2018 can be obtained from Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 2600 NW. Lake Rd., Camas, WA 98607-8542, (360) 817-5500 or online at:
(2) ANSI Z21.47-2021. This test standard provides instruction for how to test gas-fired CWAFs.
(3) ASHRAE 103-2017. This test standard provides instruction for how to test residential furnaces and boilers, which DOE is referencing for the purpose of providing instruction for testing condensing gas-fired CWAFs.
(4) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004). This standard is also referenced as ANSI Z21.47-2021, and it specifies thermocouple requirements for when testing gas-fired CWAFs.
Copies of ANSI Z21.47-2021, ANSI/ASHRAE 103-2017 and ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004), can be obtained from 25 W 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or online at:
(5) AHRI 1500-2015. This test standard provides instruction for how to test perform fuel oil analysis and for how to calculate flue loss of oil-fired CWAFs.
Copies of AHRI 1500-2015 can be obtained from 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or online at:
(6) NFPA 97-2003. This standard is referenced in UL 727-2018, and it provides definitions for the terms combustible and noncombustible.
Copies of NFPA 97-2003 can be obtained form 1 Batterymarch Park, Quincy, MA 02169-7471, (617) 770-3000 or by going online at:
(7) ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17. This standard is referenced in UL 727-2018, and it specifies thermocouple requirements for when testing oil-fired CWAFs.
(8) ASTM D396-14a. This standard is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015, and it contains general fuel oil requirements.
(9) ASTM D240-09. This standard is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015, and it contains fuel oil heating value requirements.
(10) ASTM D4809-09a. This standard is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015, and it contains fuel oil hydrogen and carbon content requirements.
(11) ASTM D5291-10. This standard is referenced in AHRI 1500-2015, and it contains fuel oil density requirements.
Copies of ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17, ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a, ASTM D4809-09a, and ASTM D5291-10, can be obtained from 100 Barr Harbor Drive, P.O. Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA 19428, (877) 909-2786 or by going online at:
The time and date of the webinar meeting are listed in the
Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this proposed rule, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to
Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.
DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this rulemaking, allow
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the webinar/public meeting.
A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter.
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule no later than the date provided in the
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to
DOE processes submissions made through
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure).
Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues:
(1) DOE seeks comment on its tentative conclusion that NFPA 97M is an outdated standard that has been superseded by NFPA 97-2003. DOE seeks comment on its proposal to incorporate by reference NFPA 97-2003 in 10 CFR part 431, subpart D.
(2) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to adopt the optional method specified in AHRI 1500-2015 that allows for calculating CO
(3) DOE seeks comment on whether the option provided in Section 5.4a of ANSI Z21.47-2021 to use test gas H when performing the three burner characteristics tests would impact the representativeness or burden of the thermal efficiency test.
(4) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to establish a new test procedure (
(5) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require jacket loss be measured when testing CWAFs designed for outdoor installation and designed for indoor installation within an unheated space when determining TE2 pursuant to newly proposed appendix B, and on its proposed method for measuring jacket loss. DOE also seeks comment on its proposal that jacket loss for CWAFs intended for indoor installation within a heated space would be assumed to be zero, and on its proposed jacket loss factors for CWAFs designed for outdoor installation and designed for indoor installation within an unheated space.
(6) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to add a part-load test procedure to be incorporated into the newly proposed TE2 metric. DOE also seeks comment on its proposal to calculate TE2 by averaging performance at the maximum and minimum fire rate and seeks and any related data. DOE also requests comment on alternate weighting values, including those discussed, that may be more nationally representative of an average use, along with any relevant data.
(7) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to provide instructions in the DOE test procedure for testing units with multiple vent hoods.
(8) DOE seeks comment on its assumption that the amount (
(9) DOE seeks comment on the proposal to specify in the DOE test procedure that when testing gas- and oil-fired CWAFs, the flue gas temperatures shall be measured in the vent hood using nine individual thermocouples, or if the vent hood is 2 inches or smaller in diameter, five thermocouples may optionally be used.
(10) DOE seeks comment on its proposal to require the calculation method specified in Annex I of ANSI Z21.47-2021 be used when determining flue loss, and not the nomograph method.
(11) DOE seeks comment on its understanding of the impact of the test procedure proposals in this NOPR, specifically with respect to DOE's estimated test costs, and DOE's initial conclusion regarding the testing costs associated with the proposed test procedure for TE2 as compared to the current test procedure.
(12) DOE requests comment on the number of small OEMs DOE identified. DOE also seeks comment on the potential costs this small manufacturer may incur.
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by reference, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 11, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 10 CFR part 431 as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Certain material is incorporated by reference into this subpart with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, DOE must publish a document in the
(a)
(1) ANSI/AHRI 1500-2015 (“AHRI 1500-2015”), “Performance Rating of Commercial Space Heating Boilers”, approved November 28, 2014; IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(b)
(1) ANSI Z21.47-2021,“Gas-fired Central Furnaces”, approved April 21, 2021; IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(c)
(1) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 103-2017 (“ASHRAE 103-2017”), “Method of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers”, approved June 30, 2017; IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(d)
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004) (“ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004)”), “Part 3: Temperature Measurement, Instruments and Apparatus”, published January 1, 2004; IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(e)
(1) ANSI/ASTM E230/E230M-17 (“ASTM E230/E230M-17”), “Standard Specification for Temperature-Electromotive Force (emf) Tables for Standardized Thermocouples”, approved November 1, 2017, IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) ASTM D240-09, “Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter”, approved July 1, 2009; IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(3) ASTM D396-14a, “Standard Specification for Fuel Oils,” approved on October 1, 2014; IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(4) ASTM D4809-09a, “Standard Test Method for Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter (Precision Method)”; IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(5) ASTM D5291-10, “Standard Test Methods for Instrumental Determination of Carbon, Hydrogen, and Nitrogen in Petroleum Products and Lubricants”, approved on May 1, 2010; IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(f)
(1) NFPA 97-2003, “Standard Glossary of Terms Relating to Chimneys, Vents, and Heat-Producing Appliances”; IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(g)
(1) UL 727 (“UL 727-2018”), “Standard for Safety Oil-Fired Central Furnaces”, Tenth Edition, published January 31, 2018; IBR approved for appendices A and B to this subpart.
(2) [Reserved]
(a)
(b)
(2)
1. Incorporation by reference. DOE incorporates by reference in § 431.75, the entirety of standards AHRI 1500-2015, ANSI Z21.47-2021, ASHRAE 103-2017, ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004), ASTM E230/E230M-17, ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a, ASTM D4809-09a, ASTM D5291-10, NFPA 97-2003, and UL 727-2018. However, for standards ANSI Z21.47-2021, ASHRAE 103-2017, UL 727-2018, and AHRI 1500-2015, only the enumerated provisions of those documents apply to this appendix, as follows:
1.1.1 Sections 5.1, 5.1.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.6, and 7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47-2021 as specified in section 2.1 of this appendix;
1.1.2 Section 5.40 as specified in sections 2.1 and 3.1 of this appendix; 1.1.3 Section 5.2.8 as specified in section 5.1 of this appendix;
1.1.4 Annex I as specified in section 4.1 of this appendix.
1.2.1 Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as specified in section 3.2 of this appendix;
1.2.2 Figure 10 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as specified in section 2.3.1 of this appendix.
1.2.3 Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as specified in section 5.1 of this appendix.
1.3.1 Sections 2, 3, 37, 38 and 39, 40, 40.6, 41, 42, 43.2, 44, 45, and 46 of UL 727-2018 as specified in section 2.2 of this appendix;
1.3.2 Figure 40.3 of UL 727-2018 as specified in section 3.1 of this appendix.
1.4.1 Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500-2015 as specified in section 2.2 of this appendix; 1.4.2 Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 of the AHRI 1500-2015of section 4.2 of this appendix.
2. Test set-up and Testing. Where this section prescribes use of ANSI Z21.47-2021 or UL 727-2018, perform only the procedures pertinent to the measurement of the steady-state efficiency, as specified in this section.
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.3.1
2.3.2
3. Additional test measurements
3.1
3.2
4. Calculation of thermal efficiency
4.1
4.2
5. Procedure for the calculation of the additional heat gain and heat loss, and adjustment to the thermal efficiency, for a condensing commercial warm air furnace.
5.1 Calculate the latent heat gain from the condensation of the water vapor in the flue gas, and calculate heat loss due to the flue condensate down the drain, as specified in Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017, with the exception that in the equation for the heat loss due to hot condensate flowing down the drain in Section 11.3.7.2, the assumed indoor temperature of 70 °F and the temperature term TOA must be replaced by the measured room temperature as specified in Section 5.2.8 of ANSI Z21.47-2021.
5.2
1. Incorporation by Reference. DOE incorporates by reference in § 431.75, the entirety of standards AHRI 1500-2015, ANSI Z21.47-2021, ASHRAE 103-2017, ASME PTC 19.3-1974 (R2004), ASTM E230/E230M-17, ASTM D240-09, ASTM D396-14a, ASTM D4809-09a, ASTM D5291-10, NFPA 97-2003, and UL 727-2018. However, for standards ANSI Z21.47-2021, ASHRAE 103-2017, UL 727-2018, and AHRI 1500-2015, only the enumerated provisions of those documents apply to this appendix, as follows:
1.1 Sections 5.1, 5.1.4, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.5.1, 5.6, and 7.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47-2021 as specified in section 2.1 of appendix A to this subpart;
1.1.2 Section 5.40 as specified in sections 2.1 and 3.1 of appendix A to this subpart;
1.1.3 Section 5.2.8 as specified in section 5.1 of appendix A to this subpart;
1.1.4 Annex I as specified in section 4 of appendix A to this subpart;
1.1.5 Annex J as specified in sections 2.2 and 2.6 of this appendix.
1.2.1 Sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 9.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as specified in section 3.2 of appendix A to this subpart;
1.2.2 Figure 10 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as specified in section 2.3.1 of appendix A to this subpart.
1.2.3 Sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE 103-2017 as specified in section 5.1 of appendix A to this subpart.
1.3.1 Sections 2, 3, 37, 38 and 39, 40, 40.6, 41, 42, 43.2, 44, 45, and 46 of UL 727-2018 as specified in section 2.2 of appendix A to this subpart;
1.3.2 Figure 40.3 of UL 727-2018 as specified in section 3.1 of appendix A to this subpart.
1.4.1 Section C3.2.1.1 of AHRI 1500-2015 as specified in section 2.2 to appendix A of this subpart;
1.4.2 Sections C7.2.4, C7.2.5, and C7.2.6.2 of the AHRI 1500-2015 of section 4.2 of appendix A to this subpart.
2.1 Setup and test the unit according to sections 1 through 5 of appendix A to this subpart, while operating the unit at the maximum nameplate input rate (
2.2 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for outdoor installation (including but not limited to CWAFs that are weatherized, or approved for resistance to wind, rain, or snow), or indoor installation
2.3 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed only for indoor insulation within a heated space, jacket shall be zero. For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for indoor installation within a heated or unheated space, multiply the jacket loss determined in section 2.2 of this appendix by 1.7. For all other commercial warm air furnaces, including commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for outdoor installation (including but not limited to CWAFs that are weatherized, or approved for resistance to wind, rain, or snow), multiply the jacket loss determined in section 2.2 of this appendix by 3.3.
2.4 Subtract the jacket loss determined in section 2.3 of this appendix from the TE determined in section 1.1 of this appendix to determine the full load efficiency.
2.5 Setup and test the unit according to sections 1 through 5 of appendix A to this subpart, while operating the unit at the nameplate minimum input rate (
2.6 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for outdoor installation (including but not limited to CWAFs that are weatherized, or approved for resistance to wind, rain, or snow), or indoor installation within an unheated space (
2.7 For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed only for indoor insulation within a heated space, jacket shall be zero. For commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for indoor installation within a heated or unheated space, multiply the jacket loss determined in section 2.6 of this appendix by 1.7. For all other commercial warm air furnaces, including commercial warm air furnaces that are designed for outdoor installation (including but not limited to CWAFs that are weatherized, or approved for resistance to wind, rain, or snow), multiply the jacket loss determined in section 2.6 of this appendix by 3.3.
2.8 Subtract the jacket loss determined in section 2.7 of this appendix from the TE determined in section 2.5 of this appendix to determine the part load efficiency.
2.9 Calculate TE2 by taking the average of the full-load and part-load.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Request for information; reopening of public comment period.
On January 24, 2022, the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published two requests for information (“RFIs”) regarding dedicated-purpose pool pumps. DOE published a RFI regarding test procedures for dedicated-purpose pool pumps and a RFI regarding energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. The RFIs each provided an opportunity for submitting written comments, data, and information on the proposal by February 23, 2022. DOE received a request from the Pool and Hut Tub Alliance on February 9, 2022, and a joint request from the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison on February 11, 2022, each asking DOE to extend the public comment periods for both RFIs for 30 additional days. DOE has reviewed these requests and is reopening the public comment periods to allow comments to be submitted until March 9, 2022.
The comment periods for the RFIs published on January 24, 2022 (87 FR 3457; 87 FR 3461) is reopened. DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding these RFIs received no later than March 9, 2022.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
(1)
(2)
No telefacsimiles (“faxes”) will be accepted.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
The docket web pages can be found at
Mr. Jeremy Dommu, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9870. Email:
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588; Email:
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
On January 24, 2022, DOE published a RFI undertaking a review to determine whether amendments are warranted for the test procedure for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. 87 FR 3457. DOE identified certain issues associated with the currently applicable test procedure on which DOE is interested in receiving comment. 87 FR 3457, 3459-3461. On this date, DOE also published a RFI initiating an effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps. 87 FR 3461 (January 24, 2022) The RFI solicits information from the public to help DOE determine whether amended standards for dedicated-purpose pool pumps would result in significant energy savings and whether such standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified. 87 FR 3461. Both RFIs had a comment period deadline that closed on February 23, 2022.
Interested parties in the matter, the Pool and Hot Tub Alliance (“PHTA”) requested an extension of the public comment period for 30 additional days to give time to properly respond to the technical nature of the questions posed in both RFIs. PHTA explained that without the extension, the industry will be unable to provide all the data and information being requested within the current comment period. (PHTA, EERE-2022-BT-TP-0003, No. 3 at p. 1; PHTA, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0001, No. 3 at p. 1)
DOE has reviewed the requests and is reopening the comment period to allow additional time for interested parties to submit comments. In light of the submitted requests, DOE believes that additional time is warranted, and that reopening the comment period until March 9, 2022 is sufficient. Therefore, DOE is reopening the comment period for both RFIs until March 9, 2022.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 17, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by a report of an oxygen-fed ground fire event potentially caused by electrical arcing from a faulty surround light wire on the third crew member's (observer) oxygen mask. This proposed AD would require an inspection for discrepancies of the observer's oxygen mask stowage box and storage compartment, oxygen hose connections and routing, and the associated electrical harness, and corrective actions if necessary; and modifying the oxygen mask flexible lamp harness, mounting plate, and compartment panel, including rerouting the electrical harness and applying protective sealant. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 11, 2022.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact MHI RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Québec J7N 1E1 Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial telephone +1-514-855-8500; fax +1-514-855-8501; email
You may examine the AD docket at
Gabriel Kim, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Gabriel Kim, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531; email
Transport Canada Civil Aviation (TCCA), which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued TCCA AD CF-2021-32, dated September 17, 2021 (also referred to after this as the Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information, or the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition for all MHI RJ Aviation ULC Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes. You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
This proposed AD was prompted by a report of an oxygen-fed ground fire event potentially caused by electrical arcing from a faulty surround light wire on the third crew member's (observer) oxygen mask. An investigation determined that the oxygen supply hose connecting to the rear of the observer oxygen mask box assembly could be subject to chafing damage. The FAA is proposing this AD to address possible damage to the observer oxygen mask supply hoses and a potential for an oxygen-fed fire in the vicinity of the observer oxygen mask storage compartment. See the MCAI for additional background information.
MHI RJ has issued Service Bulletin 601R-35-022, Revision A, dated October 12, 2021. This service information describes procedures for doing an general visual inspection for discrepancies (including elbow fitting clocking (rotation), sealing tape installed in a certain location, wire damage (
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with the State of Design Authority, the FAA has been notified of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is proposing this AD because the FAA evaluated all the relevant information and determined the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 407 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by April 11, 2022.
None.
This AD applies to all MHI RJ Aviation ULC (Type Certificate Previously Held by Bombardier, Inc.) Model CL-600-2B19 (Regional Jet Series 100 & 440) airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 35, Oxygen.
This AD was prompted by a report of an oxygen-fed ground fire event potentially caused by electrical arcing from a faulty surround light wire on the third crew member's (observer) oxygen mask. An investigation determined that the oxygen supply hose connecting to the rear of the observer oxygen mask box assembly could be subject to chafing damage. The FAA is issuing this AD to address possible damage to the observer oxygen mask supply hoses and a potential for an oxygen-fed fire in the vicinity of the observer oxygen mask storage compartment.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Within 4,000 flight hours or 24 months, whichever occurs first, after the effective date of this AD, do the actions in paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this AD:
(1) Do a general visual inspection for discrepancies of the observer's oxygen mask stowage box and storage compartment, the observer's mask oxygen hose connections, the hose routing, and the associated electrical harness, in accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of MHI RJ Service Bulletin 601R-35-022, Revision A, dated October 12, 2021. If any discrepancies are found, before further flight, do all applicable corrective actions, in accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of MHI RJ Service Bulletin 601R-35-022, Revision A, dated October 12, 2021.
(2) Modify the oxygen mask flexible lamp harness, mounting plate, and compartment panel, including rerouting the electrical harness and applying protective sealant, in accordance with paragraph 2.B. of the Accomplishment Instructions of MHI RJ Service Bulletin 601R-35-022, Revision A, dated October 12, 2021.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using MHI RJ Service Bulletin 601R-35-022, dated June 1, 2021.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(1) Refer to Mandatory Continuing Airworthiness Information (MCAI) TCCA AD CF-2021-32, dated September 17, 2021, for related information. This MCAI may be found in the AD docket on the internet at
(2) For more information about this AD, contact Gabriel Kim, Aerospace Engineer, Avionics and Electrical Systems Section, FAA, New York ACO Branch, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; fax 516-794-5531; email
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact MHI RJ Aviation ULC, 12655 Henri-Fabre Blvd., Mirabel, Québec J7N 1E1 Canada; Widebody Customer Response Center North America toll-free telephone +1-844-272-2720 or direct-dial telephone +1-514-855-8500; fax +1-514-855-8501; email
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes. This proposed AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that certain web lap splices in the center dome apex of the aft pressure bulkhead are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). This proposed AD would require a general visual inspection for existing repairs at the aft pressure bulkhead, repetitive detailed, high frequency eddy current (HFEC), and low frequency eddy current (LFEC) inspections, and repair if necessary. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 11, 2022.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
You may examine the AD docket at
Dirk Visser, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3994; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Dirk Visser, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3994; email:
Fatigue damage can occur locally, in small areas or structural design details, or globally, in widespread areas. Multiple-site damage is widespread damage that occurs in a large structural element such as a single rivet line of a lap splice joining two large skin panels. Widespread damage can also occur in multiple elements such as adjacent frames or stringers. Multiple-site damage and multiple-element damage cracks are typically too small initially to be reliably detected with normal inspection methods. Without intervention, these cracks will grow, and eventually compromise the structural integrity of the airplane. This condition is known as WFD. It is associated with general degradation of large areas of structure with similar structural details and stress levels. As an airplane ages, WFD will likely occur, and will certainly occur if the airplane is operated long enough without any intervention.
An FAA final rule (“Aging Airplane Program: Widespread Fatigue Damage;” 75 FR 69746, November 15, 2010) became effective on January 14, 2011, and amended 14 CFR parts 25, 26, 121, and 129 (commonly known as the WFD rule). The WFD rule requires certain actions to prevent structural failure due to WFD throughout the operational life of certain existing transport category airplanes and all of these airplanes that will be certificated in the future. DAHs of existing and future airplanes subject to the WFD rule are required to establish a limit of validity (LOV) of the engineering data that support the structural maintenance program. Operators affected by the WFD rule may not fly an airplane beyond its LOV, unless an extended LOV is approved.
The WFD rule does not require identifying and developing maintenance actions if the DAHs can show that such actions are not necessary to prevent WFD before the airplane reaches the LOV. Many LOVs, however, do depend
In the context of WFD, this action is necessary to enable DAHs to propose LOVs that allow operators the longest operational lives for their airplanes, and still ensure that WFD will not occur. This approach allows for an implementation strategy that provides flexibility to DAHs in determining the timing of service information development (with FAA approval), while providing operators with certainty regarding the LOV applicable to their airplanes.
The FAA has received an evaluation by the DAH indicating that certain web lap splices in the center dome apex of the aft pressure bulkhead are subject to WFD. During cycle tests of The Boeing Company Model 737-800 series airplanes' Fatigue Test Article for the 0.032 inch web (the configuration for The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplane having line numbers (LN) 1 through 1166), cracks were found in three of the seven aft pressure bulkhead web lap splices in several of the fastener rows common to the center dome apex. The pull down stresses were caused by the single rivet located in the area where each of the webs transition up 0.032 inches. Airplanes having LN 1167 through 1755 inclusive have a different fastener pattern than airplanes having LN 1 through 1166 inclusive, but are subject to the same unsafe condition. There has been only one reported finding on airplanes having LN 1167 through 1755 inclusive and cracking was found in five of the seven webs. The FAA issued AD 2021-21-09, Amendment 39-21769 (86 FR 61679, November 8, 2021) to address fatigue cracks in the webs of the aft pressure bulkhead on The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 airplanes having LN 1 through 1755 inclusive.
The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 airplanes having LN 1756 and subsequent (which are addressed in this proposed AD) have a 0.040 inch web thickness. Following the findings in the earlier LNs, supplemental testing showed an increase in the pull down stress for the 0.040 inch aft pressure bulkhead configuration in the same transition area as seen in the 0.032 inch configuration. The aft pressure bulkhead web lap splice fasteners are subjected to fuselage pressurization fatigue cycles and additional clamp-up stress caused from the assembly process. The clamp up stresses, combined with the pressurization, cause the existing airworthiness limitations inspections for Principle Structural Element 53-80-01-3 (visible web rows) and 53-80-01-7 (hidden web rows) to be inadequate. Therefore, the FAA determined that additional inspections of the 0.040 inch thick web lap splices at station 1016 aft pressure bulkhead center dome apex for any crack are necessary to mitigate the identified unsafe condition. This condition, if not addressed, could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB, dated August 26, 2021. This service information specifies procedures for a general visual inspection for existing repairs at the aft pressure bulkhead, repetitive detailed, HFEC, and LFEC inspections for any crack, and repair. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. For information on the procedures and compliance times, see this service information at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 1,187 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the on-condition repairs specified in this proposed AD.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by April 11, 2022.
None.
This AD applies to The Boeing Company Model 737-600, -700, -700C, -800, and -900 series airplanes, certificated in any category, as identified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB, dated August 26, 2021.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by an evaluation by the design approval holder (DAH) indicating that certain web lap splices in the center dome apex of the aft pressure bulkhead are subject to widespread fatigue damage (WFD). The FAA is issuing this AD to address fatigue cracks in the webs of the aft pressure bulkhead, which could result in reduced structural integrity of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB, dated August 26, 2021, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB, dated August 26, 2021.
(1) Where the Compliance Time column of the table in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB, dated August 26, 2021, uses the phrase “the original issue date of the Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB,” this AD requires using “the effective date of this AD.”
(2) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin 737-53A1403 RB, dated August 26, 2021, specifies contacting Boeing for repair instructions or for alternative inspections: This AD requires doing the repair, or doing the alternative inspections and applicable on-condition actions, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (i) of this AD.
(1) The Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, Seattle ACO Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Dirk Visser, Aerospace Engineer, Airframe Section, FAA, Seattle ACO Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; phone and fax: 206-231-3994; email:
(2) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; internet
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of inquiry; request for comments.
On July 28, 2021, U.S. Coast Guard (USCG) Pacific Area Command issued the Pacific Coast-Port Access Route Study (PAC-PARS) in the
Comments and related material must be received on or before May 26, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-
If you have questions about this notification of study, call or email Mr. Tyrone Conner, Eleventh Coast Guard District (dpw), U.S. Coast Guard; telephone (510) 437-2968, email
The Coast Guard is conducting a Port Access Route Study (PARS) to evaluate safe access routes for the movement of vessel traffic proceeding to or from ports or places along the western seaboard of the United States and to determine whether Fairways and Traffic Separation Schemes for vessels and/or International Maritime Organization (IMO) recommended routes should be established, adjusted and/or modified. The goal of the Pacific Coast-PARS (PAC-PARS) is to enhance maritime safety by examining shipping routes and waterway uses, and, to the extent practicable, reconcile the paramount right of navigation within designated port access routes with other waterway uses such as the development of aquaculture farms, offshore renewable energy, commercial spaceports/re-entry sites, marine sanctuaries, ports supporting Panamax vessels, potential LNG ports, Pacific Missile Range, and additional commercial vessel traffic. During the preliminary information-gathering portion, the areas near Point Mugu and south of the Channel Islands in the Pacific Missile Range, San Francisco Bay, and both BOEM WEAs were identified as high-interest zones for traffic congestion and navigation safety.
46 U.S.C. 70003 requires the Secretary to: (1) Undertake a study of the potential traffic density and the need for safe access routes for vessels in any area for which fairways or traffic separation schemes are proposed or that may otherwise be considered and publish notice of such undertaking in the
46 U.S.C. 70003 requires the Secretary to proceed expeditiously to complete any study undertaken; and after completion of such a study, to promptly issue a notice of proposed rulemaking for the designation contemplated or publish in the
This is a Notification of Inquiry (NOI) to assess the vessel traffic and routing in the waters indicated by the supplemental PDF, “Chart of District Eleven PAC-PARS Focus Areas” (available in the docket), and bound by the following coordinates:
We will analyze current and historical vessel traffic, fishing vessel information, agency and stakeholder experience in vessel traffic management, navigation, ship handling, and effects of weather. We encourage you to participate by submitting comments in response to this proposed rule.
We will publish the results of the inquiry in the
These questions were generated with the purpose of eliciting information for the four focus areas alone. Any information provided should be directly related to one or more of the four focus areas.
(1) What are the demographics of the vessel your organization represents? (Vessel length, vessel draft, vessel type, etc.)
(2) Which of the four areas do you transit through? Where are your transit routes?
(3) What criteria are used in determining your transit routes?
(4) How are your vessel routes affected by seasonal weather patterns, storms, or other adverse environmental conditions you have experienced in the focus areas? Please explain.
(5) What navigational hazards do vessels operating in the focus areas face? Please describe.
(6) Are there strains on the current vessel routing systems?
(7) Do you perceive increasing traffic density to cause increased navigational risk?
(8) What is your prediction of future growth with traffic density? Please describe.
(9) What is the minimum safe width of coastwise traffic separation schemes and lanes considering the traffic density and other conditions of the focus areas?
(10) Are modifications to existing vessel routing measures needed to address hazards and improve traffic efficiency in the study area? If so, please describe.
(11) Is your organization open to traffic management strategies (TSS, Fairways, IMO recommended routes)? Please elaborate.
(12) What costs and benefits are associated with traffic management strategies?
(13) What traffic management strategies do you think are most cost-effective?
(14) What traffic management strategies do you think are most detrimental to cost-effectiveness?
(15) What impacts, both positive and negative, would changes to existing routing measures or new routing measures have on the study area?
(16) What improvements to waterway management would you like to see? If none, why?
(17) What current waterway operations affect navigation? How (details please)?
(18) Do the marine sanctuaries affect your navigation routing plans?
(19) What is a safe and appropriate distance between vessel traffic and major projects such as aquaculture farms and wind farms?
(20) Are there any results you would like to see in the completed PAC-PARS study?
(21) Would you be interested in attending virtual presentations of findings?
(22) Do you typically transit to the north or to the south of the Channel Islands?
(23) Do the operations surrounding the Pacific Missile Range off Vandenberg Space Force Base and the Point Mugu zone affect your routing plans and vessel movement? How?
(24) How often are you displaced by hazardous operations, testing, and military training in the Pacific Missile Range? Please describe.
(25) What navigational challenges do you foresee with the implementation of BOEM's Wind Energy Areas (WEAs)?
(26) Do you currently transit through the proposed BOEM WEAs? Please describe.
(27) Do you think the Coast Guard should create designated fairways, traffic separation schemes for vessels, or exclusion/restricted areas around wind farms?
(28) Would you prefer wind farm exclusion/restricted areas where you can navigate anywhere
Is there any additional information, unrelated to any specific question
We encourage you to submit comments in response to this notification of inquiry through the Federal Decision Making portal at
To view documents mentioned in this notice of inquiry as being available in the docket, find the docket as described in the previous paragraph, and then select “Supporting & Related Material” in the Document Type column. Public comments will also be placed in our online docket and can be viewed by following instructions on the
We accept anonymous comments. Comments we post to
Additionally, if you go to the online docket and sign up for email alerts, you will be notified when comments are posted.
This notice is published under the authority of 5 U.S.C. 552(a).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notices of filing of petitions and request for comment.
This document announces the Agency's receipt of initial filings of pesticide petitions requesting the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various commodities.
Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2022.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number and the pesticide petition (PP) of interest as shown in the body of this document, through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Due to the public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) and Reading Room is open to visitors by appointment only. For the latest status information on EPA/DC services and access, visit
Marietta Echeverria, Registration Division (7505P), main telephone number: (703) 305-7090, email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
1.
2.
3.
EPA is announcing receipt of pesticide petitions filed under section 408 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a, requesting the establishment or modification of regulations in 40 CFR part 174 or part 180 for residues of pesticide chemicals in or on various food commodities. The Agency is taking public comment on the requests before responding to the petitioners. EPA is not proposing any particular action at this time. EPA has determined that the pesticide petitions described in this document contain data or information prescribed in FFDCA section 408(d)(2), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(2); however, EPA has not fully evaluated the sufficiency of the submitted data at this time or whether the data supports granting of the pesticide petitions. After considering the public comments, EPA intends to evaluate whether and what action may be warranted. Additional data may be needed before EPA can make a final determination on these pesticide petitions.
Pursuant to 40 CFR 180.7(f), summaries of the petitions that are the subject of this document, prepared by the petitioners, are included in dockets EPA has created for these rulemakings. The dockets for these petitions are available at
As specified in FFDCA section 408(d)(3), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d)(3), EPA is publishing notice of the petitions so that the public has an opportunity to comment on these requests for the establishment or modification of regulations for residues of pesticides in or on food commodities. Further information on the petitions may be obtained through the petition summaries referenced in this unit.
•
•
•
•
21 U.S.C. 346a.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Proposed rule; correction.
This document corrects technical errors that appeared in the proposed rule published in the
Marna Metcalf-Akbar, (410) 786-8251.
Melissa Seeley, (212) 616-2329.
In FR Doc. 2022-00117 of January 12, 2022 (87 FR 1842), there were several technical errors that are identified and corrected in this correcting document.
On page 1899, in discussion of the proposed regulations text changes for the assessment of past performance, we made an error in a regulatory citation.
On page 1925, in our discussion of the information collection requirements for limiting certain Medicare Advantage contracts to dual special needs plans (D-SNPs), we inadvertently omitted language regarding when we will submit information on the number of respondents and the time estimates to the public and OMB.
In FR Doc. 2022-00117 of January 12, 2022 (87 FR 1842), make the following corrections:
1. On page 1899, first column, first full paragraph, line 3, the reference “§ 422.505(n)” is corrected to read “§ 423.505(n)”.
2. On page 1925, first column, after the first full paragraph that begins with the phrase “The burden for an initial Part D”, the text is corrected by adding the following paragraph to read as follows:
“While we anticipate changes to the number of respondents and our active time estimates for the Part C and Part D applications, if this proposal is finalized we would revise control numbers 0938-0935 (CMS-10237) and 0938-0936 (CMS-10137) for the 2025 plan year application and prior to the effective date of the requirement. The CMS-10237 and CMS-10137 collection of information materials would be made available to the public for review/comment under the standard PRA process which includes the publication of 60- and 30-day
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes Atlantic spiny dogfish specifications for the 2022 fishing year, and an adjustment to the commercial trip limit, as recommended by the Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils. This action is necessary to establish allowable harvest levels and other management measures to prevent overfishing while enabling optimum yield, using the best scientific information available. This rulemaking also informs the public of the proposed fishery action and provides an opportunity for comment.
Comments must be received by March 14, 2022.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2022-0008, by the following method:
1. Go to
2. Click the “Comment” icon, complete the required fields; and
3. Enter or attach your comments.
Copies of the Supplemental Information Report (SIR) and other supporting documents for this action are available upon request from Dr. Christopher M. Moore, Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, Suite 201, 800 North State Street, Dover, DE 19901. These documents are also accessible via the internet at
Cynthia Ferrio, Fishery Policy Analyst, (978) 281-9180.
The Mid-Atlantic and New England Fishery Management Councils jointly manage the Atlantic Spiny Dogfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP), with the Mid-Atlantic Council acting as the administrative lead. Additionally, the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission manages the spiny dogfish fishery in state waters from Maine to North Carolina through an interstate fishery management plan. The federal FMP requires the specification of an acceptable biological catch (ABC), annual catch limit (ACL), annual catch target (ACT), total allowable landings (TAL), and a coastwide commercial quota. These limits and other related management measures may be set for up to five fishing years at a time, with each fishing year running from May 1 through April 30. This action proposes status quo specifications for fishing year 2022, and an increased commercial trip limit for the Atlantic spiny dogfish fishery, as recommended by the Councils.
The spiny dogfish fishery is currently operating under multi-year specifications for fishing years 2021 and 2022 based on a 2020 assessment update and the Mid-Atlantic Council's updated risk policy. The 2021 trawl survey conducted by the Northeast Fisheries Science Center showed little change from recent years in the spiny dogfish stock. As a result, the Mid-Atlantic Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC), the Spiny Dogfish Monitoring Committee, and the Joint Spiny Dogfish Committee (which includes members from both Councils) all agreed that no changes are necessary to the previously-projected specifications for fishing year 2022. Upon review, both Councils also recommended status quo catch specifications for 2022.
During meetings of the Spiny Dogfish Advisory Panel and Committees in 2021, industry representatives requested an increase in the federal commercial trip limit as a way to provide more economic stability and opportunity to fully achieve the commercial quotas provided to the fishery. The commercial fishery has consistently harvested less than 60 percent of the coastwide quota in the past five years (with one exception in 2019 when there was a substantially smaller quota). Changes to the trip limit have been considered in recent years without action to this point. The different management committees decided that a moderate increase of 25 percent could provide the requested flexibility and opportunity while minimizing risk of negative impacts to the resource or markets. Both Councils reviewed and approved this decision at their respective meetings in October and December 2021, and recommended increasing the 6,000-lb (2,722-kg) commercial trip limit to 7,500 lb (3,402 kg) through this proposed action.
This action proposes the Councils' recommendations for status quo 2022 spiny dogfish specifications (Table 1), and a 25-percent increase to the commercial trip limit from 6,000 lb (2,722 kg) per trip to 7,500 lb (3,402 kg) per trip. These proposed measures are consistent with the SSC, Joint Committee, and Monitoring Committee recommendations (Table 1).
There is a research track stock assessment in progress for Atlantic spiny dogfish. This assessment is expected to inform development of the next set of specifications beginning in fishing year 2023.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with the Atlantic Spiny Dogfish FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
The Councils reviewed the proposed regulations for this action and deemed them necessary and appropriate to implement consistent with section 303(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for this determination is as follows.
The Councils conducted an evaluation of the potential socioeconomic impacts of the proposed measures in conjunction with a SIR. The proposed action would maintain status quo specifications for fishing year 2022, and would increase the vessel possession limit of spiny dogfish per trip by 25 percent.
This proposed action would affect entities that participate in commercial spiny dogfish fishing (those that hold commercial spiny dogfish permits). Vessels may hold multiple fishing permits and some entities own multiple vessels and/or permits. According to the Northeast Fisheries Science Center commercial ownership database, 1,934 separate vessels held commercial spiny dogfish permits in 2020, the most recent year of fully available data. A total of 1,513 commercial entities owned those permitted vessels, and of those entities, 1,504 are categorized as small businesses, and 9 as large businesses.
The proposed specifications are expected to provide similar fishing opportunities when compared to the previous fishing year as no annual catch limits are changing. The trip limit adjustment is expected to provide increased operational flexibility and opportunity to fully harvest the coastwide quota without increasing risk to the resource or substantially changing fishing behavior. Entities issued a commercial spiny dogfish permit may experience a slight positive impact related to the potential for higher landings each trip. However, effort in the fishery remains dependent on market conditions and pricing rather than management measures such as trip limits. As such, the proposed action is not expected to have an impact on the way the fishery operates or the revenue of small entities.
Overall, analyses indicate that the overall economic impact of this proposed action is expected to be slightly positive, and that these measures are not expected to substantially change fishing effort, the risk of overfishing, prices/revenues, or fishery behavior. Therefore, the Councils concluded, and NMFS agrees, that this action would not have a significant adverse impact on a substantial number of small businesses. As a result, an initial regulatory flexibility analysis is not required and none has been prepared.
This action would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements.
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 648 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(1) Possess up to 7,500 lb (3,402 kg) of spiny dogfish per trip; and
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to revise the approved information collection regarding the importation of undenatured inedible product, and samples of imported product for laboratory examination, research, evaluative testing, or trade show exhibition. The approval for this information collection will expire on July 31, 2022. FSIS is reducing the total burden estimate by 14,441 hours because the number of applications for importing meat, poultry or egg products samples destined for laboratory examination, research, evaluative testing, or trade show exhibition has decreased.
Submit comments on or before April 26, 2022.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.
FSIS' regulations allow undenatured inedible meat and egg products to be imported into the United States for industrial use or animal food purposes if the products meet the requirements in 9 CFR 325.11(e), 555.5, or 590.45(d). FSIS' regulations also require foreign governments to petition FSIS for approval to import undenatured inedible egg products into the United States (9 CFR 590.45(d)).
Firms importing undenatured inedible meat and egg products to the United States are to complete FSIS Form 9540-4, “Permit Holder—Importation of Undenatured Inedible Product.” FSIS uses the information on Form 9540-4 to keep track of the movement of imported undenatured inedible meat and egg products.
Additionally, imported meat, poultry, and egg product samples destined for laboratory examination, research, evaluative testing, or trade show exhibition are not subject to FSIS import reinspection requirements (9 CFR 327.19, 381.207, 557.19, and 590.960). Firms are required to complete FSIS Form 9540-5, “Notification of Intent to Import Meat, Poultry, Or Egg Products `Samples for Laboratory Examination, Research, Evaluative Testing or Trade Show Exhibition' ” to ensure that samples imported into the United States are not mixed with product that will be sold or distributed in commerce.
FSIS is requesting a revision to the approved information collection regarding the importation of undenatured inedible products and imported samples for the laboratory examination listed above. The approval for this information collection will expire on July 31, 2022. FSIS is reducing the total burden estimate by 14,441 hours because the number of applications for importing meat, poultry or egg products samples destined for laboratory examination, research, evaluative testing, or trade show exhibition has decreased.
FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS' functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the method and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20253.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS will also announce and provide a link to this
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.
Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email:
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) regulations, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is announcing its intention to renew the approved information collection regarding business registration requirements. The approval for this information collection will expire on July 31, 2022. FSIS is not making any changes to the approved collection.
Submit comments on or before April 26, 2022.
FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this
•
•
•
Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and
The FMIA (21 U.S.C. 643) and the PPIA (21 U.S.C. 460(c)) prohibit any person, firm, or corporation from engaging in commerce as a meat or poultry products broker; renderer; animal food manufacturer; wholesaler of livestock or poultry carcasses or parts; or public warehouseman storing such articles in or for commerce; or from engaging in the business of buying, selling, or transporting in commerce, or importing any dead, dying, or disabled or diseased livestock or poultry or parts of the carcasses of livestock or poultry that died otherwise than by slaughter, unless it has registered its business with FSIS.
FSIS is requesting renewal of the information collection regarding business registration requirements. The approval for this information collection will expire on July 31, 2022. FSIS is making no changes to the approved collection. FSIS has made the following estimates based upon an information collection assessment:
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will also become a matter of public record. Copies of this information collection assessment can be obtained from Gina Kouba, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mailstop 3758, South Building, Washington, DC 20250-3700; (202) 720-5627.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FSIS' functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of FSIS' estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the method and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques, or other forms of information technology. Comments may be sent to both FSIS, at the addresses provided above, and the Desk Officer for Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Washington, DC 20253.
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS will also announce and provide a link to this
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at How to File a Program Discrimination Complaint and at any USDA office or write a letter addressed to USDA and provide in the letter all of the information requested in the form. To request a copy of the complaint form, call (866) 632-9992.
Submit your completed form or letter to USDA by: (1) Mail: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410; (2) fax: (202) 690-7442; or (3) email:
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Food and Nutrition Service (FNS), Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on this information collection. This is a revision of a currently approved collection, which FNS employs to determine public participation in the School Breakfast Program.
Written comments must be received on or before April 26, 2022.
Comments may be sent to: Jeffrey Warner, School Meals Branch, Policy and Program Development Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1320 Braddock Place, Alexandria, VA 22314. Comments may also be submitted via email to the attention of Jeffrey Warner at
Requests for additional information or copies of this information collection should be directed to Jeffrey Warner, School Programs Branch, Policy and Program Development Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, at 703-605-4372 or at
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions that were used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Number of Responses per Respondent (Reporting): 10.
See the table below for estimated total annual burden for each type of respondent.
Forest Service, (Agriculture) USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Central Idaho Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold a virtual meeting by phone and/or video conference. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act as well as make recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on Salmon-Challis, Caribou Targhee, and Sawtooth National Forests within the counties of Butte, Custer, and Lemhi, consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. RAC information and virtual meeting information can be found at the following website:
The virtual meeting will be held on Thursday, April 7, 2022, 9:00 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Mountain Daylight Time.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meeting will be held virtually via telephone and/or video conference. Details for how to join the meetings are listed in the above website link under
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Charles A. Mark, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by phone at 208-756-5100 or email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf and hard of hearing (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours per day, every day of the year, including holidays.
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss project proposals; and
2. Make funding recomendations on Title II projects.
The meeting is open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by March 31, 2022 to be scheduled on the agenda. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Amy Baumer 1206 S Challis St., Salmon, ID 83467, or by email to
Equal opportunity practices, in line with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the RAC. To help ensure that recommendations of the RAC have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
The USDA prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, political beliefs, income
Forest Service, (Agriculture) USDA.
Notice of meeting.
The Shasta County Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold two virtual meetings by phone and/or video conference. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act, as well as make recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on the Shasta-Trinity National Forest within Shasta County. RAC information can be found at the following website:
The virtual meetings will be held on:
• Wednesday, March 16, 2022, 9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m., Pacific Daylight Time; and
• Wednesday, March 23, 2022, 9:30 a.m.-11:30 a.m., Pacific Daylight Time.
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
The meetings will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams. Details for how to join the meetings are listed in the above website link under
Written comments may be submitted as described under
Lejon Hamann, RAC Coordinator, by phone at 530-410-1935 or via email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf and hard-of-hearing (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours per day, every day of the year, including holidays.
The purpose of the meetings are to review the following:
1. Comments from the Designated Federal Officer (DFO);
2. Approve minutes from last meeting;
3. Discuss, recommend, approve Title II projects;
4. Public comment period; and
5. Closing comments from the DFO.
The meetings are open to the public. The agenda will include time for people to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should request in writing by the Friday before the scheduled meetings to be scheduled on the agenda for a particular meeting. Anyone who would like to bring related matters to the attention of the committee may file written statements with the committee staff before or after the meeting. Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Lejon Hamann, RAC Coordinator, 3644 Avtech Parkway, Redding, California 96002 or by email to
Equal opportunity practices, in line with USDA policies, will be followed in all membership appointments to the RAC. To help ensure that recommendations of the RAC have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by the Department, membership shall include, to the extent practicable, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities.
The USDA prohibits discrimination in all of its programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, political beliefs, income derived from a public assistance program, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs).
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of proposed new fee sites.
The Gila National Forest is proposing to charge new fees at multiple recreation sites listed in
If approved, the new fee would be implemented no earlier than six months following the publication of this notice in the
Gila National Forest, 3005 E Camino del Bosque, Silver City, New Mexico 88061.
Matt Schultz, Recreation, Heritage, Engineering, Lands and Minerals Staff, 575-388-8280, or
The Federal Recreation Lands Enhancement Act (Title VII, Pub. L. 108-447) directed the Secretary of Agriculture to publish a six-month advance notice in the
As part of this proposal, the Head of the Ditch, Wolf Hollow, Quemado Lake—El Caso I-III, Valle Tio Vinces
New fees would provide increased visitor opportunities as well as increased staffing to address operations and maintenance needs and enhance customer service. Once public involvement is complete, these new fees will be reviewed by a Recreation Resource Advisory Committee prior to a final decision and implementation.
Advanced reservations for campgrounds and cabins will be available through
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 BTOS will increase the scope of the Small Business Pulse Survey to include large employer businesses (those with 500 or more employees), multi-unit businesses (those with establishments in more than one location), and nonemployer businesses (those with no paid employees); it will also include the U.S. Island Areas in addition to Puerto Rico. As with the SBPS, the BTOS will include most non-farm sectors of the U.S. economy. The BTOS will incrementally build on the success of the SBPS and will be implemented using components of the current SBPS platform. The first stage of the BTOS will be an expansion of the SBPS to include the addition of large single unit employer businesses, to be followed by the addition of multi-unit businesses, and then nonemployer businesses. The BTOS will ultimately produce high frequency statistics across most non-farm sectors of the U.S. economy, with estimates by sector, state, state by sector, sub-sector, the largest fifty Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSA) by population size, employment size, and employer status. As with other Census Bureau data products, detailed methodology and measures of quality will be published for BTOS data products. BTOS products will be based on representative samples drawn from the full universe of businesses, making them unique and the results reliable when compared to other high frequency business survey data such as those produced in the private sector.
The Census Bureau proposes an incremental path to the proposed final scope of the BTOS in order to learn at each implemented stage and to allow for modifications based on lessons learned or internal/external stakeholder feedback in prior iterations. The Census Bureau will submit a request to OMB including 30 days of public comment announced in the
The Census Bureau published a notice in the
The BTOS will be a new survey with bi-weekly data collection and publication; estimates produced from the BTOS will initially be released as experimental data products. The SBPS demonstrated the ability of the Census Bureau to collect and publish high frequency, timely data during a national economic emergency. The BTOS will capitalize on this success and provide regularly occurring high frequency data products and measures of quality based on national and subnational
The BTOS data series will provide insight on the state of the economy, prior to and during an event (including but not limited to natural disasters or economic crises) and will assist in monitoring the recovery from the event. It will also be useful in understanding aggregate and subaggregate changes in economic trends throughout the business cycle. BTOS data may be used by elected officials, government program officials, policy makers, industry leaders, economic and social analysts, business entrepreneurs, business and economic news organizations, and domestic and foreign researchers in academia, business, and government.
The BTOS will allow for a large number of data products that are complementary to the Census Bureau's existing monthly and quarterly economic indicator programs which provide estimates of contemporaneous economic activity at the national sector level. The BTOS will produce complementary disaggregate contemporaneous data as well as data that reflect the outlook of businesses. The BTOS will be complementary to the Census Bureau's existing annual programs, serving as a platform through which trends and data gaps may first be identified for subsequent inclusion in annual programs.
The BTOS instrument will include core and supplemental content. Core content will form the basis of the instrument and run continuously; core content will include measures of economic activity that are applicable across all non-farm sectors and are important across the business cycle and during economic or other emergencies. Supplemental content will be included on the instrument with a regular periodicity and will be designed to provide urgently needed data on an emerging or current issue.
Core concepts for the BTOS will be selected based on research and analysis conducted during the SBPS, stakeholder feedback, and the ability to collect complementary items on monthly, quarterly, annual, or census programs to provide context and benchmarking.
Initially, all data products will be accessible through the Census Bureau's Experimental Data Products site. Experimental data products are clearly identified and include methodology and supporting research with their release.
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
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, LP submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Newark, Delaware within Subzone 99D. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 16, 2022.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials and specific finished products described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished products include: BRILINTA (ticagrelor) tablets; LYNPARZA (olaparib) tablets; SEROQUEL IR (quetiapine fumarate) tablets; and, SEROQUEL XR (quetiapine fumarate) tablets (duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status materials include: Anastrozole active pharmaceutical ingredient (API); olaparib API; quetiapine fumarate API; and, ticagrelor API (duty rates 6.5%). The request indicates that olaparib API and ticagrelor API are subject to duties under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable Section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Christopher Wedderburn at
The Transportation and Related Equipment Technical Advisory Committee will meet on March 16, 2022, at 11:30 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, via teleconference. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration with respect to technical questions that affect the level of export controls applicable to transportation and related equipment or technology.
1. Welcome and Introductions.
2. Status reports by working group chairs.
3. Public comments and Proposals.
4. Discussion of matters determined to be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3).
The open session will be accessible via teleconference. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
To the extent time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate distribution of public presentation materials to Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 14, 2022, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. (10)(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, contact Yvette Springer via email.
The Regulations and Procedures Technical Advisory Committee will meet March 15, 2022, at 10:00 a.m., Eastern Standard Time, via teleconference. The Committee advises the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Export Administration on implementation of the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) and provides for continuing review to update the EAR as needed.
The open session will be accessible via teleconference to participants on a first come, first serve basis. To join the conference, submit inquiries to Ms. Yvette Springer at
To the extent that time permits, members of the public may present oral statements to the Committee. The public may submit written statements at any time before or after the meeting. However, to facilitate the distribution of public presentation materials to the Committee members, the Committee suggests that presenters forward the public presentation materials prior to the meeting to Ms. Springer via email.
The Assistant Secretary for Administration, with the concurrence of the delegate of the General Counsel, formally determined on February 14, 2022, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (5 U.S.C. app. 10(d)), that the portion of the meeting dealing with pre-decisional changes to the Commerce Control List and the U.S. export control policies shall be exempt from the provisions relating to public meetings found in 5 U.S.C. app. 10(a)(1) and 10(a)(3). The remaining portions of the meeting will be open to the public.
For more information, contact Yvette Springer via email.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The Department of Commerce (Commerce) is initiating a changed circumstances review (CCR) to determine whether Özdemir Boru Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (Ozdemir A.S.) is the successor-in-interest to Özdemir Boru Profil Sanayi ve Ticaret Limited Sirketi (Ozdemir LLC) in the context of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on heavy walled rectangular pipes and tubes (HWR pipes and tubes) from the Republic of Turkey (Turkey). We also preliminarily determine that Ozdemir A.S. is the successor-in-interest to Ozdemir LLC. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable February 25, 2022.
Jaron Moore, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3640.
On September 13, 2016, Commerce published the CVD order on HWR pipes and tubes from Turkey.
On November 18, 2021, we issued a letter to Ozdemir A.S. requesting additional information and documentation regarding changes in the company's ownership, productive facilities, and corporate, legal and financial structures, as well the level of government involvement, during the relevant period.
The products covered by the
Included products are those in which: (1) Iron predominates, by weight, over each of the other contained elements; (2) the carbon content is 2 percent or less, by weight; and (3) none of the elements below exceed the quantity, by weight, respectively indicated:
The subject merchandise is currently provided for in item 7306.61.1000 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS). Subject merchandise may also enter under HTSUS 7306.61.3000. While the HTSUS subheadings and ASTM specification are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the
Pursuant to section 751(b) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216, Commerce will conduct a CCR upon receipt of information concerning, or a request from an interested party for a review of a CVD order, which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review of the order.
Further, 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3)(ii) permits Commerce to combine the notice of initiation of a CCR and the notice of preliminary results of a CCR in a single notice if Commerce concludes that expedited action is warranted. In this instance, because the record contains information necessary to make a preliminary finding, we find that expedited action is warranted and have combined the notice of initiation and the notice of preliminary results.
In a CVD CCR, Commerce will make an affirmative successorship finding (
Here, there is no evidence of significant changes between Ozdemir LLC and the successor-in-interest company Ozdemir A.S.'s operations, ownership, or corporate or legal structure during the relevant period that could have impacted the successor-in-interest company's subsidy levels.
Commerce will issue its final results of the review in accordance with the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), an interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice.
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), Commerce will issue the final results of this CCR no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days of publication of these preliminary results, if all parties agree to the preliminary finding.
This notice is published in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.216(b) and 351.221(c)(3)(ii).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Groundfish Committee 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, March 16, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. Webinar registration URL information:
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Committee will discuss specifications and measures anticipated to be included in Framework Adjustment 65/Specifications and Management Measures which is expected to be initiated at the April 2022 Council meeting. They will discuss a progress report and a Council motion to consider adding to the 2022 Council Priorities, a transition plan for Atlantic cod management from the current two management units to up to five management units. Other business will be discussed, if 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 (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) is scheduling a public meeting of its Scallop Survey Working Group 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, March 16, 2022 at 9 a.m. Webinar registration URL information
Thomas A. Nies, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
The Scallop Survey Working Group (SSWG) will meet to review progress updates to address the Terms of Reference (TORs): Methods and analyses identified to address TORs, including timelines for completion, and SSWG sub-groups activities. Other business may be discussed, as necessary.
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 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 (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; public meeting.
The Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) of the Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a meeting.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, March 15, 2022, starting at 9:30 a.m. and continue through 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, March 16, 2022. See
The meeting will take place over webinar using the Webex platform with a telephone-only connection option. Details on how to connect to the webinar by computer and by telephone will be available at:
Christopher M. Moore, Ph.D., Executive Director, Mid-Atlantic Fishery Management Council, telephone: (302) 526-5255.
During this meeting, the SSC will review and possibly modify the 2022 acceptable biological catch (ABC) recommendations for
A detailed agenda and background documents will be made available on the Council's website (
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.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the procurement list.
This action adds product(s) and service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or email
On 10/22/20201, 11/26/2021, and 12/17/2021, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the product(s) and service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the product(s) and service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) and service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) and service(s) proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product(s) and service(s) are added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the procurement list.
The Committee is proposing to add product(s) and service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and delete service(s) previously furnished by such agencies.
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 1401 S Clark Street, Suite 715, Arlington, Virginia 22202-4149.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product(s) and service(s) listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following product(s) and service(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following service(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB) is requesting to extend the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) approval for an existing information collection titled, “Mortgage Acts and Practices—Advertising (Regulation N).”
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before April 26, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
You may submit comments, identified by the title of the information collection, OMB Control Number (see below), and docket number (see above), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documentation prepared in support of this information collection request is available at
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB, for clearance, the following proposed revision and extension of a collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
DoD will consider all comments received by March 28, 2022.
Comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection should be sent to Ms. Susan Minson, DoD Desk Officer, at
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method:
Institute of Education Sciences (IES), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 26, 2022.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Carrie Clarady, (202) 245-6347.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education (OCTAE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, ED is proposing a revision of a currently approved collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 26, 2022.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Corinne Sauri, (202) 245-6412.
The Department of Education (ED), in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. ED is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department of Education is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This request is to revise the information collection to gather State Plans and annual revision under Perkins V.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is revoking the 1980 guidelines and associated procedures for correcting the specific chemical identities of incorrectly described chemical substances submitted to EPA in 1978 using the original reporting form for inclusion on the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) Chemical Substance Inventory (Inventory). In so doing, the Agency is providing a final opportunity to use the 1980 guidelines and form to request corrections of Inventory listings to address errors with the chemical identities submitted in the original reporting forms. The regulated community will have 60 days from the date of this notice to submit any final Inventory corrections. EPA is also announcing the discontinuation of the related form and associated approval of the collection activities under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
The revocation is effective May 31, 2022. All final Inventory corrections must be received on or before April 26, 2022.
Final corrections must be submitted by mail to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Confidential Business Information Center (7407M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001 or by courier to the Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics Confidential Business Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 1201 Constitution Avenue NW, WJC East; Room 6428, Washington, DC 20004-3302; (202) 564-8930. The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0894, is available online at
Alexandria Stanton, New Chemicals Division (7405M), Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: 202-564-5574; email address:
You may be affected by this action if you are a manufacturer or importer of a chemical substance who incorrectly reported to the original TSCA Inventory published in 1979, or its revision published in 1980, via an original Inventory reporting form, and added to the Inventory with an incorrect specific chemical identity. The following North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes are not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provide a guide to help readers determine whether this action may apply to them:
• Chemical manufacturing or processing (NAICS code 325).
• Petroleum and Coal Products Manufacturing (NAICS code 324).
If you have questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the technical person listed under
EPA will be discontinuing processing Inventory Corrections, withdrawing its Inventory Correction guidelines published in the
During the phase-out period persons may wish to review their original Inventory submissions for any remaining incorrectly described chemical substances and submit correction requests. Correction requests must be complete and meet the correction guidelines published in 1980. Correction requests that are incomplete or that are ineligible according to the 1980 guidelines will be rejected by EPA. Correction requests that are complete and eligible will be accepted by the Agency, and the corrected specific chemical identities will be added to the Inventory. Any outstanding correction requests already received by EPA at the time of publication of this notice for which the Agency has requested but not yet received additional information in order to be able to process the request will have until April 26, 2022 to provide the information and complete the request.
After April 26, 2022, EPA does not intend to accept requests to correct original Inventory reporting forms. If, after April 26, 2022, a person discovers for any reason an error in the specific chemical identity of a chemical substance submitted on an original Inventory reporting form, a Premanufacture Notice (PMN) or exemption notice may need to be filed if the chemical substance is not already listed on the TSCA Inventory.
This action does not impact EPA's authority for initiating, at its discretion, corrections to the Inventory should the Agency determine on its own that, for example, a chemical substance listed on the Inventory has been unintentionally misidentified. Only in this situation will EPA, at its discretion, request and accept documentation from a company to support an Inventory correction in lieu of requiring a PMN or exemption notice. This action also does not impact EPA's regular maintenance of the Inventory that can include nomenclature updates and correcting minor errors to listings. EPA notes that the Inventory corrections 1980 guidelines and associated phase-out period do not apply to requests for corrections to PMN submissions. If a PMN submitter becomes aware of a material error in a PMN submission currently under review by EPA, the submitter must timely inform EPA pursuant to 40 CFR 720.40(f). EPA will not grant requests to correct a specific chemical identity reported in a PMN submission after the applicable review period has ended.
TSCA section 5 requires any person who intends to manufacture (including import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose to notify EPA at least 90 days in advance. TSCA section 8(b) requires EPA to compile, keep current, and publish a list (
It has become increasingly evident that the 1980 guidelines have outlived the purpose for which they were intended. Furthermore, the Agency
The EPA considered the incremental costs and benefits associated with this action, and the EPA estimates there will be a burden reduction for both respondents and the Agency with the elimination of reporting and recordkeeping requirements associated with submission, form completion, recordkeeping, and CBI substantiation. The EPA estimates a burden reduction for respondents of $3,030 (2016 wage rates) based on the currently approved Information Collection Request (ICR) OMB Control No. 2070-0145 (EPA ICR No. 1741.08). This action will also reduce Agency costs of $3,574 (2016 wage rates) associated with this collection, which include the printing and distributing of reporting forms, providing reporting assistance, reviewing, and processing of the report forms and entry of data into the Inventory databases.
In accordance with the TSCA section 8(b) requirement, EPA promulgated the Inventory Reporting Regulations at 40 CFR part 710 on December 23, 1977 (42 FR 64572; FRL 817-1), which governed the reporting requirements for, and the scope of, the chemical substances to be included on the original TSCA Inventory. The reporting requirements included a 1975 to 1978 reporting period for chemical substances in U.S. commerce at that time and a 1978 submission period to report such chemicals on one of five original Inventory reporting forms.
Following the 1978 TSCA Inventory submission period, EPA recognized that a considerable number of chemical substances submitted for inclusion on the original Inventory, published in 1979, and its revision published in 1980, could unintentionally have been described incorrectly by persons reporting them. These errors could have happened as a result of typographical or transcriptional errors, the inadvertent (good faith) technical misidentification of chemical substances, or the lack of sufficient technical or analytical capabilities to fully characterize the exact chemical identities of some chemical substances.
Although not required to do so under TSCA, EPA decided to provide a mechanism for submitters to request corrections of specific chemical identity errors found on their original Inventory reporting forms. In the
The 1980 guidelines provided industry with a relatively easy mechanism to correct unintentional chemical identity errors made on original Inventory reporting forms without having to interrupt manufacture and submit a PMN or exemption notice under TSCA section 5. As a result, the 1980 guidelines were widely used to request corrections to original Inventory listings, with requests decreasing over time. EPA accepted a large number of correction requests, particularly at first, and added the correct specific chemical identities to the Inventory, which to a certain extent has helped the Agency to maintain an accurate Inventory of existing chemicals. However, the 1980 guidelines failed to include a time period during which requests for corrections to the Inventory could be submitted. It was never EPA's intent to establish a correction mechanism that would be open-ended in time, lasting for decades.
It has become increasingly evident that the 1980 guidelines have outlived the purpose for which they were intended. Furthermore, the Agency understands that the passage of time is also making it more difficult for the original submitters or their legal successors to provide the necessary documentation supporting a request for a correction. Original submitters of original Inventory reporting forms or their legal successors often are unable to provide the supporting documentation to substantiate their assertion that the chemical identity was incorrect on the original reporting form, which is necessary for EPA to accept that a correction is appropriate. The lack of adequate original submitter documentation has been a major concern and obstacle for EPA in reviewing and accepting correction requests. In order for EPA to accept a correction request, the requester must provide certain original company records documenting what was known about the specific chemical identity of the chemical substance during the 1975 to 1978 original Inventory reporting period, as well as the specific nature of the errors contained in the original Inventory reporting form.
The Agency also understands that the Inventory correction request process may be used improperly by entities attempting to avoid submission of a PMN or exemption notice for a new chemical substance. An example of such an improper use would be a request to change the specific chemical identity of a chemical substance correctly submitted on an original Inventory reporting form, and correctly listed on the original Inventory or its revision, in order to include on the current Inventory a different specific chemical identity that was the result of a change in the manufacture of the original chemical substance. The manufacturing change may be due to a change in the supply of a feedstock, a change in a performance requirement of the end product, or a change in the commercial intentions of the end product. In these situations where the original chemical substance was correctly submitted on an original Inventory reporting form, but at a later point in time a new and different chemical substance was being manufactured or imported in its place, some persons have requested Inventory corrections that are ineligible under the 1980 guidelines. These situations require the submission of a PMN or exemption notice for the new chemical substances not previously reported.
Persons have had more than 40 years since the 1980 publication of the revised Inventory and the correction guidelines to discover inadvertent, good faith errors on original Inventory reporting forms. In addition, persons have had nine specific opportunities over more than thirty years to review their Inventory listings during the six Inventory Update Rule submission periods in 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998, 2002, and 2006, followed by the three Chemical Data Reporting rule submission periods in 2012, 2016, and 2020. Additionally, the Notice of
According to the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
This document does not contain any new information collection requirements that would require additional OMB review and approval. The information collection activities related to the potential submission of information pursuant to TSCA section 5 already has been approved by OMB under OMB Control No. 2070-0145 (EPA ICR No. 1741.08). The annual respondent burden for this information collection activity is estimated to average 39 hours per respondent, including time for reading the regulations, processing, compiling and reviewing data, storing, filing, and maintaining the data. For additional details, please see the Information Collection Request document that is available in the docket.
Send any comments about the accuracy of the burden estimate, and any suggested methods for further minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated collection techniques, to the Director, Regulatory Support Division, Office of Mission Support (2822T), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001. Please remember to include the OMB control number in any correspondence, but do not submit any inventory corrections or related questions to this address.
15 U.S.C. 2604.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has submitted an information collection request (ICR), Certification of Pesticide Applicators (EPA ICR No. 2499.03, OMB Control No. 2070-0196) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. The is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through February 28, 2022. Public comments were previously requested via the
Additional comments must be received on or before March 28, 2022.
Submit your comments to EPA, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0287, online using
EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in the docket without change, including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes profanity, threats, information claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI), or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Submit written comments and recommendations to OMB for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Carolyn Siu, Regulatory Support Branch, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention, Environmental Protection Agency (Mailcode: 7101M), 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 566-1205; email address:
Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
The final rule revised 40 CFR part 171 to include new and revised standards for certification for commercial and private applicators, provisions for recertification of applicators, and training for noncertified applicators applying restricted use pesticides (RUPs) under the supervision of certified applicators. The rule also includes changes to improve the clarity
This ICR estimates the burden and costs of the rule-related information collection activities, including burden and cost estimates related to initial rule familiarization activities.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is holding a virtual public meeting to seek individual input on the proposed Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) New Chemicals Collaborative Research Program. This virtual meeting will be held over 2 half days. In addition, EPA is announcing the availability of and soliciting public comment on the draft document entitled “Modernizing the Process and Bringing Innovative Science to Evaluate New Chemicals Under TSCA.” The Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP) is proposing to develop and implement a multi-year collaborative research program focused on approaches for performing risk assessments on new chemical substances under TSCA. This effort will be performed in partnership with the Agency's Office of Research and Development (ORD) and other federal entities to leverage their expertise and resources. The results of the effort are expected to bring innovative science to new chemical reviews, modernize the approaches used, and increase the transparency of the information underpinning the human health and ecological risk assessment process.
Due to public health concerns related to COVID-19, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are open to the public by appointment only. For further information on the EPA Docket Center (EPA/DC) services, docket contact information and the current status of the EPA/DC and Reading Room, please visit
Sarah Swenson, Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (7201M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; telephone number: (202) 566-0279; email address:
This notice is directed to the public in general. This notice may be of specific interest to persons who are or may be interested in risk assessments of new chemical substances under TSCA (
Information about this meeting is available in the docket for this meeting, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0218, at
1.
2.
OCSPP is proposing to develop and implement a multi-year collaborative research program focused on approaches for performing risk assessments on new chemical substances under TSCA. This effort will be performed in partnership with ORD and other federal entities to leverage their expertise and resources. The results of the effort are expected to bring innovative science to new chemical reviews, modernize the approaches used, and increase the transparency of the human health and ecological risk assessment process.
This research program will refine existing approaches and develop and implement new approach methodologies (NAMs) to ensure the best available science is used in TSCA new chemical evaluations. Key areas proposed in the TSCA New Chemicals Collaborative Research Program include:
• Updating OCSPP's approach to using data from structurally-similar chemicals to determine potential risks from new chemicals, also known as read-across. This will increase the efficiency of new chemical reviews promoting the use of the best available data to protect human health and the environment.
• Digitizing and consolidating information on chemicals to include data and studies that currently only exist in hard copy or in various disparate TSCA databases. The information will be combined with publicly available sources to expand the amount of information available, enhancing chemical reviews and enabling efficient sharing of chemical information across EPA. Safeguards for confidential business information will be maintained as appropriate in this process.
• Updating and augmenting the models used for predicting a chemical's physical-chemical properties and environmental fate/transport, hazard, exposure, and toxicokinetics, to provide a suite of models to be used for new chemicals assessments. The goal of this effort is to update the models to reflect the best available science, increase transparency, and establish a process for updating these models as science evolves.
• Exploring ways to integrate and apply NAMs in new chemicals assessments, reducing the use of animal testing. As this effort evolves, the goal is to develop a suite of accepted, fit-for-purpose NAMs that could be used by external stakeholders for data submissions under TSCA as well as informing and expanding new chemical categories.
• Developing a decision support tool that integrates the various information streams specifically used for new chemical risk assessments. The decision support tool will more efficiently integrate all the data streams (
Additional information on each of these key areas will be provided in draft collaborative research plan that will be available in the docket in by March 14, 2022.
EPA is seeking public comments through several planned activities including:
• Through this
• At the same time, EPA will launch the website for this collaborative research program. EPA intends to make the collaborative research program document and charge questions available during the week of March 14, 2022 and will issue a listserv to alert the public when these documents become available. The date the documents are added to the docket will start the official 60 days public comment period.
• Following the virtual public meeting, EPA intends to update the draft collaborative research program document as appropriate, and will place the document in the relevant docket, ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0218.
• Later in 2022, the Agency is planning to engage the EPA's Board of Scientific Counselors (BOSC), a federal advisory committee, for peer review; EPA also intends to issue a
• EPA intends to solicit public comment at various points in the development and implementation of the collaborative research program, and
• Conduct additional outreach to external stakeholders through a variety of mechanisms as appropriate, to receive input and enhance transparency.
EPA's background documents and the related supporting materials to the draft are available in the docket established for this meeting at
After the virtual public meeting, the EPA will prepare meeting minutes summarizing the individual comments received at the meeting. The meeting minutes will be posted on the EPA website and in the relevant docket.
To participate in the virtual public meeting, please follow the instructions in this unit.
To ensure proper receipt of comments it is imperative that you identify docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2022-0218 in the subject line on the first page of your request.
1.
2.
Oral comments during the virtual public meeting are limited to 5 minutes unless arrangements have been made prior to the date set in the
This meeting is virtual and viewed via webcast. For information on how to first register and then view the webcast, please refer to the EPA website available at:
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of data availability.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is providing notice of the availability of data on emission allowance allocations to certain units under the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) trading programs. EPA has completed preliminary calculations for the allocations of allowances from the CSAPR new unit set-asides (NUSAs) for the 2021 control periods and has posted spreadsheets containing the calculations on EPA's website. EPA will consider timely objections to the preliminary calculations (including objections concerning the identification of units eligible for allocations) before determining the final amounts of the allocations.
Objections to the information referenced in this notice must be received on or before March 28, 2022.
Submit your objections via email to
Questions concerning this action should be addressed to Jason Kuhns at (202) 564-3236 or
Under each CSAPR trading program where EPA is responsible for determining emission allowance allocations, a portion of each state's emissions budget for the program for each control period is reserved in a NUSA (and in an additional Indian country NUSA in the case of states with Indian country within their borders) for allocation to certain units that would not otherwise receive allowance allocations. The procedures for identifying the eligible units for each control period and for allocating allowances from the NUSAs and Indian country NUSAs to these units are set forth in the CSAPR trading program regulations at 40 CFR 97.411(b) and 97.412 (NO
This notice concerns preliminary calculations for the NUSA allowance allocations for the 2021 control periods. Generally, the allocation procedures call for each eligible “new” unit to receive a 2021 NUSA allocation equal to its 2021 control period emissions as reported under 40 CFR part 75 unless the total of such allocations to all such eligible units would exceed the amount of allowances in the NUSA, in which case the allocations are reduced on a pro-rata basis. (EPA notes that, under 40 CFR 97.406(c)(3), 97.506(c)(3), 97.606(c)(3), 97.706(c)(3), 97.806(c)(3), and 97.1006(c)(3), a unit's emissions occuring before its monitor certification deadline are not considered to have occurred during a control period and consequently are not included in the emission amounts used to determine NUSA allocations.) Any allowances not allocated to eligible “new” units are allocated to the state's “existing” units in proportion to such existing units' previous allocations from the portion of the respective state's emissions budget for the control period that was not reserved in a NUSA (or Indian country NUSA).
The detailed unit-by-unit data and preliminary allowance allocation calculations for “new” units are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2021_NO
Each state worksheet for “new” units also contains a summary showing (1) the quantity of allowances initially available in that state's 2021 NUSA, (2) the sum of the 2021 NUSA allowance allocations that will be made to new units in that state, assuming there are no corrections to the data, and (3) the quantity of allowances that would remain in the 2021 NUSA for allocation to existing units, again assuming there are no corrections to the data.
The preliminary calculations of allocations of the remaining unallocated allowances to “existing” units are set forth in Excel spreadsheets titled “CSAPR_NUSA_2021_NO
Objections should be strictly limited to the data and calculations upon which the NUSA allowance allocations are based and should be emailed to the address identified in
EPA notes that an allocation or lack of allocation of allowances to a given unit does not constitute a determination that CSAPR does or does not apply to the unit. EPA also notes that, under 40 CFR 97.411(c), 97.511(c), 97.611(c), 97.711(c), 97.811(c), and 97.1011(c), allocations are subject to potential correction if a unit to which allowances have been allocated for a given control period is not actually an affected unit as of the start of that control period.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of availability; request for public comments.
In accordance with the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the federal and state natural resource trustee agencies for the Texas Trustee Implementation Group (Texas TIG) prepared the Draft Restoration Plan/Environmental Assessment #2: Restoration of Wetlands, Coastal, and Nearshore Habitats; Nutrient Reduction; Oysters; Sea Turtles; and Birds (Draft RP/EA #2). The Draft RP/EA #2 describes and proposes restoration project alternatives considered by the Texas TIG to restore natural resources and ecological services injured or lost as a result of the
The Texas TIG will consider public comments received on or before March 28, 2022.
•
•
•
Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or withdrawn. The Texas TIG may publish any comment received regarding the document. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The Texas TIG will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the written submission (
• Texas—Angela Schrift;
• EPA—Douglas Jacobson;
On April 20, 2010, the mobile offshore drilling unit
The
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA);
• U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), as represented by the National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Bureau of Land Management;
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), on behalf of the U.S. Department of Commerce;
• U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA);
• State of Louisiana Coastal Protection and Restoration Authority, Oil Spill Coordinator's Office, Department of Environmental Quality, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries, and Department of Natural Resources;
• State of Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality;
• State of Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources and Geological Survey of Alabama;
• State of Florida Department of Environmental Protection and Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission; and
• State of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), General Land Office (TGLO), and Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ).
On April 4, 2016, the Trustees reached and finalized a settlement of their natural resource damage claims with BP in a Consent Decree approved by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. Pursuant to that Consent Decree, restoration projects in the Texas Restoration Area are chosen and managed by the Texas TIG. The Texas TIG is composed of the following Trustees: TPWD, TGLO, TCEQ, EPA, DOI, NOAA, USDA.
In an October 2020 notice posted at
The Draft RP/EA #2 is being released in accordance with the OPA, NRDA implementing regulations, and the NEPA. In the Draft RP/EA #2, the Texas TIG presents to the public the Texas TIG's most recent plan to restore natural resources and ecological services injured or lost as a result of the
• Bird Island Cove Habitat Restoration—Construction;
• Bahia Grande Channel F Hydrologic Restoration;
• Follets Island Habitat Acquisition Phase 2; and
• Galveston Island Habitat Acquisition.
• Petronila Creek Constructed Wetlands Planning; and
• Petronila Creek Watershed Nutrient Reduction Initiative.
• Landscape Scale Oyster Restoration in Galveston Bay.
• Upper Texas Coast Sea Turtle Rehabilitation Facility; and
• Lancha Sea Turtle Mitigation Plan.
• Laguna Vista Rookery Island Habitat Protection;
• Jones Bay Oystercatcher Habitat Restoration;
• San Antonio Bay Bird Island; and
• Texas Breeding Shorebird and Seabird Stewardship.
The total estimated cost of the preferred alternatives is approximately $39 million. One or more alternatives may be selected for implementation by the Texas TIG. Additional restoration planning for the Texas Restoration Area will continue.
The public is encouraged to review and comment on the Draft RP/EA #2. A public webinar is scheduled to help facilitate the public review and comment process. After the public comment period ends, the Texas TIG will consider the comments received before finalizing the Final RP/EA #2. A summary of comments received and the Texas TIG's responses and any revisions to the document, as appropriate, will be included in the final document.
The documents comprising the Administrative Record for the Draft RP/EA #2 can be viewed electronically at
The authority for this action is the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This collection of information is necessary to determine whether or not a company has a good payment history. This form will enable EXIM to make a credit decision on a foreign buyer credit limit request submitted by a new or existing policy holder. Additionally, this form is used by those EXIM policy holders granted delegated authority to commit the Bank to a foreign buyer credit limit.
Comments should be received on or before April 26, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Financial institutions interested in becoming an Approved Finance Provider (AFP) with EXIM must complete this application in order to obtain approval to make loans under EXIM insurance policies and/or enter into one or more Master Guarantee Agreements (MGA) with EXIM.
Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
The information collection tool can be reviewed at:
An AFP may participate in the Medium-Term Insurance, Bank Letter of Credit, and Financial Institution Buyer Credit programs as an insured lender, while AFPs approved for an MGA may apply for multiple loan or lease transactions to be guaranteed by EXIM.
EXIM uses the information provided in the form and the supplemental information required to be submitted with the form to determine whether the lender qualifies to participate in its lender insurance and guarantee programs. The details are necessary to evaluate whether the lender has the capital to fund potential transactions, proper due diligence procedures, and the monitoring capacity to carry out transactions.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Submission for OMB review and comments request.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), as a part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. EXIM's financial institution policy holders provide this form to U.S. exporters, who certify to the eligibility of their exports for EXIM support. The completed forms are held by the financial institution policy holders, only to be submitted to EXIM in the event of a claim filing. A requirement of EXIM's policies is that the insured financial institution policy holder obtains a completed Exporter's Certificate at the time it provides financing for an export. This form will enable EXIM to identify the specific details of the export transaction. These details are necessary for determining the eligibility of claims for approval. EXIM staff and contractors review this information to assist in determining that an export transaction, on which a claim for non-payment has been submitted, meets all of the terms and conditions of the insurance coverage.
Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2022 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
To request additional information, please contact Jean Fitzgibbon. 202-565-3620. The form can be viewed at:
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
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
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 March 14, 2022.
1.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) requests that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for the information collection requirements in the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act Rule (“COPPA Rule” or “Rule”). The clearance expires on March 31, 2022.
Comments must be submitted by March 28, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Peder Magee, Attorney (202-326-3538), Division of Privacy and Identity Protection, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) requests that the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) extend for an additional three years the current Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”) clearance for the information collection
Comments must be submitted by March 28, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Hampton Newsome, Attorney, (202) 326-2889, Division of Enforcement, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
Pursuant to the Act, the Commission published the Alternative Fuels Rule in 1995, and the Rule was later amended in 2013. The Rule requires disclosure of specific information on labels posted on fuel dispensers for non-liquid alternative fuels. To ensure the accuracy of these disclosures, the Rule also requires that sellers maintain records substantiating product-specific disclosures they include on these labels. In addition, the Rule requires that distributors of non-liquid alternative vehicle fuel provide certifications of the fuel rating in each transfer to anyone who is not a consumer.
Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding. Because your comment will be made public, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive personal information, like anyone's Social Security number, date of birth, driver's license number or other state identification number or foreign country equivalent, passport number, financial account number, or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive health information, like medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, do not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which is . . . privileged or confidential” as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2). In particular, do not include competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC or Commission) is seeking public comment on its proposal to extend for an additional three years the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) clearance for information collection requirements contained in the rules and regulations under the Health Breach Notification Rule (or Rule). That clearance expires on June 30, 2022.
Comments must be received on or before April 26, 2022.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Request for Comments part of the
Ryan Mehm, Attorney, Bureau of Consumer Protection, (202) 326-2918, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20580.
As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the Commission's Health Breach Notification Rule.
The Health Breach Notification Rule (Rule), 16 CFR part 318 (OMB Control Number 3084-0150), requires vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities to provide notice to: (1) Consumers whose unsecured personally identifiable health information has been breached; (2) the Commission; and (3) in some cases, the media.
The Rule also requires third party service providers (
The Rule only applies to electronic health records and does not include recordkeeping requirements.
As required by section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), the FTC is providing this opportunity for public comment before requesting that OMB extend the existing clearance for the information collection requirements contained in the Rule.
The PRA burden of the Rule's requirements depends on a variety of factors, including the number of covered firms; the percentage of such firms that will experience a breach requiring further investigation and, if necessary, the sending of breach notices; and the number of consumers notified. The annual hours and cost estimates below likely overstate the burden because, among other things, they assume, though it is not necessarily so, that all covered firms experiencing breaches subject to the Rule's notification requirements will be required to take all of the steps described below.
The analysis may also overstate the burden of the Rule's requirements because it assumes that covered firms would not take any of the steps described were it not for the requirements of the Rule. For example, the analysis incorporates labor costs associated with understanding what information has been breached. It seems likely that some firms would incur such costs even in the absence of the Rule's requirements because the firms are independently interested in identifying, understanding, and remediating security risks. A company that investigates, for its own purposes, what information has been breached is unlikely to fully duplicate the costs of that investigation in complying with the Rule. Therefore, it may not be correct in all cases that complying with the Rule results in added labor costs for this activity. Nevertheless, in order to allow for a complete understanding of all the potential costs associated with compliance, these costs are included in this analysis.
At the time the Rule was issued in 2009, insufficient data was available about the incidence of breaches in the PHR industry. Accordingly, staff based its burden estimate on data pertaining to private sector breaches across multiple industries. Staff estimated that there would be 11 breaches per year requiring notification of 232,000 consumers. In 2016, based on available data from the years 2010 through 2014, staff arrived at new estimates, projecting an average of two breaches per year affecting a total of 40,000 individual consumers.
The Rule has now been in effect for over ten years, and new data regarding the number and scale of reported breaches from 2017 through 2021 allow staff to update its burden estimates. A review of the breach reports received by the FTC from 2010 through 2021 reveals that there are two primary categories of breaches reported: (1) “single-person breaches,” incidents in which a single individual's information is potentially compromised; and (2) what are hereafter described as “major breaches,” in which multiple—and typically, many—individuals are affected. These two categories of breaches are addressed separately in this analysis because the frequency and costs of the categories differ significantly.
Nearly all of the submissions received between 2010 and 2021—over 99% of them—reported single-person breaches related to an individual's loss of control over his or her login credentials. The rate of such breaches has fluctuated significantly since the Rule went into effect. Whereas from 2011 to 2014 the average annual number of single-person breaches was 7,502, from 2014 to 2017 the average was almost 15,000. From 2018 to 2021, the rate dropped significantly to 2,500. Assuming that this rate continues, staff estimates that between 2022 and 2025 the agency will receive, on average, about 2,500 single-person breach reports per year.
By contrast, major breach reports are quite infrequent. On average, the FTC receives one major breach report approximately every two and a half years, with an average of approximately 200,000 persons affected. Given the low frequency at which major breaches occur, FTC staff are unable to identify any meaningful trends in the frequency of major breach reports. FTC staff has not identified any existing research allowing us to make specific projections about future variation in the frequency of major breaches. Consequently, FTC staff has assumed that the average frequency and scale of major breaches
As explained in more detail within the next section, FTC staff projects that the employee time required for each single-person breach is quite minimal because the processes for notifying consumers are largely automated and single-person breaches can be reported to the FTC in an aggregate annual notification using the FTC's two-page form. On average, staff estimates that covered firms will require approximately 20 seconds of employee labor per single-person breach. With an estimated 2,500 single-person breaches per year, the total estimated burden hours for single-person breaches is approximately 14 hours.
For each major breach, covered firms will require on average 100 hours of employee labor to determine what information has been breached, identify affected customers, prepare the breach notice, and submit the required report to the Commission. Based on staff's estimate that one major breach occurs every two and a half years, the average annual burden of major breaches amounts to 40 hours per year.
Additionally, covered firms will incur labor costs associated with processing calls they may receive in the event of a major breach. The Rule requires that covered firms that fail to contact 10 or more consumers because of insufficient or out-of-date contact information must provide substitute notice through either a clear and conspicuous posting on their website or media notice. Such substitute notice must include a toll-free number for the purpose of allowing a consumer to learn whether or not his/her information was affected by the breach.
Individuals contacted directly will have already received this information. Staff estimates that no more than 10 percent of affected consumers will utilize the offered toll-free number. Thus, of the 200,000 consumers affected by a major breach, staff estimates that 20,000 may call the companies over the 90 days they are required to provide such access. Staff additionally projects that 10,000 additional consumers who are not affected by the breach will also call the companies during this period. Staff estimates that processing all 30,000 calls will require an average of 11,500 hours of employee labor resulting in an average annual burden of 4,600 labor hours. Given the low frequency of major breaches, the annual average requirement for major breaches is 4,640 hours.
The combined annual hours burden for both single-person and major breaches therefore is 4,654 (4,640 + 14).
For each single-person breach, FTC staff estimates that the average 20 seconds of employee labor to provide (likely automated) notification to affected individuals and produce an annual breach notification for submission to the FTC will cost approximately $0.27 per breach. With an estimated 2,500 single-person breaches per year, the annual labor costs associated with all single-person breaches come to $675.
For major breaches, FTC staff projects that the average 100 hours of employee labor costs (excluding outside forensic services, discussed below as estimated non-labor costs) to determine what information has been breached, identify the affected customers, prepare the breach notice, and report to the Commission will cost an average of $66.66 per hour for a total of $6,666.
The breakdown of labor hours and costs is as follows: 50 hours of computer and information systems managerial time at approximately $78 per hour; 12 hours of marketing manager time at $74 per hour; 33 hours of computer programmer time at $46 per hour; and 5 hours of legal staff time at $72 per hour.
Additionally, staff expects covered firms will require, for each major breach, 11,500 hours of labor associated with answering consumer telephone calls at a cost of $218,500.
Accordingly, estimated cumulative annual labor costs, excluding outside forensic services, for both single-person and major breaches, is $90,741 ($87,400 + $2,666 + $675).
Commission staff estimates that capital and other non-labor costs associated with single-person breaches will be negligible. Companies generally use automated notification systems to notify consumers of single-person breaches. Automated notifications are typically delivered by email or other electronic methods. The costs of providing such electronic notifications are minimal.
Commission staff anticipates that capital and other non-labor costs associated with major breaches will consist of the following:
1. Services of a forensic expert in investigating the breach;
2. notification of consumers via email, mail, web posting, or media; and
3. the cost of setting up a toll-free number, if needed.
Staff estimates that, for each major breach, covered firms will require 240 hours of a forensic expert's time, at a cumulative cost of $37,440 for each breach. This estimate is based on a projection that an average major breach will affect approximately 20 machines and that a forensic analyst will require about 12 hours per machine to conduct his or her analysis. The projected cost of retaining the forensic analyst consists of the hourly wages of an information security analyst ($52), tripled to reflect profits and overhead for an outside consultant ($156), and multiplied by 240 hours. Based on the estimate that there will be one major breach every two and a half years, the annual cost associated with the services of an outside forensic expert is $14,976.
As explained above, staff estimates that an average of 200,000 consumers will be entitled to notification of each major breach. Given the online relationship between consumers and vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities, most notifications will be made by email and the cost of such notifications will be minimal.
In some cases, however, vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities will need to notify individuals by postal mail, either because these individuals have asked for such notification, or because the email addresses of these individuals are not current or not working. Staff estimates that the cost of a mailed notice is $0.11 for the paper and envelope, and $0.58 for a first class stamp. Assuming that vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities will need to notify by postal mail 10 percent of the 200,000 customers whose information is breached, the estimated cost of this notification will be $13,800 per breach. The annual cost will be around $5,520.
In addition, vendors of personal health records and PHR related entities may need to notify consumers by
Finally, staff estimates that the cost of providing a toll-free number will depend on the costs associated with T1 lines sufficient to handle the projected call volume and the cost of obtaining a toll-free telephone number. Based on industry research, staff projects that affected entities may need two T1 lines at a cost of $1,800 for the 90-day period. In addition, staff estimates the cost of obtaining a dedicated toll-free line to be $100 per month. Accordingly, staff projects that the cost of obtaining two toll-free lines for 90 days will be $2,400. The total annualized cost for providing a toll-free number will be $960.
In sum, the total annual estimate for non-labor costs associated with major breaches is $31,056: $14,976 (services of a forensic expert) + $5,520 (cost of mail notifications) + $9,600 (cost of website and media notice) + $960 (cost of providing a toll-free number). Negligible non-labor costs are associated with single-person breaches.
The total estimated PRA annual cost burden is $90,741 for labor costs and $31,056 for non-labor costs, totaling approximately $121,797.
Pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, the FTC invites comments 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 maintaining records and providing disclosures to consumers. All comments must be received on or before April 26, 2022.
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the FTC to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before April 26, 2022. Write “Health Breach Notification Rule; PRA Comment: FTC File No. P072108” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your state—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
Due to the public health emergency in response to the COVID-19 outbreak and the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you prefer to file your comment on paper, write “Health Breach Notification Rule; PRA Comment: FTC File No. P072108” 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 J), Washington, DC 20580; or deliver your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, Constitution Center, 400 7th Street SW, 5th Floor, Suite 5610 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20024. If possible, submit your paper comment to the Commission by courier or overnight service.
Because your comment will become publicly available 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.
The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding, as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments that it receives on or before April 26, 2022. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Federal Acquisition Service, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for public comments regarding a renewal to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding State Agency Monthly Donation Report of Surplus Property, GSA Form 3040.
Submit comments on or before March 28, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for this information
Christopher Willett, Property Disposal Specialist, GSA Office of Personal Property Management, at telephone 703-605-2873 or via email to
This report complies with 41 CFR 102-37.360, which requires a State Agency for Surplus Property (SASP) to submit annual reports of personal property donated to public agencies for use in carrying out such purposes as conservation, economic development, education, parks and recreation, public health, and public safety.
A 60-day notice published in the
Federal Acquisition Service, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for an extension to an existing OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve an extension of a previously approved information collection requirement regarding the Transfer Order-Surplus Personal Property and Continuation Sheet, Standard Form (SF) 123.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Mr. Christopher Willett, Property Disposal Specialist, GSA Office of Personal Property Management, at telephone 703-605-2873 or via email to
The Transfer Order-Surplus Personal Property and Continuation Sheet, Standard form (SF) 123, is used by a State Agency for Surplus Property (SASP) to donate Federal surplus personal property to public agencies, nonprofit educational or public health activities, programs for the elderly, service educational activities, and public airports. The SF 123 serves as the transfer instrument and includes item descriptions, transportation instructions, nondiscrimination assurances, and approval signatures.
A 60-day notice published in the
Administration for Native Americans, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Administration for Children and Families' (ACF) Administration for Native Americans (ANA) is requesting a 2-year extension to the following information collection: Annual Data Report (ADR) (OMB# 0970-0475; expiration date: 2/28/2022). There are no changes requested to the form.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The ADR information collection is conducted in accordance with sec. 811 [42 U.S.C. 2992] of the Native American Programs Act and will allow ANA to report quantifiable results across all program areas. It also provides grantees with parameters for reporting their progress and helps ANA better monitor and determine the effectiveness of their projects.
Office of Child Care, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for public comment.
The Office of Child Care (OCC), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting a 3-year extension of the form ACF-801: CCDF Quarterly Case-Level Report (OMB #0970-0167, expiration 2/28/2022). OCC proposes minor changes to the response categories under the following three data elements: Child's gender, ethnicity, and race.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by April 26, 2022.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 26, 2022. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Rachel Showalter, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 240-994-7399,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
On June 22, 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) was signed into law. The Tobacco Control Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by adding a chapter granting FDA important authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors.
The FD&C Act, as amended by the Tobacco Control Act, requires that before a new tobacco product may be introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce, the new tobacco product must undergo
On May 10, 2016, FDA issued a rule extending FDA's tobacco product authority to all products that meet the definition of tobacco product in the law (except for accessories of newly regulated tobacco products), including electronic nicotine delivery systems, cigars, hookah, pipe tobacco, nicotine gels, dissolvables that were not already subject to the FD&C Act, and other tobacco products that may be developed in the future (81 FR 28974) (“the final deeming rule”).
FDA has established a pathway for manufacturers to request exemptions from the substantial equivalence requirements of the FD&C Act in § 1107.1 (21 CFR 1107.1) of the Agency's regulations. As described in § 1107.1(a), FDA may exempt tobacco products that are modified by adding or deleting a tobacco additive, or increasing or decreasing the quantity of an existing tobacco additive, from the requirement of demonstrating substantial equivalence if the Agency determines that: (1) The modification would be a minor modification of a tobacco product that can be sold under the FD&C Act; (2) a report demonstrating substantial equivalence is not necessary to ensure that permitting the tobacco product to be marketed would be appropriate for the protection of public health; and (3) an exemption is otherwise appropriate.
Section 1107.1(b) states that a request for exemption under section 905(j)(3) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 387e(j)(3)) may be made only by the manufacturer of a legally marketed tobacco product for a minor modification to that tobacco product and that the manufacturer must submit the request and all information supporting it to FDA. The request must be made in an electronic format that FDA can process, review, and archive (or a written request must be made by the manufacturer explaining in detail why the manufacturer cannot submit the request in an electronic format and requesting an alternative means of submission to the electronic format).
An exemption request must contain: (1) The manufacturer's address and contact information; (2) identification of the tobacco product(s); (3) a detailed explanation of the purpose for the modification; (4) a detailed description of the modification, including a statement as to whether the modification involves adding or deleting a tobacco additive, or increasing or decreasing the quantity of the existing tobacco additive; (5) a detailed explanation of why the modification is a minor modification of a tobacco product that can be sold under the FD&C Act; (6) a detailed explanation of why a report under section 905(j)(1) of the FD&C Act intended to demonstrate substantial equivalence is not necessary to ensure that permitting the tobacco product to be marketed would be appropriate for protection of the public health; (7) a certification (
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) states national environmental objectives and imposes upon each Federal Agency the duty to consider the environmental effects of its actions. Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA requires the preparation of an environmental impact statement for every major Federal action that will significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The FDA NEPA regulations are contained in part 25. All applications for exemption from substantial equivalence require the submission of an EA. An EA provides information that is used to determine whether an FDA action could result in a significant environmental impact. Section 25.40(a) and (c) specifies the content requirements for EAs for non-excluded actions.
The information required by § 1107.1(b) is submitted to FDA so FDA can determine whether an exemption from substantial equivalence to the product is appropriate for the protection of the public health. Section 1107.1(c) states that FDA will review the information submitted and determine whether to grant or deny an exemption based on whether the criteria in section 905(j)(3) of the FD&C Act are met. FDA may request additional information if necessary, to make a determination and may consider the exemption request withdrawn if the information is not provided within the requested timeframe.
This collection of information requires a manufacturer to submit a report at least 90 days prior to making an introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce for commercial distribution of a tobacco product. Section 905(j)(1)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act states that if an exemption has been requested and granted, the manufacturer must submit to FDA a report that demonstrates that the tobacco product is modified within the meaning of section 905(j)(3), the modifications are to a product that is commercially marketed and in compliance with the requirements of the FD&C Act, and all the modifications are covered by exemptions granted by the Secretary under section 905(j)(3).
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
FDA estimates that we will receive 812 exemption requests under § 1107.1(b) for 24 hours per response including EA for a total of 19,488 hours. Since an EA is required for each § 1107.1(b) (Optional Preparation of Tobacco Product Exemption From Substantial Equivalence Request), the burden per response for EAs (12 hours) has been combined with the 12 hours for an SE request for a total of 24 hours per response.
FDA further estimates that we will receive 150 submissions requiring additional information in support of the initial exemption request, and it is expected that it will take an average of 3 hours to prepare the additional information for a total of 450 hours.
FDA estimates that 1,217 respondents will prepare 1,217 responses and each response will take approximately 2 hours to prepare, as required by section 905(j)(1)(A)(ii) of the FD&C Act, for a total of 2,434 hours.
Our estimated burden for the information collection reflects an overall decrease of 1,499 hours and 94 respondents. The estimates reflect a decrease of 1,217 hours to account for a reduction in average response time for preparing an abbreviated report. FDA provides a recommended format for applicants in the exemption order letter that significantly reduces the burden hours for preparing the abbreviated report. The estimates also reflect a decrease of 94 responses for submissions requiring additional information in support of the initial exemption request, which resulted in a decrease of 282 hours. We attribute this adjustment to the number of submissions we received over the last few years. Therefore, FDA now estimates the burden for exemptions from substantial equivalence requirements is 22,372 hours.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection of information by April 26, 2022.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. Electronic comments must be submitted on or before April 26, 2022. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Rachel Showalter, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 240-994-7399,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “Collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes Agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal Agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA'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 respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
On June 22, 2009, the Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act (Tobacco Control Act) (Pub. L. 111-31) was enacted. The Tobacco Control Act amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) by adding, among other things, a new chapter granting FDA important authority to regulate the manufacture, marketing, and distribution of tobacco products to protect the public health generally and to reduce tobacco use by minors. Additionally, section 101 of the Tobacco Control Act amended the FD&C Act by adding, among other things, new section 904(a)(4) (21 U.S.C. 387d(a)(4)).
Section 904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act requires each tobacco product manufacturer or importer, or agent thereof, to submit all documents developed after June 22, 2009, “that relate to health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic effects of current or future tobacco products, their constituents (including smoke constituents), ingredients, components, and additives” (herein referred to as “tobacco health documents”).
The guidance document “Health Document Submission Requirements for Tobacco Products (Revised)” (2017) (
FDA is planning revisions to the guidance to reflect that the deemed tobacco product compliance period has passed. Additional revisions include clarifying and editorial changes to promote a better understanding of FDA's interpretation of the “health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic” phrase, examples of health, toxicological, behavioral, or physiologic effects documents, and minor updates to the metadata list.
FDA has been collecting the information submitted pursuant to section 904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act through a facilitative electronic form and through a paper form (Form FDA 3743) for those individuals who choose not to use the electronic method. On both forms, FDA is requesting the following information from firms that have not already reported or still have documents to report:
• Submitter identification
• Submitter type, company name, address, country, company headquarters Dun and Bradstreet D-U-N-S number, and FDA assigned Facility Establishment Identifier (FEI) number
• Submitter point of contact
• Contact name, title, position title, email, telephone, and Fax
• Submission format and contents (as applicable)
• Electronic documents: Media type, media quantity, size of submission, quantity of documents, file type, and file software
• Paper documents: Quantity of documents, quantity of volumes, and quantity of boxes
• Whether or not a submission is being provided
• Confirmation statement
• Identification and signature of submitter including name, company name, address, position title, email, telephone, and Fax
• Document categorization (as applicable): Relationship of the document or set of documents to the following:
○ Health, behavioral, toxicological, or physiological effects
○ Uniquely identified current or future tobacco product(s)
○ Category of current or future tobacco product(s)
○ Specific ingredient(s), constituent(s), component(s), or additive(s)
○ Class of ingredient(s), constituent(s), component(s), or additive(s)
• Document readability and accessibility: Keywords; glossary or explanation of any abbreviations, jargon, or internal (
• Document metadata: Date document was created, document author(s), document recipient(s), document custodian, document title or identification number, beginning and ending Bates numbers, Bates number ranges for documents attached to a submitted email, document type, and whether the document is present in the University of California San Francisco's Truth Tobacco Documents database.
You may access the electronic form and paper form on our website, at
FDA issued a final rule to deem products meeting the statutory definition of “tobacco product” to be subject to the FD&C Act on May 10, 2016 (81 FR 28973), which became effective on August 8, 2016. The FD&C Act provides FDA authority to regulate cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco (RYO), smokeless tobacco, and any other tobacco products that the Agency by regulation deems to be subject to the law. This final rule extended the Agency's “tobacco product” authorities to all other categories of products that meet the statutory definition of “tobacco product” in the FD&C Act, except accessories of such deemed tobacco products.
For tobacco products subject to the deeming rule, FDA understands “current or future tobacco products” to refer to products commercially distributed on or after August 8, 2016, or products in any stage of research or development at any time after August 8, 2016, including experimental products and developmental products intended for introduction into the market for consumer use. For cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, RYO, and smokeless tobacco, FDA understands “current or future tobacco products” to refer to products commercially distributed on or after June 23, 2009, or products in any stage of research or development at any time after June 23, 2009, including experimental products and developmental products intended for introduction into the market for consumer use.
In the guidance on this collection, FDA indicated our intent to enforce the requirement at this time with respect to all such health documents relating to the deemed tobacco products, so long as a specified set of documents, those developed between June 23, 2009, and December 31, 2009, were submitted by February 8, 2017, or in the case of small-scale deemed tobacco product manufacturers (small-scale manufacturers), by November 8, 2017 (81 FR 28973 at 29008 and 29009). Additionally, FDA extended the compliance deadlines by an additional 6 months for small-scale manufacturers in the areas impacted by natural disasters to May 8, 2018. Thereafter, FDA's compliance plan requested deemed manufacturers provide tobacco health document submissions from the specified period, at least 90 days prior to the delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of tobacco products to which the health documents relate. Manufacturers or importers of cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, RYO, or smokeless tobacco products must provide all health documents developed between June 23, 2009, and December 31, 2009, at least 90 days prior to the delivery for introduction of tobacco products into interstate commerce.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
The number of documents received each year since the original collection period has fallen to less than 5 percent of what was received in the original collection period. FDA expects this is because documents created within the specified period should have already been submitted. The Agency bases this estimate on the total number of tobacco firms it is aware of and its experience with document production and the number of additional documents that have been reported each year since the original estimate of the reporting burden.
FDA estimates that a tobacco health document submission as required by section 904(a)(4) of the FD&C Act, will take approximately 50 hours per submission based on FDA experience. To derive the number of respondents for this provision, FDA assumes that very few manufacturers or importers, or agents thereof, would have health documents to submit. We anticipate documents will be submitted on an annual basis for a total of 10 respondents. FDA estimates the total annual reporting burden to be 1,600 hours.
Based on a review of the information collection of our current OMB approval, we have made no adjustments to our burden estimate.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Human Genome Research.
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be videocast and can be accessed from
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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of 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.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice of revision and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) will submit the information collection abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget for review and clearance in accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The submission will describe the nature of the information collection, the categories of respondents, the estimated burden (
Comments must be submitted on or before March 28, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection should be made to Director, Information Management Division, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, email address
This proposed information collection previously published in the
Section 322 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5165, as amended by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000), Public Law 106-390, provides the framework for linking pre-and post-disaster mitigation planning and initiatives with public and private interests to ensure an integrated, comprehensive approach to disaster loss reduction. Title 44 CFR part 201 provides the mitigation planning requirements for State, local, Tribal, or Territorial governments to identify the natural hazards that impact them, to identify actions and activities to reduce any losses from hazards, and to establish a coordinated process to implement the plan, taking advantage of a wide range of resources.
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.
Notice.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is issuing the
This policy is effective April 26, 2022.
The docket for this policy is available for inspection using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Ryan Janda, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, 202-646-2659,
On October 5, 2018, the President signed into law the Disaster Recovery Reform Act
On April 10, 2020, FEMA published a proposed policy entitled
The BRIC Policy provides a consistent framework and standing requirements for the program. FEMA will calculate the 6 percent set aside within 180 days after each major disaster and may set aside that amount from the Disaster Relief Fund into the National Public Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund.
Section 203 of the Stafford Act limits eligible applicants to States and territories that have had a major disaster declaration in the 7 years prior to the annual application period start date, and federally-recognized Tribes entirely or partially located in a State that has had a major disaster declaration in the 7 years prior to the application period start date.
In addition to determining annually the total amount to be made available for BRIC, FEMA may allocate from that amount to eligible States and territorial applicants, with a specific set-aside for Tribes, an allocation for mitigation capability- and capacity-building activities and mitigation projects, and make the remainder of the funding available competitively for mitigation projects. FEMA may also make a portion of funding available for management costs (costs to manage the grant) and non-financial technical assistance to all eligible entities. Funding for capability- and capacity-building activities and mitigation projects will generally be subject to a Federal cost share of up to 75 percent, and up to 90 percent for small impoverished communities.
FEMA provides stakeholders with more detailed information about the program requirements through an annual NOFO process.
The guidance does not have the force or effect of law.
FEMA received 147 distinct public comments to the proposed policy. These included two mass mailings comprised of 11,068 comments from members of the National Wildlife Federation Action Fund and 19,665 comments from members of the National Audubon Society. Many of the public comments included several unique topic areas, each of which FEMA analyzed separately. In total, the comments addressed 902 unique topics. Commenters included Tribes, Tribal consortiums, non-profit organizations, private citizens, municipalities, state agencies and offices, professional
FEMA reviewed and discussed each unique comment and considered whether to change the policy in response to the comment. Stakeholder feedback was taken into account in the design of the policy and in the updates to the policy. Because many commenters had similar comments about the same topics, FEMA organized the response to comments by topic. Some comments related to more than one topic and were therefore considered and counted under all applicable topics. A summary of these comments and FEMA's response is provided below.
FEMA received 108 favorable comments that noted direct support for the BRIC policy or program. These are summarized below.
Commenters wrote favorably about the stakeholder engagement process for the proposed policy. Many commenters expressed appreciation for the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed policy. Commenters also expressed appreciation for the stakeholder engagement process throughout the development of the proposed policy, including the comprehensive stakeholder engagement effort that occurred in the summer of 2019. FEMA is grateful to stakeholders for their engagement throughout the development of the proposed policy; they have provided meaningful input into the development of the BRIC program.
Many commenters provided favorable comments about the BRIC program. Commenters supported the principles of the BRIC program as follows:
Commenters also expressed support for the 90 percent cost share for small impoverished communities and for the new definition of “small impoverished,” which no longer includes an unemployment metric. FEMA agrees that these changes will support small impoverished communities in need of assistance.
FEMA received 409 comments related to the NOFO and program support materials. These are summarized below.
Some commenters asked FEMA to define the terms used in the proposed policy. Commenters requested definitions, or changes to existing definitions, for the following terms: “Critical facilities”, “small impoverished communities”, “resiliency”, “large-scale public infrastructure”, “non-construction”, and “innovative”. FEMA appreciates the request and will provide definitions of new terms used in the policy in an “Additional Information” section of the policy. FEMA provides the following information to address comments:
• FEMA defines “critical facilities” in the glossary of the Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Guidance (2015)
• The term “small impoverished communities” is statutorily defined at 42 U.S.C. 5133(a) to mean a community of 3,000 or fewer individuals that is economically disadvantaged, as determined by the state in which the community is located and based on criteria established by the President. As the term is statutorily defined, the maximum number of community members of 3,000 cannot be exceeded.
• FEMA will use the longstanding National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) definition of “community resilience”
• FEMA understands the concerns of small communities that public infrastructure size will differ for different size communities, and that small communities and large communities have different understandings of “large-scale public infrastructure” in the context of their communities. FEMA deleted the phrase “large-scale” before “public infrastructure” in the policy to avoid ambiguity or implication of a size requirement for public infrastructure.
• FEMA removed the sentence referencing “non-construction” from the policy and added a sentence to explain capability- and capacity-building activities that have already been initiated or completed are not eligible for funding. The term “non-construction” was intended to mean capability- and capacity-building activities.
• The term “innovative” should be defined by the community. FEMA will encourage communities to describe how their projects represent innovative actions.
FEMA received 188 comments related to capability- and capacity-building. These are summarized below. FEMA will provide more information related to capability- and capacity-building in the NOFO and additional program support materials.
• Eligible planning activities may include creating or updating a community's hazard mitigation plan, building codes, zoning or land use plans.
• Capability- and capacity-building funds can be used for development or updates to mitigation priorities and plans. FEMA has edited the policy to make clear that updates may also be funded.
• Non-FEMA technical assistance providers and other educational expenses for staff are eligible capability- and capacity-building activities when consistent with program requirements.
• Capability- and capacity-building funds cannot be used to simply hire staff. If capability- and capacity-building funds contribute to a salary, there must be a deliverable that is tied to that position, such as updating a community's hazard mitigation plan.
• Capability- and capacity-building funds cannot be allocated toward the administration of approved projects. Management Costs can be applied for and funded to administer approved projects.
FEMA received 564 comments relating to eligibility. These are summarized below with FEMA responses. FEMA will provide more information related to eligibility in the NOFO.
Section 5133(g) also addresses an Indian Tribal government's eligibility. An Indian Tribal government (federally-recognized Tribe) that has received a major Federal disaster declaration under the Stafford Act in the seven years prior to the annual application period start date, or is entirely or partially located in a state that received a major Federal disaster declaration under the Stafford Act in the seven years prior to the annual application period start date, is eligible to apply under BRIC.
Section 5133 does not authorize private non-profits and other private sector entities such as businesses, industry associations, native corporations, and individuals to apply as applicants or subapplicants. However, FEMA edited the policy to highlight that applicants and subapplicants may apply for funding on behalf of individuals, and businesses, and non-profit organizations.
In addition, recipients of FEMA funding are required to comply with federal statutes that prohibit discrimination in federally funded programs and activities. FEMA will vigorously enforce these nondiscrimination statutes and require recipients to sign assurances of compliance with these laws.
• Phased projects are eligible.
• Project-scoping activities (formerly known as Advance Assistance) are eligible as a capability- and capacity-building activity and will be limited by the allocation amount.
• Project monitoring is the responsibility of the applicant as stated in 2 CFR part 200 and will be stated in the NOFO. All work funded by the BRIC program must be completed within the period of performance of the grant, which does not allow costs for long-term monitoring after the end of the period of performance.
• Pre-award work that begins construction prior to award or prior to completion of compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and other applicable environmental laws such as the Endangered Species Act and the National Historical Preservation Act cannot be funded. This requirement applies to the project as a whole regardless of what the Federal share of the project will fund. However, FEMA may approve and fund development of the mitigation application as pre-award costs in a subapplication. FEMA has edited the policy to clarify this point.
• For other Federal agencies' large projects, FEMA will not provide financial assistance if FEMA determines another Federal agency has more specific authority to support the project. FEMA understands commenters' concerns that the BRIC program could potentially fund very large, expensive projects (such as levee systems and dams), leaving less funding for smaller scale projects that are quicker to implement. However, there is no minimum on the amount of funding requested in the national competition. Additionally, there is a State and Territory allocation that could be used to fund smaller scale projects. Further, consistent with appropriation law principles, BRIC mitigation funds cannot be used as the non-federal cost-share for other federal agency grants.
FEMA received 64 comments relating to small impoverished communities. These are summarized below with FEMA responses.
FEMA received 135 comments relating to funding. These are summarized below with FEMA responses.
• State and territory allocations (set asides) are non-competitive.
• The Tribal set aside is non-competitive, unless the submitted applications exceed the allocated amount.
• The remaining funding will be competitive at the national level for mitigation projects.
Commenters also asked for BRIC funding to be structured as a block grant or revolving loan fund (RLF) program. FEMA notes that the BRIC program is statutorily defined as a categorical project-based grant program, which does not allow for a block grant or RLF structure. Additionally, 42 U.S.C. 5133(f) requires that the majority of the funding be awarded competitively.
• The policy permits applicant and third party in-kind contributions.
• Private funding is eligible for the non-Federal cost share. More information about the cost share will be provided in the NOFO.
Additionally, FEMA agrees with commenters requesting support for management costs and has changed the policy to provide 100 percent Federal funding for management costs. This approach is also consistent with FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).
FEMA received 49 comments relating to benefit-cost analysis (BCA). These are summarized below with FEMA responses.
FEMA received 86 comments relating to grant administration and management. These are summarized below with FEMA responses.
FEMA is finalizing the policy as follows. Line numbers refer to numbering from the final policy.
• In response to concerns of small communities that public infrastructure size will differ for differently sized communities, FEMA removed “large-scale” before “public infrastructure” in line 42.
• In lines 46-48, FEMA added the following principle: “Promote equity, including by helping members of disadvantaged groups and prioritizing 40 percent of the benefits to disadvantaged communities as referenced in Executive Order (E.O.) 14008 in line with the Administration's Justice40 Initiative.”
• To address requests from commenters to support consideration of future conditions, FEMA edited lines 49-53 to read: “Support the adoption and enforcement of building codes, standards, and policies that will protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the public, taking into account future conditions, prominently including the effects of climate change, and have long-lasting impacts on community risk-reduction, including for critical services and facilities and for future disaster costs.”
• In lines 107-108, FEMA added: “FEMA may identify additional criteria in the annual NOFO to allocate available funding.”
• To address requests from commenters to support management costs, FEMA added a new sub-bullet in line 113: “FEMA will provide 100 percent Federal funding for management costs.”
• For commenters who noted that the Funding section has numerous references to eligible entities and applicants that would be better understood if the eligibility section came before it, FEMA reordered the “Requirements” section so that “Applicant and Subapplicant Eligibility” comes before “Funding” in lines 54 to 128.
• To address comments asking for clarification of eligibility for different types of entities:
○ FEMA added “Federally recognized” to predicate “Indian Tribal governments” in line 61 in order to clarify that the Tribal-set aside is limited to federally-recognized Tribes.
○ FEMA added “Individuals, businesses, and non-profit organizations
• To address commenters' requests to clarify that updates to mitigation plans are eligible for capability- and capacity-building funds, FEMA edited line 138 to read: “. . . develop or update mitigation priorities and plans.”
• To address commenters' request for a sentence structure edit in lines 1596 to 162, FEMA reordered the sentence to end with the citation in order to emphasize that the requirement is to comply with environmental and historic preservation regulations.
• To address commenters' request for a sentence structure edit in lines 163 to 164, FEMA reordered the sentence to end with the citation in order to clarify the intent is to require compliance with floodplain and other applicable land use laws and regulations.
• In lines 165-166, FEMA added: “Any FEMA directive or policy implementing the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS).”
• For commenters who asked FEMA to define the term “non-construction,” FEMA intended to mean capability- and capacity-building activities. FEMA replaced the term “non-construction” with “Capability- and capacity-building activities,” and moved the sentence to line 174. FEMA also added on lines 178-179 the sentence, “Already initiated or completed capability- and capacity-building activities are not eligible for funding.” FEMA also added a new sentence on lines 194-195 to completely address limits on eligibility: “Projects for which ground disturbance has already been initiated or completed are not eligible for funding.”
• For editorial purposes, FEMA edited lines 196-199 to read: “It must be cost-effective and designed to increase resilience and reduce risk of injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property, including critical services and facilities.”
• In line 202, FEMA removed the phrase: “. . . through completion of a benefit cost analysis conducted in compliance with OMB Circular A-94.”
• To address commenters' requests, lines 207-211 were edited to clarify that if a project is located in the Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA), the jurisdiction in which the project is located must be participating in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and not on probation, suspension, or withdrawn. FEMA also added in lines 215-218 the following clarification: “If there is a transfer of ownership of the structure, the requirement of obtaining and maintaining flood insurance for the life of the structure applies to the new owner and any successive owners.”
• In lines 219-220, FEMA added, “The project must comply with any FEMA directive or policy implementing the Federal Flood Risk Management Standard (FFRMS).”
• In response to commenters' notes to clarify that eligible pre-award costs should be limited to development of the mitigation application, FEMA edited line 234 to add the words “the application for” after the words “the development of.”
• In order to address commenters' requests to clarify the POP, and requests to allow for a longer POP, FEMA edited text in lines 249 to 253. FEMA deleted “effective” and “generally” as the beginning of the POP remains linked to the date of Federal award. FEMA also deleted “for highly complex projects” and changed language on lines 250-252 to: “The applicant may submit a request for a longer POP in the application for FEMA to review and approve.” This change gives FEMA broader flexibility to grant a request for a longer POP.
• In answer to commenters' questions, FEMA edited lines 312 to 313 to confirm that the policy will remain intact after it is incorporated into guidance. FEMA deleted the following language: “at which point this policy will be superseded.”
• To add clarity, FEMA added subsections titled “Definitions” and “Monitoring and Evaluation” to the Additional Information section.
• FEMA also made minor, nonsubstantive corrections for grammar and clarity. FEMA is now issuing the final BRIC policy, which is available at
Under the Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking Act (CRA), before guidance can take effect, the Federal agency promulgating the guidance must submit to Congress and to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) a copy of the guidance; a concise general statement describing the guidance, including whether it is “major” within the meaning of the CRA; and the proposed effective date of the guidance.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice of revision and request for comments.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public to take this opportunity to comment on a revision of a currently approved information collection. In accordance with the Paperwork
Comments must be submitted on or before April 26, 2022.
Submit comments at
All submissions received must include the agency name and Docket ID, and will be posted, without change, to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Jennie Orenstein, Chief, HMA Grants Policy Branch, at (202) 212-4071 or
Section 404 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5170c, established the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). Grant requirements and grants management procedures of the program are outlined in 44 CFR part 206 Subpart N, and 2 CFR parts 200 and 3002. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administers the HMGP, and Recipients implement the grants under the HMPG per grant agreement and rules and regulations. The HMGP is a post-disaster program that contributes funds toward the cost of hazard mitigation activities in order to reduce the risk of future damage, hardship, loss or suffering in any area affected by a major disaster. Section 102 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5122(4), defines a “state” as any state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands. “Recipient”, as provided in 2 CFR 200, means a non-Federal entity that receives a Federal award directly from a Federal awarding agency to carry out an activity under a Federal program, or an Indian tribal government that chooses to act as a recipient rather than as a subrecipient. “Subrecipient” refers to a non-Federal entity that receives a subaward from a pass-through entity to carry out part of a Federal program; but does not include an individual that is a beneficiary of such program. A subrecipient may also be a recipient of other Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency. The term “Indian tribal government” is defined in Section 102 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. 5122(6), as the governing body of any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, village, or community that the Secretary of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of 1994. In addition, the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (Pub. L. 113-2) amended the Stafford Act to allow the Chief Executive of a federally recognized Indian tribe to make a direct request to the President of the United States for a major disaster or emergency declaration codified under 42 U.S.C. 5170(b).”
Comments may be submitted as indicated in the
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, QDAM, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comment and information.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received a written request from Dr. John S. Lambert (applicant) to renew an enhancement of survival permit TE 075424 (permit) for an existing safe harbor agreement (SHA) without change. The Service is making the proposed permit renewal, which includes the applicant's proposed updated SHA as well as the Service's draft environmental action statement (EAS), available for public review and comment.
We must receive your written comments on or before March 28, 2022.
•
•
John Tupy, by telephone at 601-321-1133, or via email at
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received a written request from John S. Lambert (applicant) to renew an existing enhancement of survival permit (TE 075424) (permit) for an additional 20 years beyond its current expiration date. The Service and the applicant have mutually agreed that no changes or amendments would be made to the safe harbor agreement (SHA). The existing permit associated with the SHA was issued on May 27, 2005, under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the take of fish and wildlife species listed as endangered or threatened under section 4 of the ESA. Under the ESA, the term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct (16 U.S.C. 1532(19)). The term “harm,” as defined in our regulations, includes significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). The term “harass” is defined in our regulations as an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife through annoyance to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (50 CFR 17.3). Under specified circumstances, however, we may issue permits that authorize take of federally listed species, provided the take is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing permits for threatened species are at 50 CFR 17.32.
Under a safe harbor agreement, participating landowners voluntarily undertake management activities on their property to enhance, restore, or maintain habitat benefiting species listed under the ESA. SHAs and the subsequent permits issued to participating landowners pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA encourage private and other non-Federal property owners to implement conservation actions for federally listed species. In exchange for voluntarily undertaking management activities, the landowners are assured that they will not be subjected to increased property-use restrictions resulting from their efforts to either attract listed species to their property or to increase the numbers or distribution of listed species already on their property. Landowners may make lawful use of their enrolled property during the permit term and may incidentally take the listed species named on the permit. Application requirements and issuance criteria for permits associated with SHAs are found in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22(c) and 17.32(c). As provided for in the Service's final Safe Harbor Policy (64 FR 32717; June 17, 1999), safe harbor agreements provide assurances that allow the property owner to alter or modify their enrolled property, even if such alteration or modification results in the incidental take of a listed species, to such an extent that the property is returned back to the originally agreed-upon baseline conditions. Private landowners may voluntarily terminate a safe harbor agreement at any time and in accordance with 50 CFR 13.26. If this occurs, landowners must relinquish the associated enhancement of survival permit pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA.
The private lands owned by the applicant and enrolled under the existing SHA and valid permit consist of 754 ac known as the Martin Branch Woodlands, in Covington County, Mississippi. The baseline established in 2005 was 57.3 ac of occupied gopher tortoise habitat and 0 ac of occupied red-cockaded woodpecker habitat. Martin Branch Woodlands has been managed and enhanced above baseline since entering the SHA. The renewal of the SHA contains no changes or amendments to the SHA. Under the SHA, the applicant will continue to undertake the following habitat maintenance and enhancement actions intended to benefit the gopher tortoise on the enrolled property: (1) Avoid planting or regenerating pine trees in dense stands with more than 400 surviving seedlings per acre; (2) mark burrows prior to the operation of vehicular mechanical equipment used to thin and harvest timber for habitat restoration; and (3) avoid running over tortoises or collapsing burrows and burying tortoises with heavy equipment during timber harvest and related activities.
The applicant's voluntary forest and habitat management plan for the enrolled property will restore, enhance, and increase habitat for the gopher tortoise in all pine uplands with soils suitable for the species on about 480 ac. Three basic habitat conditions or measures will be attained by this plan: (1) Maintenance of basal areas at or below 70 ft
The landowner has met the requirements set forth in the SHA and is currently in compliance with the conditions set forth in the permit. All monitoring and reporting are up to date.
Under comment and review is the request to renew the existing valid permit associated with the SHA that was issued May 27, 2005, under ESA, and is in effect until December 31, 2025. The applicant is requesting to extend the permit period for an additional 20 years beyond its current expiration date.
The renewal of the permit is a Federal action that triggers the need for compliance with NEPA. The Service has made a preliminary determination that the proposed permit renewal is eligible for categorical exclusion under NEPA, based on the following criteria: (1) Implementation of the SHA would result in minor or negligible adverse effects on federally listed, proposed, and candidate species and their habitats; (2) implementation of the SHA would result in minor or negligible adverse effects on other environmental values or resources; and (3) impacts of the SHA, considered together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable similarly situated projects, would not result, over time, in cumulative adverse effects to environmental values or resources that would be considered significant. To make this determination, we used our EAS and low-effect screening form, which are also available for public review.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made available to the public. While you may request that we withhold your personal identifying information, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) (16 U.S.C. 1539(c)) of the ESA and NEPA regulations at 40 CFR 1506.6 and 43 CFR 46.305.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) are proposing to renew an information collection.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 28, 2022.
Send written comments on this information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget's Desk Officer for the Department of the Interior by email at
To request additional information about this ICR, contact Jake Coury, Program Analyst, telephone: (505) 239-9068. You may also view the ICR at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we provide the general public and other Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on new, proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand our information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format.
A
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed ICR that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that a complaint was filed with the U.S. International Trade Commission on January 19, 2022, under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, on behalf of Apple Inc. of Cupertino, California. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain cellular base station communication equipment, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,882,282 (“the '282 patent”); U.S. Patent No. 10,263,340 (“the '340 patent”); and U.S. Patent 9,667,290 (“the '290 patent”). The complaint further alleges that an industry in the United States exists as required by the applicable Federal Statute.
The complainants request that the Commission institute an investigation and, after the investigation, issue a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order.
The complaint, except for any confidential information contained therein, may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
Pathenia M. Proctor, Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, telephone (202) 205-2560.
(1) Pursuant to subsection (b) of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, an investigation be instituted to determine whether there is a violation of subsection (a)(1)(B) of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, or the sale within the United States after importation of certain products identified in paragraph (2) by reason of infringement of one or more of claims 1-3, 11, and 12 of the '282 patent; claims 1-4, 6-10, 18, 19, and 21 of the '340 patent; and claims 1-6, 13, and 14 of the '290 patent, and whether an industry in the United States exists as required by subsection (a)(2) of section 337;
(2) Pursuant to section 210.10(b)(1) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.10(b)(1), the plain language description of the accused products or category of accused products, which defines the scope of the investigation, is “cellular base station communication equipment, specifically mmWave antenna radio units and radio baseband units, components thereof, and products containing same”;
(3) Pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(b)(l), 19 CFR 210.50(b)(1), the presiding administrative law judge shall take evidence or other information and hear arguments from the parties or other interested persons with respect to the public interest in this investigation, as appropriate, and provide the Commission with findings of fact and a recommended determination on this issue, which shall be limited to the statutory public interest factors set forth in 19 U.S.C. l337(d)(l), (f)(1), (g)(1);
(4) For the purpose of the investigation so instituted, the following are hereby named as parties upon which this notice of investigation shall be served:
(a) The complainants are: Apple Inc., One Apple Park Way, Cupertino, CA 95014.
(b) The respondent is the following entity alleged to be in violation of section 337, and is the party upon which the complaint is to be served: Ericsson AB, Torshamnsgatan 23, Kista, 16480 Stockholm, Sweden.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista, SE-164 83, Stockholm, Sweden.
Ericsson Inc., 6300 Legacy Drive, Plano, TX 75024.
(c) The Office of Unfair Import Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Suite 401, Washington, DC 20436; and
(5) For the investigation so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, U.S. International Trade Commission, shall designate the presiding Administrative Law Judge.
Responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation must be submitted by the named respondent in accordance with section 210.13 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 19 CFR 210.13. Pursuant to 19 CFR 201.16(e) and 210.13(a), as amended in 85 FR 15798 (March 19, 2020), such responses will be considered by the Commission if received not later than 20 days after the date of service by the complainants of the complaint and the notice of investigation. Extensions of time for submitting responses to the complaint and the notice of investigation will not be granted unless good cause therefor is shown.
Failure of a/the respondent to file a timely response to each allegation in the complaint and in this notice may be deemed to constitute a waiver of the right to appear and contest the allegations of the complaint and this notice, and to authorize the administrative law judge and the Commission, without further notice to the respondent, to find the facts to be as alleged in the complaint and this notice and to enter an initial determination and a final determination containing such findings, and may result in the issuance of an exclusion order or a cease and desist order or both directed against the respondent.
By order of the Commission.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
S&B Pharma LLC has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 26, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before April 26, 2022.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on December 24, 2021, S&B Pharma LLC, 405 South Motor Avenue, Azusa, California 91702, 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 for formulation and analytical development purposes or for sale to its customers. In reference to dug codes 7360 (Marihuana), and 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to bulk manufacture these drugs as synthetic. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals has applied to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of basic class(es) of controlled substance(s). Refer to Supplemental Information listed below for further drug information.
Registered bulk manufacturers of the affected basic class(es), and applicants therefore, may file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 26, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before April 26, 2022.
DEA 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 August 27, 2021, Cedarburg Pharmaceuticals, 870 Badger Circle, Grafton, Wisconsin 53024-0000, 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. In reference to the drug code 7370 (Tetrahydrocannabinols), the company plans to bulk manufacture as synthetic. No other activity for this drug code is authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Synthcon 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 file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before April 26, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before April 26, 2022.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33(a), this is notice that on December 2, 2021,
The company plans to bulk manufacture the listed controlled substances as analytical materials, proficiency test materials, and academic research materials for distribution to its customers. No other activities for these drug codes are authorized for this registration.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Justice.
Notice of application.
Lyndra Therapeutics 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 file written comments on or objections to the issuance of the proposed registration on or before March 28, 2022. Such persons may also file a written request for a hearing on the application on or before March 28, 2022.
Written comments should be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attention: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing must be sent to: Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Administrator, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152. All requests for a hearing should also be sent to: (1) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: Hearing Clerk/OALJ, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152; and (2) Drug Enforcement Administration, Attn: DEA Federal Register Representative/DPW, 8701 Morrissette Drive, Springfield, Virginia 22152.
In accordance with 21 CFR 1301.34(a), this is notice that on January 13, 2022, Lyndra Therapeutics, 65 Grove Street, Suite 301, Watertown, Massachusetts 02472, applied to be registered as an importer of the following basic class(es) of controlled substance(s):
The company plans to develop the formulation and process, and then manufacture the finished oral dosage form for use in preclinical and human clinical trials and analysis. 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.
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 March 28, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and
Mara Blumenthal by telephone at 202-693-8538, or by email at
The Black Lung Benefits Act (BLBA), (30 U.S.C. 901
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.
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.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employment and Training Administration (ETA)-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 March 28, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Mara Blumenthal by telephone at 202-693-8538, or by email at
This information collection is authorized by Section 303(a)(6) of the Social Security Act. The purpose of this Information Collection Request is for state agencies to electronically submit detailed cost data in a structured format. The information specifies salary and benefit rates, workloads, processing times, and non-personal services dollars, which are used to inform ETA's administrative funding allocation process. 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.
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.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employment and Training Administration (ETA)-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 March 28, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Mara Blumenthal by telephone at 202-693-8538, or by email at
Sections 1201 and 1202(a) of the SSA authorize this information collection. Section 1201 of the Social Security Act (SSA) provides for advances to states from the Federal Unemployment Account (FUA). The law further sets out specific requirements to be met by a state requesting an advance. The purpose of this Information Collection Request is to maintain a process for state governors for requesting advances and repaying advances through their correspondence with the Secretary of Labor. 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.
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.
Bureau of International Labor Affairs, Department of Labor.
Notice of closed meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended), notice is hereby given of a meeting of the President's Committee on the International Labor Organization (ILO).
April 1, 2022; 2:00 p.m.; U.S. Department of Labor, Secretary's Conference Room, Room S-2508, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. Should the situation with COVID-19 require it, alternative arrangements will be made.
Thea Mei Lee, Deputy Undersecretary, Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. Department of Labor, (202) 693-4777,
The President's Committee on the ILO consists of the Secretaries of Labor (chair), State and Commerce, the Assistants to the President for National Security Affairs and Economic Policy, and the Presidents of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) and the U.S. Council for International Business. Under its Charter, the Committee's objective is “to formulate and coordinate United States policy towards the International Labor Organization in order to promote continued reform and progress in that organization.” The Committee considers all matters relating to United States participation in the ILO.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employment and Training Administration (ETA)-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 March 28, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Mara Blumenthal by telephone at 202-693-8538, or by email at
5 U.S.C. 8501,
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.
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.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA)-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 March 28, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) if the information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (4) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (5) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Nora Hernandez by telephone at 202-693-8633, or by email at
Title 30 CFR 56.3203(a), 57.3203(a), and 75.204(a) require: (1) That mine operators obtain a certification from the manufacturer that roof and rock bolts and accessories are manufactured and tested in accordance with the applicable ASTM specifications, and (2) that the manufacturer's certification is made available to an authorized representative of the Secretary. 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.
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.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of Centennial Challenges Watts on the Moon Challenge Phase 2.
Phase 2 of the Watts on the Moon Challenge is open, and teams that wish to compete may now register. NASA seeks to stimulate research and technology solutions to support future missions and inspire new national aerospace capabilities through public prize competitions called Centennial Challenges. The Watts on the Moon Challenge is one such competition. Centennial Challenges are managed at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Alabama and are part of the Prizes, Challenges, and Crowdsourcing program within NASA's Space Technology Mission Directorate at the agency's Headquarters in Washington. Phase 2 of the Watts on the Moon Challenge seeks to attract innovative engineering approaches to integrating power transmission and energy storage in order to enable missions operating in the extreme cold vacuum of the lunar surface. Phase 2 of the Watts on the Moon Challenge is a prize competition with a total prize purse of $4,500,000 USD, (four and a half million United States dollars) to be awarded to competitor teams that build and successfully demonstrate prototypes of novel technologies. Successful demonstrations from this challenge will complement ongoing NASA investments in lunar surface power generation. NASA is funding the prize purse and administration of the challenge competition. Any eligible individual or organization may participate in Phase 2. teams are not required to have participated in Phase 1.
Phase 2 registration opens February 23, 2022, and will remain open until June 15, 2022. No further requests for registration will be accepted after this date. Other important dates, including deadlines for key deliverables from the teams, are listed on the Challenge website:
Phase 2 of the Watts on the Moon Challenge will be conducted virtually, with competitor teams developing and submitting their concept proposals and building their prototypes from their own locations. Eligible finalist will test their solutions at a NASA facility as described in the Official Rules document.
Questions and comments regarding the challenge should be addressed to Denise Morris, Centennial Challenges Deputy Program Manager, NASA Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL 35812. Phone number 256-544-3989 and Email address:
To register or for additional information regarding the Watts on the Moon Challenge, please visit:
For Watts on the Moon Phase 2, NASA is seeking solutions that:
1. Draw power from an intermittent NASA power source and deliver power to a continuous NASA load bank;
2. Operate in simulated lunar temperatures and vacuum;
3. Operate continuously without any additional power generation;
4. Demonstrate a capability to deliver power over a distance of 3 km; and
5. Optimize total system mass and total system efficiency.
The Watts on the Moon Challenge Phase 2 total prize purse is $4,500,000 USD (four and a half million United States dollars) to be awarded across Phase 2 of this competition. There will be three (3) competition levels in Phase 2, with a prize award after each of the three (3) levels. The winners will be determined by a Judging Panel.
• Level 1—Up to seven (7) winning teams with a total prize purse of $1,400,000.
• Level 2—Up to four (4) winning teams with a total prize purse of 1,600,000.
• Level 3—Up to two (2) winning teams with a total prize purse of $1,500,000.
Teams must meet the eligibility requirements for the NASA prize in order to receive a prize from NASA.
To be eligible to win a prize, competitors must register and comply with all requirements in the Official Rules. Eligibility requirements include:
• Individuals must be U.S. citizens or permanent residents of the United States and be 18 years of age or older.
• Organizations must be an entity incorporated in and maintaining a primary place of business in the United States.
• Teams must be comprised of otherwise eligible individuals or organizations and led by an otherwise eligible individual or organization.
Interested teams should refer to the official Challenge website (
The complete official rules for the Watts on the Moon Challenge, can be found at:
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314, 703-292-7556, or send email to
NSF 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 Science and Technology Centers (STC): Integrative Partnerships Program supports innovation in the integrative conduct of research, education and knowledge transfer. Science and Technology Centers build intellectual and physical infrastructure within and between disciplines, weaving together knowledge creation, knowledge integration, and knowledge transfer. STCs conduct world-class research through partnerships of academic institutions, national laboratories, industrial organizations, and/or other public/private entities. New knowledge thus created is meaningfully linked to society.
STCs enable and foster excellent education, integrate research and education, and create bonds between learning and inquiry so that discovery and creativity more fully support the learning process. STCs capitalize on diversity through participation in center activities and demonstrate leadership in the involvement of groups underrepresented in science and engineering.
Centers selected will be required to submit annual reports on progress and plans, which will be used as a basis for performance review and determining the level of continued funding. To support this review and the management of a Center, STCs will be required to develop a set of management and performance indicators for submission annually to NSF via an NSF evaluation technical assistance contractor. These indicators are both quantitative and descriptive and may include, for example, the characteristics of center personnel and students; sources of financial support and in-kind support; expenditures by operational component; characteristics of industrial and/or other sector participation; research activities; education activities; knowledge transfer activities; patents, licenses; publications; degrees granted to students involved in Center activities; descriptions of significant advances and other outcomes of the STC effort. Part of this reporting will take the form of a database which will be owned by the institution and eventually made available to an evaluation contractor. This database will capture specific information to demonstrate progress towards achieving the goals of the program. Such reporting requirements will be included in the cooperative agreement which is binding between the academic institution and the NSF.
Each Center's annual report will address the following categories of activities: (1) Research, (2) education, (3) knowledge transfer, (4) partnerships, (5) diversity, (6) management and (7) budget issues.
For each of the categories the report will describe overall objectives for the year, problems the Center has encountered in making progress towards goals, anticipated problems in the following year, and specific outputs and outcomes.
National Science Foundation.
Submission for OMB review; comment request.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) has submitted the following information collection requirement to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This is the second notice for public comment; the first was published in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314, 703-292-7556, or send email to
NSF 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 awardee is required to notify NSF of: (1) Any finding/determination regarding the PI or any co-PI that demonstrates a violation of awardee policies or codes of conduct, statutes, regulations, or executive orders relating to sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, or sexual assault; and/or (2) if the PI or any co-PI is placed on administrative leave or if any administrative action has been imposed on the PI or any co-PI by the awardee relating to any finding/determination or an investigation of an alleged violation of awardee policies or codes of conduct, statutes, regulations, or executive orders relating to sexual harassment, other forms of harassment, or sexual assault. Such notification must be submitted by the Authorized Organizational Representative (AOR) or designee to NSF's Office of Equity and Civil Rights at:
• NSF Award Number;
• Name of PI or co-PI being reported;
•
• Description of the finding/determination and action(s) taken, if any; and
• Reason(s) for, and conditions of, placement of the PI or any co-PI on administrative leave or imposition of administrative action.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUREG; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing NUREG-1530, Revision 1, “Reassessment of NRC's Dollar Per Person-Rem Conversion Factor Policy.” This revision to NUREG-1530 updates the dollar per person-rem conversion factor and establishes a method for keeping this factor up-to-date. The NRC uses the dollar per person-rem conversion factor in cost-benefit analyses to determine the monetary valuation of the consequences associated with radiological exposure and establishes this factor by multiplying a value of a statistical life (VSL) coefficient by a cancer mortality risk coefficient.
NUREG-1530, Revison 1 is available on February 25, 2022.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2015-0063 when contacting the NRC about the availability if information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Pamela Noto, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6795, email:
Revision 1 to NUREG-1530 (ADAMS Accession No. ML22053A025) updates the dollar per person-rem conversion factor and establishes a method for keeping this factor up-to-date. The NRC applies the dollar per person-rem conversion factor from NUREG-1530 in a variety of regulatory applications that require the determination of the monetary valuation of the consequences associated with radiological exposure. This factor is established by multiplying a VSL coefficient by a nominal risk coefficient.
In 2009, the NRC staff initiated research on the bases for the determination of the VSL and performed outreach with other Federal agencies on their values and use. The VSL is not a value placed on human life, but a value that society would be willing to pay for reducing health risk. The concept of a VSL is used throughout the Federal government to monetize the health benefits of a safety regulation. Subsequently in 2011 the magnitude of the societal effects of the accident at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant in Japan led the NRC to evaluate how its regulatory framework considers offsite property damage and the associated economic consequences that could be caused by a significant radiological release from an NRC-licensed facility.
Following this evaluation, the NRC staff requested Commission approval in SECY-12-0110, “Consideration of Economic Consequences within the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Regulatory Framework,” dated August 14, 2012 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML12173A478) to continue work on updating the 1995 dollar per person-rem conversion factor in NUREG-1530 (ADAMS Accession No. ML063470485). The 1995 dollar per person-rem value was set at $2,000. This number resulted from the multiplication of a VSL of $3 million by a risk coefficient for stochastic health effects of 7.3 × 10
This revision to NUREG-1530 makes five main changes. First, the revision to NUREG-1530 updates the dollar per person-rem conversion factor to $5,200 per person-rem. The value is based on the application of an updated best estimate VSL of $9.0 million and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) cancer mortality risk coefficient factor of 5.8 × 10
Second, the NUREG adopts low and high dollar per person-rem conversion factor estimates for use in sensitivity analyses. The NRC staff recommends varying the dollar per person-rem conversion factor by plus or minus 50 percent. This results in a range of conversion factors with a low value of $2,600 per person-rem and a high value of $7,800 per person-rem.
Third, this revision to NUREG-1530 indicates that the NRC staff will round to two significant figures instead of rounding to the nearest thousand dollar value. Historically, the NRC has rounded this number to the nearest thousand dollars for the purposes of dollar per person-rem estimates. Given the large uncertainties inherent in this approach, updates would have little to no impact on this value between periodic baseline reviews.
Fourth, this revision establishes a methodology for keeping the dollar per person-rem conversion factor up-to-date. An example of the NRC's methodology to update the dollar per person-rem conversion factor is provided in the NUREG. The NUREG also provides procedures for re-baselining the dollar per person-rem conversion factor.
Finally, this revision provides guidance to the NRC staff on when to use a higher dollar per person-rem factor in rare accident sequences with high dose or dose rates for a portion of the population.
The NRC staff held a Category 3 public meeting on April 2, 2015, to discuss the update to NUREG-1530. The NRC presentation can be found in ADAMS under Accession No. ML15086A112, and the meeting summary under Accession No. ML15098A649. In response to this meeting, the Nuclear Energy Institute submitted a letter to the NRC, which provided feedback on the proposed update. This letter and the associated attachment can be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML15126A489 and ML15126A498, respectively. The NRC staff published the draft NUREG-1530, Revision 1 in the
The NRC's issuance and use of this report do not constitute backfitting as that term is defined in Section 50.109 of title 10 of the
This NUREG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Regulatory guide; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a new Regulatory Guide (RG) 2.8 (Revision 0), Guidance for Implementation of 10 CFR 50.59, “Changes, Tests and Experiments,” at Non-Power Production or Utilization Facilities. This RG describes an approach that is acceptable to the NRC staff to meet the regulatory requirements, “Changes, tests and experiments,” at a non-power production and utilization facility, as defined in RG 2.8.
Revision 0 to RG 2.8 is available on February 25, 2022.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2021-0194 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:
•
•
•
Revision 0 to RG 2.8 and the regulatory analysis may be found in ADAMS under Accession Nos. ML22020A292 and ML21243A104, respectively.
Regulatory guides are not copyrighted, and NRC approval is not required to reproduce them.
Michael Eudy, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone: 301-415-3104, email:
The NRC is issuing a new guide in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe and make available to the public information regarding methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, techniques that the NRC staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and data that the NRC staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
RG 2.8 was issued with a temporary identification of Draft Regulatory Guide, DG-DG-2007 (ADAMS Accession No. ML21243A103).
The NRC published a notice of the availability of DG-2007 in the
This RG is a rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801-808). However, the Office of Management and Budget has not found it to be a major rule as defined in the Congressional Review Act.
The NRC staff may use this RG as a reference in its regulatory processes, such as licensing, inspection, or enforcement. However, the NRC staff does not intend to use the guidance in this RG to support NRC staff actions in a manner that would constitute backfitting as that term is defined in Section 50.109 of title 10 of the
A member of the public may, at any time, submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing RGs or for the development of new RGs. Suggestions can be submitted on the NRC's public
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Exemption; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an exemption in response to a request dated November 19, 2021, from Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI), for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 or Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC), from the requirement to investigate, trace, and report to the NRC any low-level radioactive waste shipment or part of a shipment for which acknowledgement of receipt is not received by HDI within 20 days after transfer from IPEC. HDI requested that this time period be extended from 20 to 45 days. HDI requested this change to avoid the administrative burden of investigating, tracing, and reporting on shipments that continue to be under requisite controls.
The exemption was issued on February 14, 2022.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0021 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:
•
•
•
Zahira Cruz Perez, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3808, email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Indian Point Nuclear Generating Station Units 1, 2, and 3 or Indian Point Energy Center (IPEC), is licensed to Holtec Decommissioning International, LLC (HDI) under Title 10 of the
HDI is currently decommissioning the IPEC facility. Inherent to the decommissioning process, large volumes of low-level radioactive waste are generated. This low-level radioactive waste requires processing and disposal or disposal without processing, as appropriate. To this end, HDI will transport, by truck or by mixed mode shipments like a combination of truck and rail, low-level radioactive waste from IPEC to locations such as the waste disposal facility operated by Waste Control Specialists (WCS) in Andrews, Texas. The estimated license termination date for IPEC is 2062, and the estimated date for partial site release, for the entire site except for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), is 2033. The site restoration activities will be completed by 2062. HDI projects that all decommissioning activities, except for decommissioning the ISFSI, will be completed by early 2032, and expects to complete transfer of spent fuel to the ISFSI by 2024.
By letter dated November 19, 2021 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System [ADAMS] Accession No. ML21323A070), as supplemented on February 3, 2022 (ADAMS Accession No. ML22034A603), HDI requested an exemption from certain requirements 10 CFR part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” Appendix G, “Requirements for Transfers of Low-Level Radioactive Waste Intended for Disposal at Licensed Land Disposal Facilities and Manifests,” Section III.E for shipments of low-level radioactive waste from IPEC. As indicated by HDI in its request, this regulation requires HDI to investigate, trace, and report to the NRC any low-level radioactive waste shipment or part of a shipment for which acknowledgement of receipt is not received by HDI within 20 days after transfer. HDI requested that this time
The NRC's regulations at 10 CFR 20.2301, “Applications for exemptions,” allow the Commission to grant exemptions from the requirements of the regulations in 10 CFR part 20 if it determines the exemption is authorized by law and would not result in undue hazard to life or property.
The requested exemption from 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G, Section III.E would extend the receipt acknowledgment period from 20 days to 45 days before HDI would have to investigate, trace, and report on the status of a mixed mode, low-level radioactive waste shipment being transported from IPEC to a licensed low-level radioactive waste processing or land disposal facility. As stated above, 10 CFR Section 20.2301 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 20 when, in part, the exemptions are authorized by law. The NRC determined that the requested exemption is permissible under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and other regulatory requirements. Therefore, the NRC finds that the requested exemption is authorized by law.
As stated in Enclosure 1 to SECY-18-0055, “Proposed Rule: Regulatory Improvements for Production and Utilization Facilities Transitioning to Decommissioning” (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML18012A019), the underlying purpose of 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G, Section III.E is to require licensees to investigate, trace, and report on low-level radioactive waste shipments that have not reached their destination, as scheduled, for unknown reasons.
In support of its exemption request, HDI identified the NRC staff statement in Enclosure 1 to SECY-18-0055 that “operating experience indicates that, while the 20-day receipt notification window is adequate for waste shipments by truck, other modes of shipment such as rail, barge, or mixed-mode shipments, such as combinations of truck and rail, barge and rail, and barge and truck shipments, may take more than 20 days to reach their destination due to delays in the route that are outside the shipper's control (
HDI stated that in its experience at IPEC thus far in 2021, numerous rail shipments can take longer than 20 days. According to HDI, exceeding the 20-day requirement results in the administrative burden of investigating and reporting.
HDI stated in the February 3, 2022 supplemental letter in response to NRC staff request for additional information, that in letters dated November 19, 2021, December 21, 2021, and January 13, 2022 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML21323A108, ML21355A211, and ML22013A706, respectively), HDI reported to the NRC the results of investigations performed to shipments and transport of low-level radioactive waste shipped via truck from IPEC to Newton, Connecticut and transferred to rail to the WCS disposal facility in Andrews, Texas. The total transport time for these low-level radioactive waste shipments were 21-22 days. HDI stated that these trace investigations identified that there were no significant or unusual transport delays encountered.
HDI explained that because there is not direct rail access at IPEC, the disposal of IPEC low-level radioactive waste utilizes road shipments to intermodal transfer terminals for transfer of containers onto rail as the primary transport method. In the future, HDI indicated that it may utilize other methods of transport such as barge. According to HDI, these truck-to-rail shipments may sit on the rail spur at a remote railyard (
Additionally, as indicated in the exemption request, for truck and rail shipments from IPEC, HDI will use a tracking system that allows daily monitoring of a shipment's progress to its destination, and IPEC shipping procedures prescribe the expectations for tracking and communications during transit. The NRC staff notes that this will allow for monitoring the progress of shipments on a daily basis, if needed, in lieu of the 20-day requirement, and will initiate an investigation as provided for by 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G, Section III.E after 45 days. In addition, in its supplemental letter, HDI stated that it is contracted with WCS for transportation and disposal of all radioactive waste at IPEC, and that the agreement includes a WCS Shipping Services individual dedicated for onsite support to ensure packaging and shipment arrangements are made in accordance with state and federal guidelines. The online tracking portal is part of the service provided by WCS. Daily reports of railcar locations are sent to the HDI Waste Manager at IPEC with reporting starting the day the shipment leaves the IPEC.
Because of this oversight and the ability to monitor low-level radioactive waste shipments throughout the entire journey from IPEC to a disposal or processing facility, the staff concludes that it is unlikely that a shipment could be lost, misdirected, or diverted without the knowledge of the carrier or HDI and that, therefore, there is no potential health or safety concern presented by the requested exemption. Furthermore, by extending the time for receipt acknowledgment to 45 days before requiring investigations, tracing, and reporting, a reasonable upper limit on shipment duration is maintained in the event that a breakdown of normal tracking systems were to occur.
Based on the above, the NRC staff finds that the requested exemption would not result in undue hazard to life or property.
With respect to compliance with section 102(2) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), the NRC staff has determined that the proposed action, the approval of the HDI exemption request, is within the scope of the categorical exclusion at 10 CFR Section 51.22(c)(25). The proposed granting of the exemption from certain requirements of the NRC's regulations at 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G, Section III.E, would: (i) Present no significant hazards consideration; (ii) not result in a significant change in the types or significant increase in the amounts of
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR Section 20.2301, the exemption is authorized by law and will not result in undue hazard to life or property. Therefore, effective immediately, the Commission hereby grants HDI an exemption from 10 CFR part 20, Appendix G, Section III.E, to extend the receipt of notification period from 20 days to 45 days after transfer for rail or mixed-mode shipments of low-level radioactive waste from IPEC to a licensed land disposal or processing facility.
Dated: February 14, 2022.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of February 21, 28, March 7, 14, 21, 28, April 4, 2022.
Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
Public.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 28, 2022.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 7, 2022.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 14, 2022.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 21, 2022.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 28, 2022.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of April 4, 2022.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
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 (
Members of the public may request to receive this information 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
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.
Office of Personnel Management.
60-Day notice and request for comments
Healthcare and Insurance, Office of Personnel Management (OPM) offers the general public and other federal agencies the opportunity to comment on the administration of the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS®)
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until April 26, 2022. This process is conducted in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.1.
You may submit comments by the following method:
•
A copy of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by contacting the Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Michael Kaszynski, Senior Policy Analyst at
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. L. 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) as amended by the Clinger-Cohen Act (Pub. L. 104-106), OPM is soliciting comments for this collection. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
OPM uses the CAHPS results as part of the FEHB Plan Performance Assessment (PPA). The PPA enables a consistent, objective evaluation of carrier performance and also provides more transparency for enrollees. This assessment uses a discrete set of quantifiable measures to examine key aspects of performance in the areas of clinical quality, customer service and resource use. Eight CAHPS measures are part of this discrete set of quantifiable measures.
Taken together with more traditional assessments of contract administration, these measures help ensure that enrollees receive high quality affordable healthcare and a positive customer experience. The PPA is linked to carrier profit and adjustment factors. FEHB contracts include language to incorporate the PPA as a determinant of the Service Charge or Performance Adjustment.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The principal purpose of the proposed amendments is for ICE Clear Europe to amend the rate of return paid by the Clearing House on Euro (“EUR”) and Pound Sterling (“GBP”) cash margin and Guaranty Fund deposits. The proposed amendments do not involve any changes to the ICE Clear Europe Clearing Rules or Procedures.
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
(a) The purpose of the proposed rule changes is for ICE Clear Europe to [sic] its rate of return paid on EUR and GBP cash margin and Guaranty Fund deposits applicable to all Clearing Members for house and customer accounts. ICE Clear Europe pays a rate of return on cash deposited by Clearing
(b) ICE Clear Europe is proposing to increase the spread for EUR balances from 15 bps to 25 bps and reduce the spread for GBP balances from 15 bps to 12 bps. The spread for USD balances would remain unchanged at 15 bps. ICE Clear Europe has determined that in light of financial market conditions, including repo rates available in the market, the current spread levels have provided an incentive for Clearing Members to provide EUR balances as compared to GBP balances, including by using EUR balances to cover margin obligations denominated in GBP. Such a practice by Clearing Members could result in reduced available liquidity for the Clearing House in GBP. To avoid such potential concerns, ICE Clear Europe believes it is appropriate to reduce the IDR on EUR balances (through a higher spread) while comparatively increasing the IDR on GBP balances (through a lower spread). ICE Clear Europe believes the change would better align the relative costs and benefits of using EUR and GBP to cover margin and Guaranty Fund obligations and thereby improve Clearing House liquidity management.
ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with the requirements of the Act, including Section 17A of the Act
The proposed amendments are also consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Act
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Act. Although ICE Clear Europe is revising certain spreads applied to the IDR, as set forth herein, it believes such changes are appropriate to align incentives for providing EUR and GBP deposits with general market conditions and to avoid potential reductions in GBP liquidity. Further, as discussed above, the changes to the spreads would be applied equally to all Clearing Members who deposit cash balances in EUR and GBP. ICE Clear Europe does not believe that the amendments would adversely affect the ability of such Clearing Members or other market participants generally to access clearing services. Further, ICE Clear Europe believes that the amendments would not otherwise affect competition among Clearing Members, adversely affect the market for clearing services or limit market participants' choices for obtaining clearing services. As a result, ICE Clear Europe does not believe the amendments would have any impact or impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any comments received with respect to 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.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-ICEEU-2022-005 and should be submitted on or before March 18, 2022.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to remove certain credits and amend the monthly Trading Permit
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV [sic] 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 to remove certain credits and amend the monthly Trading Permit fees (the “Proposed Access Fees”) for Exchange Members. The Exchange initially filed this proposal on July 1, 2021, with the proposed fee changes being immediately effective (“First Proposed Rule Change”).
The Exchange proposes to amend the Definitions section of the Fee Schedule to delete the definition and remove the credits applicable to the Monthly Volume Credit for Members. The Exchange established the Monthly Volume Credit in 2018
If a Member connects via both the MEO Interface and FIX Interface and qualifies for the Monthly Volume Credit based upon its Priority Customer volume, the greater Monthly Volume Credit shall apply to such Member. Prior to the First Proposed Rule Change, the Monthly Volume Credit was a single, once-per-month credit towards the aggregate monthly total of non-transaction fees assessable to a Member.
Beginning with the First Proposed Rule Change, the Exchange proposes to amend the Definitions section of the Fee Schedule to delete the definition and remove the Monthly Volume Credit. The Exchange established the Monthly Volume Credit when it first launched operations to attract order flow by lowering the initial fixed cost for Members. The Monthly Volume Credit has achieved its purpose and the Exchange believes it is appropriate to remove this credit. The Exchange believes that the Exchange's existing Priority Customer rebates and fees will continue to allow the Exchange to remain highly competitive and continue to attract order flow and maintain market share.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section (3)(b) of the Fee Schedule to remove the Trading Permit fee credit that is denoted in footnote “*” below the Trading Permit fee table. Prior to the First Proposed Rule Change, the Trading Permit fee credit was applicable to Members that connect via both the MEO and FIX Interfaces. Members who connect via both the MEO and FIX Interfaces are assessed the rates for both types of Trading Permits, but these Members received a $100 monthly credit towards the Trading Permit fees applicable to the MEO Interface prior to the First Proposed Rule Change. The Exchange proposes to remove the Trading Permit fee credit and delete footnote “*” from Section (3)(b) of the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange established the Trading Permit fee credit when it first launched operations to attract order flow and increase membership by lowering the costs for Members that connect via both the MEO Interface and FIX Interface. The Trading Permit fee credit has achieved its purpose and the Exchange now believes that it is appropriate to remove this credit in light of the current operating conditions and membership population on the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section (3)(b) of the Fee Schedule to increase the amount of the monthly Trading Permit fees. The Exchange issues Trading Permits to Members who are either Electronic Exchange Members
(i) If its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 1 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume up to 0.30%, $250;
(ii) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 2 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.30% up to 0.60%, $350; and
(iii) if its volume falls with the parameters of Tier 3 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.60%, $450.
Prior to the First Proposed Rule Change, each Member who connected to the System via the MEO Interface was assessed the following monthly Trading Permit fees:
(i) If its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 1 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume up to 0.30%, $300;
(ii) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 2 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.30% up to 0.60%, $400; and
(iii) if its volume falls with the parameters of Tier 3 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.60%, $500.
(i) If its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 1 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, $500;
(ii) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 2 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, $1,000; and
(iii) if its volume falls with the parameters of Tier 3 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, $1,500.
Each Member who connects to the System via the MEO Interface is assessed the following monthly Trading Permit fees:
(i) If its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 1 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, $2,500;
(ii) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 2 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, $4,000; and
(iii) if its volume falls with the parameters of Tier 3 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, $6,000.
Members who use the MEO Interface may also connect to the System through the FIX Interface as well, and vice versa. The Exchange notes that the Trading Permit fees for Members who connect through the MEO Interface are higher than the Trading Permit fees for Members who connect through the FIX Interface, since the FIX Interface utilizes less capacity and resources of the Exchange. The MEO Interface offers lower latency and higher throughput, which utilizes greater capacity and resources of the Exchange. The FIX Interface offers lower bandwidth requirements and an industry-wide uniform message format. Both EEMs and Market Makers may connect to the Exchange using either interface.
Trading Permits grant access to the Exchange, thus providing the ability to submit orders and trade on the Exchange, in the manner defined in the relevant Trading Permit. Without a Trading Permit, a Member cannot directly trade on the Exchange. Therefore, a Trading Permit is a means to directly access the Exchange (which offers meaningful value), and the Exchange proposes to increase its monthly fees since it had not done so since the fees were first adopted in 2018
As illustrated by the table below, the Exchange notes that the proposed fees for the Exchange's Trading Permits are in line with, or cheaper than, the similar trading permits and access fees for similar membership fees charged by other options exchanges. The below table also illustrates how the Exchange has historically undercharged for access via Trading Permits as compared to other options exchanges. The Exchange believes other exchanges' access and trading permit fees are useful examples of alternative approaches to providing and charging for access and provides the below table for comparison purposes only to show how the Exchange's proposed fees compare to fees currently charged by other options exchanges for similar access.
The proposed fees are immediately effective.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes its proposal to remove the Monthly Volume Credit is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all market participants will no longer be offered the ability to achieve the extra credits associated with the Monthly Volume Credit for submitting Priority Customer volume to the Exchange and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to remove the Monthly Volume Credit from the Fee Schedule for business and competitive reasons because, in order to attract order flow when the Exchange first launched operations, the Exchange established the Monthly Volume Credit to lower the initial fixed cost for Members. The Exchange now believes that it is appropriate to remove this credit in light of the current operating conditions and the current type and amount of Priority Customer volume executed on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the Exchange's Priority Customer rebates and fees will still allow the Exchange to remain highly competitive such that the Exchange should continue to attract order flow and maintain market share.
The Exchange believes its proposal to remove the Trading Permit fee credit for Members that connect via both the MEO Interface and FIX Interface is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all market participants will no longer be offered the ability to receive the credit and access to the Exchange is offered on terms that are not unfairly discriminatory. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to remove the Trading Permit fee credit for business and competitive reasons because, in order to attract order flow and membership after the Exchange first launched operations, the Exchange established the Trading Permit fee credit to lower the costs for Members that connect via both the MEO Interface and FIX Interface. The Exchange now believes that it is appropriate to remove this credit in light of the current operating conditions and membership on the Exchange.
On March 29, 2019, the Commission issued an Order disapproving a proposed fee change by the BOX Market LLC Options Facility to establish connectivity fees for its BOX Network (the “BOX Order”).
The Exchange believes that exchanges, in setting fees of all types, should meet very high standards of transparency to demonstrate why each new fee or fee amendment meets the requirements of the Act that fees are reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not create an undue burden on competition among market participants. The Exchange believes this high standard is especially important when an exchange imposes various access fees for market participants to access an exchange's marketplace. The Exchange deems the Trading Permit fees to be access fees. It records these fees as part of its “Access Fees” revenue in its financial statements.
In the Guidance, the Commission Staff stated that, “[a]s an initial step in assessing the reasonableness of a fee, staff considers whether the fee is constrained by significant competitive forces.”
The Guidance defines “supra-competitive profit” as “profits that exceed the profits that can be obtained in a competitive market.”
Based on this analysis, the Exchange believes the Proposed Access Fees are reasonable and do not result in a “supra-competitive”
The Proposed Access Fees are based on a cost-plus model. In determining the appropriate fees to charge, the Exchange considered its costs to provide the services associated with Trading Permits, using what it believes to be a conservative methodology (
To determine the Exchange's costs to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, the Exchange conducted an extensive cost review in which the Exchange analyzed nearly every expense item in the Exchange's general expense ledger to determine whether each such expense relates to the Proposed Access Fees, and, if such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports the access services. The sum of all such portions of expenses represents the total cost of the Exchange to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees.
The Exchange also provides detailed information regarding the Exchange's cost allocation methodology—namely, information that explains the Exchange's rationale for determining that it was reasonable to allocate certain expenses described in this filing
The internal cost analysis conducted by the Exchange is a proprietary process that is designed to make a fair and reasonable assessment of costs and resources allocated to support the provision of services associated with the proposed fees. The Exchange acknowledges that this assessment can only capture a moment in time and that costs and resource allocations may change. That is why the Exchange has historically, and on an ongoing basis, periodically revisits its costs and resource allocations to ensure it is appropriately allocating resources to properly provide services to the Exchange's constituents. Any requirement that an exchange should conduct a periodic re-evaluation on a set timeline of its cost justification and amend its fees accordingly should be established by the Commission holistically, applied to all exchanges and not just pending fee proposals such as this filing. In order to be fairly applied, such a mandate should be applied to existing market data fees as well.
In accordance with the Guidance, the Exchange has provided sufficient detail to support a finding that the proposed fees are consistent with the Exchange Act. The proposal includes a detailed description of the Exchange's costs and how the Exchange determined to allocate those costs related to the proposed fees. In fact, the detail and analysis provided in this proposed rule change far exceed the level of disclosure provided in other exchange fee filings that have not been suspended by the Commission during its 60-day suspension period. A Commission determination that it is unable to make a finding that this proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act would run contrary to the Commission Staff's treatment of other recent exchange fee proposals that have not been suspended and remain in effect today.
The Exchange notes that the Investors Exchange, Inc. (“IEX”) recently submitted a proposed rule change to adopt fees for two real-time proprietary market data feeds, TOPS and DEEP (“IEX Fee Proposal”). IEX previously provided its TOP and DEEP market data feeds for free and proposed to adopt modest, below market fees. The IEX Fee Proposal included a detailed subscriber data and cost-based analysis in compliance with the Guidance. Nonetheless, on December 30, 2021, the Commission suspended the IEX Fee Proposal and instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the IEX Fee Proposal.
The Commission received three comment letters on the IEX Order.
The Exchange believes exchanges, like all businesses, should be provided flexibility when allocating costs and resources they deem necessary to operate their business, including providing market data and access services. The Exchange notes that costs and resource allocations may vary from business to business and, likewise, costs and resource allocations may differ from exchange to exchange when it comes to providing market data and access services. It is a business decision that must be evaluated by each exchange as to how to allocate internal resources and what costs to incur internally or via third parties that it may deem necessary to support its business and its provision of market data and access services to market participants. An exchange's costs may also vary based on fees charged by third parties and periodic increases to those fees that may be outside of the control of an exchange.
To determine the Exchange's projected revenues associated with the Proposed Access Fees in the instant filing, the Exchange analyzed the number of Members currently utilizing Trading Permits, and, utilizing a recent monthly billing cycle representative of 2021 monthly revenue, extrapolated annualized revenue on a going-forward basis. The Exchange does not believe it is appropriate to factor into its analysis projected or estimated future revenue growth or decline for purposes of these calculations, given the uncertainty of such projections due to the continually changing access needs of market participants and potential increase in internal and third party expenses. The Exchange is presenting its revenue and expense associated with the Proposed Access Fees in this filing in a manner that is consistent with how the Exchange presents its revenue and expense in its Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statements. The Exchange's most recent Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statement is for 2020. However, since the revenue and expense associated with the Proposed Access Fees were not in place in 2020 or for the majority of 2021, the Exchange believes its 2020 Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statement is not representative of its current total annualized revenue and costs associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is more appropriate to analyze the Proposed Access Fees utilizing its 2021 revenue and costs, as described herein, which utilize the same presentation methodology as set forth in the Exchange's previously-issued Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statements. Based on this analysis, the Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees are fair and reasonable because they will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit when comparing the Exchange's total annual expense associated with providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees versus the total projected annual revenue the Exchange will collect for providing those services. The Exchange notes that this is the same justification process utilized by the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Emerald, in a filing recently noticed and not suspended by the Commission when MIAX Emerald adopted trading permit fees.
As outlined in more detail below, the Exchange projects that the final annualized expense for 2021 to provide the services associated with Trading Permits to be approximately $844,741 per annum or an average of $70,395 per month. The Exchange implemented the Proposed Access Fees on July 1, 2021 in the First Proposed Rule Change. For June 2021, prior to the Proposed Access Fees, Members and non-Members purchased a total of 48 Trading Permits, for which the Exchange charged a total of $15,500. This resulted in a loss of $54,895 for that month (a margin of -354%). For the month of November 2021, which includes the Proposed Access Fees, Members and non-Members purchased a total of 47 Trading Permits,
As mentioned above, the Exchange projects that the final annualized expense for 2021 to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to be approximately $844,741 per annum or an average of $70,395 per month and that these costs are expected to increase not only due to anticipated significant inflationary pressure, but also periodic fee increases by third parties.
The Exchange only has four primary sources of revenue and cost recovery mechanisms to fund all of its operations: Transaction fees, access fees (which includes the Proposed Access Fees), regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the Exchange must cover all of its expenses from these four primary sources of revenue and cost recovery mechanisms. Until recently, the Exchange has operated at a cumulative net annual loss since it launched operations in 2017.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees are fair and reasonable because they will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit, when comparing the total annual expense that the Exchange projects to incur in connection with providing these access services versus the total annual revenue that the Exchange projects to collect in connection with services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. For 2021,
As discussed, the Exchange conducted an extensive cost review in which the Exchange analyzed nearly every expense item in the Exchange's general expense ledger (this includes over 150 separate and distinct expense items) to determine whether each such expense relates to the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and, if such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports those services, and thus bears a relationship that is, “in nature and closeness,” directly related to those services. In performing this calculation, the Exchange considered other services and to which the expense may be applied and how much of the expense is directly or indirectly utilized in providing those other services. The sum of all such portions of expenses represents the total cost of the Exchange to provide access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees.
For 2021, total third-party expense, relating to fees paid by the Exchange to third-parties for certain products and services for the Exchange to be able to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, is projected to be $188,815. This includes, but is not limited to, a portion of the fees paid to: (1) Equinix, for data center services, for the primary, secondary, and disaster recovery locations of the Exchange's trading system infrastructure; (2) Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. (“Zayo”) for network services (fiber and bandwidth products and services) linking the Exchange's office locations in Princeton, New Jersey and Miami, Florida, to all data center locations; (3) Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (“SFTI”),
For clarity, the Exchange took a conservative approach in determining the expense and the percentage of that expense to be allocated to the providing access services in connection with the Proposed Access Fees. Only a portion of all fees paid to such third-parties is included in the third-party expense herein, and no expense amount is allocated twice. Accordingly, the Exchange does not allocate its entire information technology and communication costs to the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. This may result in the Exchange under allocating an expense to the provision of access services in connection with the Proposed Access Fees and such expenses may actually be higher or increase above what the Exchange utilizes within this proposal. Further, the Exchange notes that, with respect to the MIAX Pearl expenses included herein, those expenses only cover the MIAX Pearl options market; expenses associated with the MIAX Pearl equities market are accounted for separately and are not included within the scope of this filing. As noted above, the percentage allocations used in this proposed rule change may differ from past filings from the Exchange or its affiliates due to, among other things, changes in expenses charged by third-parties, adjustments to internal resource allocations, and different system architecture of the Exchange as compared to its affiliates. Further, as part its ongoing assessment of costs and expenses, the Exchange recently conducted a periodic thorough review of its expenses and resource allocations which, in turn, resulted in a revised percentage allocations in this filing. Therefore, the percentage allocations used in this proposed rule change may differ from past filings from the Exchange or its affiliates due to, among other things, changes in expenses charged by third-parties, adjustments to internal resource allocations, and different system architecture of the Exchange as compared to its affiliates.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate such third-party expense described above towards the total cost to the Exchange to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the Equinix expense because Equinix operates the data centers (primary, secondary, and disaster recovery) that host the Exchange's network infrastructure. This includes, among other things, the necessary storage space, which continues to expand and increase in cost, power to operate the network infrastructure, and cooling apparatuses to ensure the Exchange's network infrastructure maintains stability. Without these services from Equinix, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the Equinix expense toward the cost of providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, only that portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. According to the Exchange's calculations, it allocated approximately 8% of the total applicable Equinix expense to providing the services associated with the proposed fees. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the Zayo expense because Zayo provides the internet, fiber and bandwidth connections with respect to the network, linking the Exchange with its affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald, as well as the data center and disaster recovery locations. As such, all of the trade data, including the billions of messages each day per exchange, flow through Zayo's infrastructure over the Exchange's network. Without these services from Zayo, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. The Exchange did not allocate all of the Zayo expense toward the cost of providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, only the portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the Proposed Access Fees. According to the Exchange's calculations, it allocated approximately 4% of the total applicable Zayo expense to providing the services associated with the proposed fees. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portions of the SFTI expense and various other service providers' (including Thompson Reuters, NYSE, Nasdaq, and Internap) expense because those entities provide connectivity and feeds for the entire U.S. options industry, as well as the content, connectivity services, and infrastructure services for critical components of the network. Without these services from SFTI and various other service providers, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide access to its Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the SFTI and other service providers' expense toward the cost of providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, only the portions which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. According to the Exchange's calculations, it allocated approximately 3% of the total applicable SFTI and other service providers' expense to providing the services associated with the proposed fees. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the other hardware and software provider expense because this includes costs for dedicated hardware licenses for switches and servers, as well as dedicated software licenses for security
For 2021, total projected internal expenses relating to the Exchange providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, is projected to be $655,925. This includes, but is not limited to, costs associated with: (1) Employee compensation and benefits for full-time employees that support the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, including staff in network operations, trading operations, development, system operations, business, as well as staff in general corporate departments (such as legal, regulatory, and finance) that support those employees and functions; (2) depreciation and amortization of hardware and software used to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, including equipment, servers, cabling, purchased software and internally developed software used in the production environment to support the network for trading; and (3) occupancy costs for leased office space for staff that provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. The breakdown of these costs is more fully-described below.
For clarity, and as stated above, the Exchange took a conservative approach in determining the expense and the percentage of that expense to be allocated to providing the access services in connection with the Proposed Access Fees. Only a portion of all such internal expenses are included in the internal expense herein, and no expense amount is allocated twice. Accordingly, the Exchange does not allocate its entire costs contained in those items to the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. This may result in the Exchange under allocating an expense to the provision of access services in connection with the Proposed Access Fees and such expenses may actually be higher or increase above what the Exchange utilizes within this proposal. Further, as part its ongoing assessment of costs and expenses (described above), the Exchange recently conducted a periodic thorough review of its expenses and resource allocations which, in turn, resulted in a revised percentage allocations in this filing.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate such internal expense described above towards the total cost to the Exchange to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. In particular, the Exchange's employee compensation and benefits expense relating to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees is projected to be $549,834, which is only a portion of the $9,163,894 total projected expense for employee compensation and benefits. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of such expense because this includes the time spent by employees of several departments, including Technology, Back Office, Systems Operations, Networking, Business Strategy Development (who create the business requirement documents that the Technology staff use to develop network features and enhancements), Trade Operations, Finance (who provide billing and accounting services relating to the network), and Legal (who provide legal services relating to the network, such as rule filings and various license agreements and other contracts). As part of the extensive cost review conducted by the Exchange, the Exchange reviewed the amount of time spent by each employee on matters relating to the provision of access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Without these employees, the Exchange would not be able to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the employee compensation and benefits expense toward the cost of the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, only the portions which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. According to the Exchange's calculations, it allocated approximately 6% of the total applicable employee compensation and benefits expense to providing the services associated with the proposed fees. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
The Exchange's depreciation and amortization expense relating to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees is projected to be $66,316, which is only a portion of the $1,326,325 total projected expense for depreciation and amortization. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of such expense because such expense includes the actual cost of the computer equipment, such as dedicated servers, computers, laptops, monitors, information security appliances and storage, and network switching infrastructure equipment, including switches and taps that were purchased to operate and support the network and provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Without this equipment, the Exchange would not be able to operate the network and provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the depreciation and amortization expense toward the cost of providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, only the portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. According to the Exchange's calculations, it allocated approximately 5% of the total applicable depreciation and amortization expense to providing the services associated with the proposed fees, as these access services would not be possible without relying on such. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
The Exchange's occupancy expense relating to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees is projected to be $39,775, which is only a portion of the $497,180 total projected expense for occupancy. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to
The Exchange notes that a material portion of its total overall expense is allocated to the provision of access services (including connectivity, ports, and trading permits). The Exchange believes this is reasonable and in line, as the Exchange operates a technology-based business that differentiates itself from its competitors based on its trading systems that rely on access to a high performance network, resulting in significant technology expense. Over two-thirds of Exchange staff are technology-related employees. The majority of the Exchange's expense is technology-based. As described above, the Exchange has only four primary sources of fees to recover its costs, thus the Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate a material portion of its total overall expense towards access fees.
Based on the above, the Exchange believes that its provision of access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit. As described above, the Exchange projects that the annualized expense for 2021 to provide the services associated with Trading Permit to be approximately $844,741 per annum or an average of $70,395 per month. The Exchange implemented the Proposed Access Fees on July 1, 2021 in the First Proposed Rule Change. For June 2021, prior to the Proposed Access Fees, Members and non-Members purchased a total of 48 Trading Permits, for which the Exchange charged a total of $15,500. This resulted in a loss of $54,895 for that month (a margin of −354%). For the month of November 2021, which includes the Proposed Access Fees, Members and non-Members purchased a total of 47 Trading Permits,
Again, the Exchange cautions that this profit margin is likely to fluctuate from month to month based in the uncertainty of predicting how many Trading Permits may be purchased from month to month as Members and non-Members are free to add and drop permits at any time based on their own business decisions. Notwithstanding that the revenue (and profit margin) may vary from month to month due to changes in the number of Trading Permits utilized and volume conducted on the Exchange, as well as changes to the Exchange's expenses, the number of Trading Permits utilized has not materially changed over previous months. Consequently, the Exchange believes that the months it has used as a baseline to perform its assessment are representative of reasonably anticipated costs and expenses. This profit margin may also decrease due to the significant inflationary pressure on capital items that it needs to purchase to maintain the Exchange's technology and systems.
The Exchange believes that conducting the above analysis on a per month basis is reasonable as the revenue generated from access services subject to the proposed fee generally remains static from month to month. The Exchange also conducted the above analysis on a per month basis to comply with the Guidance which requires a baseline analysis to assist in determining whether the proposal generates a supra-competitive profit. This monthly analysis was also provided in response to comment received on prior submissions of this proposed rule change.
The Exchange reiterates that it only has four primary sources of revenue and cost recovery mechanisms: Transaction fees, access fees, regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the Exchange must cover all of its expenses from these four primary sources of revenue and cost recovery mechanisms. As a result, each of these fees cannot be “flat” and cover only the expenses directly related to the fee that is charged. The above revenue and associated profit margin therefore are not solely intended to cover the costs associated with providing services subject to the proposed fees.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to allocate the respective percentages of each expense category described above towards the total cost to the Exchange of operating and supporting the network, including providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees because the Exchange performed a line-by-line
The Exchange believes the proposed tiered-pricing structure is reasonable, fair, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it is the model adopted by the Exchange when it launched operations for its Trading Permit fees. Moreover, the tiered pricing structure for Trading Permits is not a new proposal and has been in place since 2018, well prior to the filing of the First Proposed Rule Change. The proposed tiers of Trading Permit fees will continue to apply to all Members and non-Members in the same manner based upon the monthly total volume executed by a Member and its Affiliates on the Exchange across all origin types, not including Excluded Contracts, as compared to the TCV in all MIAX Pearl-listed options. Members and non-Members may choose to purchase more than the one Trading Permit based on their own business decisions and needs. All similarly situated Members and non-Members would be subject to the same fees. The fees do not depend on any distinction between Members and non-Members because they are solely determined by the individual Members' or non-Members' business needs and their impact on Exchange resources.
The proposed tiered-pricing structure is not unfairly discriminatory and provides for the equitable allocation of fees, dues, and other charges because it is designed to encourage Members and non-Members to be more efficient and economical when determining how to access the Exchange and the amount of the fees are based on the number of Trading Permits utilized using the FIX and MEO Interfaces, in addition to the amount of volume conducted on the Exchange. The proposed tiered pricing structure should also enable the Exchange to better monitor and provide access to the Exchange's network to ensure sufficient capacity and headroom in the System.
The proposed tiered-pricing structure is not unfairly discriminatory and provides for the equitable allocation of fees, dues, and other charges because the amount of the fee is directly related to the Member or non-Member's TCV resulting in higher fees for greater TCV. The higher the volume, the greater pull on Exchange resources. The Exchange's high performance network solutions and supporting infrastructure (including employee support), provides unparalleled system throughput and the capacity to handle approximately 10.7 million order messages per second. On an average day, the Exchange handles over approximately 2.7 billion total messages. However, in order to achieve a consistent, premium network performance, the Exchange must build out and maintain a network that has the capacity to handle the message rate requirements of its most heavy network consumers. These billions of messages per day consume the Exchange's resources and significantly contribute to the overall expense for storage and network transport capabilities.
There are material costs associated with providing the infrastructure and headcount to fully-support access to the Exchange. The Exchange incurs technology expense related to establishing and maintaining Information Security services, enhanced network monitoring and customer reporting, as well as Regulation SCI mandated processes, associated with its network technology. While some of the expense is fixed, much of the expense is not fixed, and thus increases as the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees increase. For example, new Members to the Exchange may require the purchase of additional hardware to support those Members as well as enhanced monitoring and reporting of customer performance that the Exchange and its affiliates provide. Further, as the total number of Members increases, the Exchange and its affiliates may need to increase their data center footprint and consume more power, resulting in increased costs charged by their third-party data center provider. Accordingly, the cost to the Exchange and its affiliates to provide access to its Members is not fixed. The Exchange believes the Proposed Access Fees are reasonable in order to offset a portion of the costs to the Exchange associated with providing access to its network infrastructure.
The Exchange does not have visibility into other equities exchanges' costs to provide access or their fee markup over those costs, and therefore cannot use other exchanges' membership and access fees as a benchmark to determine a reasonable markup over the costs of providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes the other exchanges' membership and participation fees are a useful example of alternative approaches to providing and charging for similar types of access. To that end, the Exchange believes the proposed tiered-pricing structure for its Trading Permits is reasonable because the proposed highest tier is still less than or similar to fees charged for similar access provided by other options exchanges with comparable market shares. The below table further illustrates this comparison.
In each
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because the Proposed Access 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 users that connect via the MEO Interface of different sizes and business models that best matches their activity on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the removal of the Monthly Volume Credit and Trading Permit fee credit will not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because, in order to attract order flow when the Exchange first launched operations, the Exchange established these credits to lower the initial fixed cost for Members. The Exchange now believes that it is appropriate to remove this credit in light of the current operating conditions, including the Exchange's overall membership and the current type and amount of volume executed on the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the Exchange's rebates and fees will still allow the Exchange to remain highly competitive such that the Exchange should continue to attract order flow and maintain market share.
The Exchange believes the Proposed Access Fees do not place an undue burden on competition on other options exchanges that is not necessary or appropriate. In particular, options market participants are not forced to become members of all options exchanges. The Exchange notes that it has far less Members as compared to the much greater number of members at other options exchanges. There are a number of large users that connect via the MEO Interface and broker-dealers that are members of other options exchange but not Members of the Exchange. The Exchange is also unaware of any assertion that its existing fee levels or the Proposed Access Fees would somehow unduly impair its competition with other options exchanges. To the contrary, if the fees charged are deemed too high by market participants, they can simply discontinue their membership with the Exchange.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one of the 15 competing options venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has more than approximately 16% market share. Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. Over the course of 2021, the Exchange's market share has fluctuated between approximately 3-6% of the U.S. equity options industry.
Regrettably, the Exchange believes that the application of the Guidance to date has adversely affected inter-market competition by impeding the ability of smaller, low cost exchanges to adopt or increase fees for their market data and access services (including connectivity and port products and services). Since the adoption of the Guidance, and even more so recently, it has become harder, particularly for smaller, low cost exchanges, to adopt or increase fees to generate revenue necessary to invest in systems, provide innovative trading products and solutions, and improve competitive standing to the benefit of the affected exchanges' market participants. Although the Guidance has served an important policy goal of improving disclosures in proposed rule changes and requiring exchanges to more clearly justify that their market data and access fee proposals are fair and reasonable, it has also been inconsistently applied and therefore negatively impacted exchanges, and particularly many smaller, low cost exchanges, that seek to adopt or increase fees despite providing enhanced disclosures and rationale to support their proposed fee changes.
As described above, the Exchange received one comment letter on the First Proposed Rule Change
Until recently, the Exchange has operated at a net annual loss since it launched operations in 2017.
In addition, the arguments in the SIG Letter do not support their claim that the Exchange has not met its burden to show the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Prior to and after submitting the First Proposed Rule Change, the Exchange solicited feedback from its Members, including SIG. SIG relayed their concerns regarding the proposed change. The Exchange then sought to work with SIG to address their concerns and gain a better understanding of the access/connectivity/quoting infrastructure of other exchanges. In response, SIG provided no substantive suggestions on how to amend the First Proposed Rule Change to address their concerns and instead chose to submit a comment letter. One could argue that SIG is using the comment letter process not to raise legitimate regulatory concerns regarding the proposal, but to inhibit or delay proposed fee changes by the Exchange. Nonetheless, the Exchange has further enhanced its cost and revenue analysis and data in this Third [sic] Proposed Rule Change to further justify that the Proposed Access Fees are reasonable in accordance with the Commission Staff's Guidance. Among other things, these enhancements include providing baseline information in the form of data from the month before the Proposed Access Fees became effective.
The SIG Letter asserts that the Exchange provided “no affirmative justifiable reason that its legacy fees are no longer sufficient.”
As a new entrant in the market, the Exchange chose to forgo any potential additional revenue that may have been generated by higher Trading Permit fees to encourage participation on the new platform. This served to attract participation on the Exchange so market participants could evaluate the Exchange's quality, technology and the quality of their overall customer/user experience. Setting higher rates for non-transaction fees could have served to dissuade market participants from trading on the Exchange and not experiencing the high quality technological system the Exchange built.
Nonetheless, the Exchange provided significant cost based justification for the proposed fees not only in this filing, but also in the First and Second Proposed Rule Changes. The SIG Letter conveniently ignores this fact. In fact, the level of disclosure the Exchange provided in this filing and in the First, Second, and Third Proposed Rule Changes has been worked on with Commission Staff over numerous past filings that have been published for comment and remain effect.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees will allow the Exchange to offset expenses the Exchange has and will incur, and that the Exchange provided sufficient transparency into how the Exchange determined to charge such fees. Accordingly, the Exchange provided an analysis of its revenues, costs, and profitability associated with the proposed fees. This analysis included information regarding its methodology for determining the costs and revenues associated with the proposal.
To determine the Exchange's costs to provide the access services associated with the proposed fees, the Exchange conducted an extensive cost review in which the Exchange analyzed nearly every expense item in the Exchange's general expense ledger to determine whether each such expense relates to the proposed fees, and, if such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports the access services. The sum of all such portions of expenses represents the total cost of the Exchange to provide the access services associated with the proposed fees.
Furthermore, the Exchange is beginning to see significant inflationary pressure on capital items that it needs to purchase to maintain the Exchange's technology and systems.
The SIG Letter correctly notes that the proposed Trading Permit fees are higher for Members who connect through the MEO Interface than for Members who connect through the FIX Interface. Members who use the MEO Interface may also connect to the System through the FIX Interface as well, and vice versa. The Exchange notes that the Trading Permit fees for Members who connect through the MEO Interface are higher than the Trading Permit fees for Members who connect through the FIX Interface, since the FIX Interface utilizes less capacity and resources of the Exchange. The MEO Interface offers lower latency and higher throughput, which utilizes greater capacity and resources of the Exchange. The FIX Interface offers lower bandwidth requirements and an industry-wide uniform message format. Both EEMs and Market Makers may connect to the Exchange using either interface.
The SIG Letter asserts that the Exchange “provides no description of the ‘capacity and resources' being utilized, and no information on the nature or extent of the disparity in such utilization between the two Interface types.” As a MEO user, SIG is uniquely positioned to understand and appreciate the differences between the MEO and FIX interfaces and why rates for the MEO interface are justifiably higher. Nonetheless, the Exchange is providing the below additional data to address the statements made in the SIG Letter.
Orders on the Exchange are supplied by Members via two different interfaces, FIX and MEO. MEO is the Exchange's proprietary binary order interface. Over the period from April 2021 until September 2021, 3.15 billion messages were processed via the FIX interface (0.43% of total messages received). Over that same time period, 731.4 billion messages (99.57% of total messages received) were processed over the MEO interface. Also, the MEO interface allows for mass purging of orders which has a significant impact on the number of messages processed. This marked difference between the number of FIX and MEO messages processed, when mapped to servers, software, storage, and networking results in a much higher allocation of total capital and operational expense to support the MEO interface. For one, the Exchange incurs greater expense in maintaining the resilience of the MEO interface to ensure its ongoing operation in accordance with Regulation SCI. Another, the Exchange must purchase and expand its storage capacity to retain these increased messages in compliance with its record keeping obligations. As noted above, the Exchange has seen significant inflationary pressure on capital items that it needs to purchase to maintain its technology.
SIG is also uniquely positioned to know that the fee structure utilized by the Exchange, which charges different Trading Permit fees for MEO interface users than FIX interface users is not a new proposal. In fact, it was first adopted by the Exchange over 3
The Exchange correctly asserts herein and in the Initial Proposed Fee Change that it's proposed Trading Permit fees “are in line with, or cheaper than, the trading permit fees or similar membership fees charged by other options exchanges.” The SIG letter challenges this assertion is an “apples to oranges” comparison because NYSE American and NYSE Arca based their rates on the number of options issued to the member and not trading volume, like the exchange does. In fact, the number of options traded by a member of NYSE American or NYSE Arca is an appropriate proxy for trading volume as the more options issued to the member would result in higher volumes traded by that member. Firms that trade more liquid options generate increased message traffic and greater pull on exchange resources. Therefore, comparing options traded to trading volume is an “apples to apples” comparison.
The Exchange proposes a range of fees from $500 to $6,000 per month depending on trading volume and the type of interface that is utilized by the Member. These rates are undoubtedly similar to or lower than the rates charged by NYSE Arca and NYSE American. As of December 20, 2021, the Exchange maintained a market share of approximately 4.03%.
The SIG Letter states that “[the Exchange] offers no information about the capacity and resource costs of access to the other exchanges or any other basis to support the reasonability of those fees, let alone compare such costs to those of MIAX Pearl.”
The SIG Letter further asserts that the Exchange “has not established that the other exchange fees are reasonable, nor that this would mean that the MIAX Pearl fees are reasonable as well.
The Exchange has provided ample data that the proposed fees would not result in excessive pricing or a supra-competitive profit. In this Third [sic] Proposed Rule Change, the Exchange no longer utilizes a comparison of its profit margin to that of other options exchanges as a basis that the Proposed Access Fees are reasonable. Rather, the Exchange has enhanced its cost and revenue analysis and data in this Third [sic] Proposed Rule Change to further justify that the Proposed Access Fees are reasonable in accordance with the Commission Staff's Guidance. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is no longer necessary to respond to this portion of the SIG Letter.
Nowhere in this proposal or in the First Proposed Rule Change did the Exchange assert that it benefits competition to allow a new exchange entrant to recoup their infrastructure costs. Rather, the Exchange asserts above that its “proposed fees are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange, and its affiliates, are still recouping the initial expenditures from building out their systems while the legacy exchanges have already paid for and built their systems.” The Exchange no longer makes this assertion in this filing and, therefore, does not believe is it necessary to respond to SIG's assertion here.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,
As the Exchange further details above, the Exchange first filed a proposed rule change proposing fee changes as proposed herein on July 1, 2021, with the proposed fee changes being immediately effective. That proposal, SR-PEARL-2021-32, was published for comment in the
When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal, they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the exchange.
Among other things, exchange proposed rule changes are subject to Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8), which requires the rules of an exchange to: (1) Provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using the exchange's facilities;
In temporarily suspending the Exchange's fee change, the Commission intends to further consider whether the proposal to remove certain credits and
Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the proposed rule change.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following aspects of the proposal and asks commenters to submit data where appropriate to support their views:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO] that proposed the rule change.”
The Commission believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to whether the proposal is consistent with the Act, any potential comments or supplemental information
The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant concerns. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(4), 6(b)(5), and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by March 18, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 1, 2022.
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 the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Emerald Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”).
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 1)a)i) of the Fee Schedule to: (i) Modify the application of the per
The Exchange currently assesses transaction rebates and fees to all market participants, which are based upon a threshold tier structure (“Tier”). Tiers are determined on a monthly basis and are based on three alternative calculation methods, as defined in Section 1)a)ii) of the Fee Schedule. The calculation method that results in the highest Tier achieved by the Member
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 1)a)i) of the Fee Schedule to: (i) Modify the application of the Complex surcharge; and (ii) increase the Complex surcharge for Complex Order transactions in Penny and non-Penny Classes. Currently, the Exchange assesses a fee of $0.86 or $0.88 per contract for all Origins other than Priority Customer for Complex Orders that remove liquidity from the Exchange's Strategy Book
The Exchange proposes to modify the application of the Complex surcharge in several ways. First, the Exchange proposes that the Complex surcharge will now apply to both Penny and non-Penny Classes, which the Exchange will denote in both the Penny and non-Penny Class tables of transaction fees and rebates in Section 1)a)i) of the Fee Schedule (described further below). Prior to the First Proposed Rule Change, the Complex surcharge applied only to non-Penny Classes. Second, the Exchange proposes that the Complex surcharge will now apply to both liquidity adding (Maker) and liquidity removing (Taker) Complex Orders for all Origins, except the Priority Customer Origin. Prior to the First Proposed Rule Change, the Complex surcharge applied only to liquidity removing (Taker) Complex Orders. Third, the Exchange proposes that the Complex surcharge will apply to Complex Orders submitted as a Response or unrelated quote or
To represent all the proposed changes, the Exchange proposes to add a new column to each table for Penny and non-Penny Classes in Section 1)a)i) of the Fee Schedule, under the “Complex” heading. The Exchange proposes that each new column would be titled “Per Contract Surcharge for Trading Against a Priority Customer Complex Order.”
As described above, the Exchange proposes to increase the Complex surcharge from $0.05 per contract to $0.12 per contract. The Exchange notes that the proposed Complex surcharge rate of $0.12 per contract is the same amount charged by at least two competing options exchanges with base fee amounts for complex orders of $0.50 per contract in Penny Classes plus a $0.12 per contract complex surcharge, which has similar application methods.
The purpose of the proposed changes to the Complex surcharge are for business and competitive reasons. In order to attract order flow, the Exchange initially set its Complex surcharge rate so that it was similar to, or lower, than other options exchanges that operate comparable maker/taker pricing models.
The proposed changes are immediately effective.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
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.”
There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has a market share of more than approximately 12-13% of the equity options market.
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products and services, terminate an existing membership or determine to not become a new member, and/or shift order flow, in response to transaction fee changes. For example, on February 28, 2019, the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX Pearl”) filed with the Commission a proposal to increase Taker fees in certain Tiers for options transactions in certain Penny classes for Priority Customers and decrease Maker rebates in certain Tiers for options transactions in Penny classes for Priority Customers (which fee was to be effective March 1, 2019).
The Exchange believes its proposal is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because all similarly situated market participants in the same Origin type (except Priority Customers) will now be subject to the Complex surcharge. The Exchange believes it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to increase the Complex surcharge for business and competitive business reasons. The Exchange initially set its Complex surcharge rate similar to, or lower than, the complex surcharges assessed by other options exchanges that operate comparable maker/taker pricing models. The Exchange now believes that it is appropriate to increase the Complex surcharge so that it is in line with other exchanges, and will still remain highly competitive such that it should enable the Exchange to continue to attract order flow and maintain market share.
The Exchange believes the proposal to increase the Complex surcharge and broaden its application is consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act
The Exchange believes its proposal to apply the Complex surcharge to all Origins, except Priority Customer, is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because it will continue to encourage Priority Customer Complex Order flow. The Exchange believes increased Priority Customer Complex Order flow benefits all market participants by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. The Exchange also believes that increased Priority Customer Complex Order flow may attract Market Makers and other liquidity providers, thus, facilitating price improvement in the Complex Order Auction process, signaling additional corresponding increase in Complex Order flow from other market participants, and, as a result, increasing liquidity on the Exchange.
The Exchange believes its proposal to broaden the application of the Complex surcharge is also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes to the Complex surcharge should continue to encourage the provision of liquidity that enhances the quality of the Exchange's Complex Order market and increases the number of trading opportunities on the Exchange for all participants who will be able to compete for such opportunities. The proposed rule changes should enable the Exchange to continue to attract and compete for order flow with other exchanges. The Exchange also believes that its proposal to apply the Complex surcharge to all Origins except Priority Customer will not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate because the
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. There are currently 16 registered options exchanges competing for order flow. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has a market share of more than approximately 12-13% of the equity options market.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-EMERALD-2022-07. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the MIAX Pearl Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to amend the fees for the Exchange's MIAX
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV [sic] 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 to increase the fees for its Full Service MEO Ports, Bulk and Single (the “Proposed Access Fees”), which allow Members
The Exchange currently offers different types of MEO Ports depending on the services required by the Member, including a Full Service MEO Port-Bulk,
Unlike other options exchanges that provide similar port functionality and charge fees on a per port basis,
The Exchange assesses Members Full Service MEO Port Fees, either for a Full Service MEO Port—Bulk and/or for a Full Service MEO Port—Single, based upon the monthly total volume executed by a Member and its Affiliates
(i) If its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 1 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume up to 0.30%, $3,000;
(ii) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 2 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.30% up to 0.60%, $4,500; and
(iii) if its volume falls with the parameters of Tier 3 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.60%, $5,000.
(i) If its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 1 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume up to 0.30%, $5,000;
(ii) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 2 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.30% up to 0.60%, $7,500; and
(iii) if its volume falls with the parameters of Tier 3 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.60%, $10,000.
(i) If its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 1 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume up to 0.30%, $2,000;
(ii) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 2 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.30% up to 0.60%, $3,375; and
(iii) if its volume falls with the parameters of Tier 3 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.60%, $3,750.
(i) If its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 1 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume up to 0.30%, $2,500;
(ii) if its volume falls within the parameters of Tier 2 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.30% up to 0.60%, $3,500; and
(iii) if its volume falls with the parameters of Tier 3 of the Non-Transaction Fees Volume-Based Tiers, or volume above 0.60%, $4,500.
The Exchange offers various types of ports with differing prices because each port accomplishes different tasks, are suited to different types of Members, and consume varying capacity amounts of the network. For instance, MEO ports allow for a higher throughput and can handle much higher quote/order rates than FIX ports. Members that are Market Makers
The Exchange proposes to increase its monthly Full Service MEO Port fees since it has not done so since the fees were adopted in 2018 (prior to the First Proposed Rule Change),
The Exchange has historically undercharged for Full Service MEO Ports as compared to other options exchanges
The proposed fees are immediately effective.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
On March 29, 2019, the Commission issued an Order disapproving a proposed fee change by the BOX Market LLC Options Facility to establish connectivity fees for its BOX Network (the “BOX Order”).
The Exchange believes that exchanges, in setting fees of all types, should meet very high standards of transparency to demonstrate why each new fee or fee amendment meets the requirements of the Act that fees are reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not create an undue burden on competition among market participants. The Exchange believes this high standard is especially important when an exchange imposes various access fees for market participants to access an exchange's marketplace. The Exchange deems the Full Service MEO Port fees to be access fees. It records these fees as part of its “Access Fees” revenue in its financial statements.
In the Guidance, the Commission Staff stated that, “[a]s an initial step in assessing the reasonableness of a fee, staff considers whether the fee is constrained by significant competitive forces.”
The Guidance defines “supra-competitive profit” as “profits that exceed the profits that can be obtained in a competitive market.”
Based on this analysis, the Exchange believes the Proposed Access Fees are reasonable and do not result in a “supra-competitive”
The Proposed Access Fees are based on a cost-plus model. In determining the appropriate fees to charge, the Exchange considered its costs to provide Full Service MEO Ports, using what it believes to be a conservative methodology (
To determine the Exchange's costs to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, the Exchange conducted an extensive cost review in which the Exchange analyzed nearly every expense item in the Exchange's general expense ledger to determine whether each such expense relates to the Proposed Access Fees, and, if such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports the access services. The sum of all such portions of expenses represents the total cost of the Exchange to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees.
The Exchange also provides detailed information regarding the Exchange's cost allocation methodology—namely, information that explains the Exchange's rationale for determining that it was reasonable to allocate certain expenses described in this filing towards the cost to the Exchange to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. The Exchange conducted a thorough internal analysis to determine the portion (or percentage) of each expense to allocate to the support of access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. This analysis included discussions with each Exchange department head to determine the expenses that support access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. This included numerous meetings between the Exchange's Chief Information Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Head of Strategic Planning and Operations, Chief Technology Officer, various members of the Legal Department, and other group leaders. The Exchange reviewed each individual expense to
The internal cost analysis conducted by the Exchange is a proprietary process that is designed to make a fair and reasonable assessment of costs and resources allocated to support the provision of services associated with the proposed fees. The Exchange acknowledges that this assessment can only capture a moment in time and that costs and resource allocations may change. That is why the Exchange has historically, and on an ongoing basis, periodically revisits its costs and resource allocations to ensure it is appropriately allocating resources to properly provide services to the Exchange's constituents. Any requirement that an exchange should conduct a periodic re-evaluation on a set timeline of its cost justification and amend its fees accordingly should be established by the Commission holistically, applied to all exchanges and not just pending fee proposals such as this filing. In order to be fairly applied, such a mandate should be applied to existing market data fees as well.
In accordance with the Guidance, the Exchange has provided sufficient detail to support a finding that the proposed fees are consistent with the Exchange Act. The proposal includes a detailed description of the Exchange's costs and how the Exchange determined to allocate those costs related to the proposed fees. In fact, the detail and analysis provided in this proposed rule change far exceed the level of disclosure provided in other exchange fee filings that have not been suspended by the Commission during its 60-day suspension period. A Commission determination that it is unable to make a finding that this proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act would run contrary to the Commission Staff's treatment of other recent exchange fee proposals that have not been suspended and remain in effect today.
The Exchange notes that the Investors Exchange, Inc. (“IEX”) recently submitted a proposed rule change to adopt fees for two real-time proprietary market data feeds, TOPS and DEEP (“IEX Fee Proposal”). IEX previously provided its TOP and DEEP market data feeds for free and proposed to adopt modest, below market fees. The IEX Fee Proposal included a detailed subscriber data and cost-based analysis in compliance with the Guidance. Nonetheless, on December 30, 2021, the Commission suspended the IEX Fee Proposal and instituted proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove the IEX Fee Proposal.
The Commission received three comment letters on the IEX Order.
The Exchange believes exchanges, like all businesses, should be provided flexibility when allocating costs and resources they deem necessary to operate their business, including providing market data and access services. The Exchange notes that costs and resource allocations may vary from business to business and, likewise, costs and resource allocations may differ from exchange to exchange when it comes to providing market data and access services. It is a business decision that must be evaluated by each exchange as to how to allocate internal resources and what costs to incur internally or via third parties that it may deem necessary to support its business and its provision of market data and access services to market participants. An exchange's costs may also vary based on fees charged by third parties and periodic increases to those fees that may be outside of the control of an exchange.
To determine the Exchange's projected revenues associated with the Proposed Access Fees in the instant filing, the Exchange analyzed the number of Members currently utilizing Full Service MEO Ports, and, utilizing a recent monthly billing cycle representative of 2021 monthly revenue, extrapolated annualized revenue on a going-forward basis. The Exchange does not believe it is appropriate to factor into its analysis projected or estimated future revenue growth or decline for purposes of these calculations, given the uncertainty of such projections due to the continually changing access needs of market participants and potential increase in internal and third party expenses. The Exchange is presenting its revenue and expense associated with the Proposed Access Fees in this filing in a manner that is consistent with how the Exchange presents its revenue and expense in its Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statements. The Exchange's most recent Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statement is for 2020. However, since the revenue and expense associated with the Proposed Access Fees were not in place in 2020 or for the majority of 2021, the Exchange believes its 2020 Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statement is not representative of its current total annualized revenue and costs associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is more appropriate to analyze the Proposed Access Fees utilizing its 2021 revenue and costs, as described herein, which utilize the same presentation methodology as set forth in the Exchange's previously-issued Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statements. Based on this analysis, the Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees are fair and reasonable because they will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit when comparing the Exchange's total annual expense associated with providing the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees versus the total projected annual revenue the Exchange will collect for providing those services. The Exchange notes that this is the same justification process utilized by the Exchange's affiliate, MIAX Emerald, in a filing recently noticed and not suspended by the Commission when MIAX Emerald adopted MEI Port fees.
As outlined in more detail below, the Exchange projects that the final annualized expense for 2021 to provide Full Service MEO Ports to be approximately $897,084 per annum or an average of $74,757 per month. The Exchange implemented the Proposed Access Fees on July 1, 2021 in the First Proposed Rule Change. For June 2021, prior to the Proposed Access Fees, Members and non-Members purchased a total of 20 Full Service MEO Ports, for which the Exchange charged a total of approximately $71,625. This resulted in a loss of $3,132 for that month (a margin of −4.37%). For the month of November 2021, which includes the Proposed Access Fees, Members and non-Members purchased a total of 19 Full Service MEO Ports,
As mentioned above, the Exchange projects that the final annualized expense for 2021 to provide the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to be approximately $897,084 per annum or an average of $74,757 per month and that these costs are expected to increase not only due to anticipated significant inflationary pressure, but also periodic fee increases by third parties.
The Exchange only has four primary sources of revenue and cost recovery mechanisms to fund all of its operations: Transaction fees, access fees (which includes the Proposed Access Fees), regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the Exchange must cover all of its expenses from these four primary sources of revenue and cost recovery mechanisms. Until recently, the Exchange has operated at a cumulative net annual loss since it launched operations in 2017.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees are fair and reasonable because they will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit, when comparing the total annual expense that the Exchange projects to incur in connection with providing these access services versus the total annual revenue that the Exchange projects to collect in connection with services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. For 2021,
As discussed, the Exchange conducted an extensive cost review in which the Exchange analyzed nearly every expense item in the Exchange's general expense ledger (this includes over 150 separate and distinct expense items) to determine whether each such expense relates to the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and, if such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports those services, and thus bears a relationship that is, “in nature and closeness,” directly related to those services. In performing this calculation, the Exchange considered other services and to which the expense may be applied and how much of the expense is directly or indirectly utilized in providing those other services. The sum of all such portions of expenses represents the total cost of the Exchange to provide access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees.
For 2021, total third-party expense, relating to fees paid by the Exchange to third-parties for certain products and services for the Exchange to be able to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, is projected to be $40,166. This includes, but is not limited to, a portion of the fees paid to: (1) Equinix, for data center services, for the primary, secondary, and disaster recovery locations of the Exchange's trading system infrastructure; (2) Zayo Group Holdings, Inc. (“Zayo”) for network services (fiber and bandwidth products and services) linking the Exchange's office locations in Princeton, New Jersey and Miami, Florida, to all data center locations; (3) Secure Financial Transaction Infrastructure (“SFTI”),
For clarity, the Exchange took a conservative approach in determining the expense and the percentage of that expense to be allocated to the providing access services in connection with the Proposed Access Fees. Only a portion of all fees paid to such third-parties is included in the third-party expense herein, and no expense amount is allocated twice. Accordingly, the Exchange does not allocate its entire information technology and communication costs to the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. This may result in the Exchange under allocating an expense to the provision of access services in connection with the Proposed Access Fees and such expenses may actually be higher or increase above what the Exchange utilizes within this proposal. Further, the Exchange notes that, with respect to the MIAX Pearl expenses included herein, those expenses only cover the MIAX Pearl options market; expenses associated with the MIAX Pearl equities market are accounted for separately and are not included within the scope of this filing. As noted above, the percentage allocations used in this proposed rule change may differ from past filings from the Exchange or its affiliates due to, among other things, changes in expenses charged by third-parties, adjustments to internal resource allocations, and different system architecture of the Exchange as compared to its affiliates. Further, as part its ongoing assessment of costs and expenses, the Exchange recently conducted a periodic thorough review of its expenses and resource allocations which, in turn, resulted in a revised percentage allocations in this filing. Therefore, the percentage allocations used in this proposed rule change may differ from past filings from the Exchange or its affiliates due to, among other things, changes in expenses charged by third-parties, adjustments to internal resource allocations, and different system architecture of the Exchange as compared to its affiliates.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate such third-party expense described above towards the total cost to the Exchange to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the Equinix expense because Equinix operates the data centers (primary, secondary, and disaster recovery) that host the Exchange's network infrastructure. This includes, among other things, the necessary storage space, which continues to expand and increase in cost, power to operate the network infrastructure, and cooling apparatuses to ensure the Exchange's network infrastructure maintains stability. Without these services from Equinix, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the Equinix expense toward the cost of providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, only that portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. According to the Exchange's calculations, it allocated approximately 1.80% of the total applicable Equinix expense to providing the services associated with the proposed fees. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the Zayo expense because Zayo provides the internet, fiber and bandwidth connections with respect to the network, linking the Exchange with its affiliates, MIAX and MIAX Emerald, as well as the data center and disaster recovery locations. As such, all of the trade data, including the billions of messages each day per exchange, flow through Zayo's infrastructure over the Exchange's network. Without these services from Zayo, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. The Exchange did not allocate all of the Zayo expense toward the cost of providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, only the portion which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the Proposed Access Fees. According to the Exchange's calculations, it allocated approximately 0.90% of the total applicable Zayo expense to providing the services associated with the proposed fees. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portions of the SFTI expense and various other service providers' (including Thompson Reuters, NYSE, NASDAQ, and Internap) expense because those entities provide connectivity and feeds for the entire U.S. options industry, as well as the content, connectivity services, and infrastructure services for critical components of the network. Without these services from SFTI and various other service providers, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide access to its Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the SFTI and other service providers' expense toward the cost of providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, only the portions which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. According to the Exchange's calculations, it allocated approximately 0.90% of the total applicable SFTI and other service providers' expense to providing the services associated with the proposed fees. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of the other hardware and software provider expense because this includes costs for dedicated hardware licenses for switches and servers, as well as dedicated software licenses for security monitoring and reporting across the network. Without this hardware and software, the Exchange would not be able to operate and support the network and provide access to its Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the hardware and software provider expense toward the cost of providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, only the portions which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to
For 2021, total projected internal expenses relating to the Exchange providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, is projected to be $856,918. This includes, but is not limited to, costs associated with: (1) Employee compensation and benefits for full-time employees that support the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, including staff in network operations, trading operations, development, system operations, business, as well as staff in general corporate departments (such as legal, regulatory, and finance) that support those employees and functions; (2) depreciation and amortization of hardware and software used to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, including equipment, servers, cabling, purchased software and internally developed software used in the production environment to support the network for trading; and (3) occupancy costs for leased office space for staff that provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. The breakdown of these costs is more fully-described below.
For clarity, and as stated above, the Exchange took a conservative approach in determining the expense and the percentage of that expense to be allocated to providing the access services in connection with the Proposed Access Fees. Only a portion of all such internal expenses are included in the internal expense herein, and no expense amount is allocated twice. Accordingly, the Exchange does not allocate its entire costs contained in those items to the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. This may result in the Exchange under allocating an expense to the provision of access services in connection with the Proposed Access Fees and such expenses may actually be higher or increase above what the Exchange utilizes within this proposal. Further, as part its ongoing assessment of costs and expenses (described above), the Exchange recently conducted a periodic thorough review of its expenses and resource allocations which, in turn, resulted in a revised percentage allocations in this filing.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate such internal expense described above towards the total cost to the Exchange to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. In particular, the Exchange's employee compensation and benefits expense relating to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees is projected to be $783,513, which is only a portion of the $9,163,894 total projected expense for employee compensation and benefits. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of such expense because this includes the time spent by employees of several departments, including Technology, Back Office, Systems Operations, Networking, Business Strategy Development (who create the business requirement documents that the Technology staff use to develop network features and enhancements), Trade Operations, Finance (who provide billing and accounting services relating to the network), and Legal (who provide legal services relating to the network, such as rule filings and various license agreements and other contracts). As part of the extensive cost review conducted by the Exchange, the Exchange reviewed the amount of time spent by each employee on matters relating to the provision of access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. Without these employees, the Exchange would not be able to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees to its Members and their customers. The Exchange did not allocate all of the employee compensation and benefits expense toward the cost of the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, only the portions which the Exchange identified as being specifically mapped to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees. According to the Exchange's calculations, it allocated approximately 8.55% of the total applicable employee compensation and benefits expense to providing the services associated with the proposed fees. The Exchange believes this allocation is reasonable because it represents the Exchange's actual cost to provide the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees, and not any other service, as supported by its cost review.
The Exchange's depreciation and amortization expense relating to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees is projected to be $64,456, which is only a portion of the $2,864,716
The Exchange's occupancy expense relating to providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees is projected to be $8,949, which is only a portion of the $497,180 total projected expense for occupancy. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of such expense because such expense
The Exchange notes that a material portion of its total overall expense is allocated to the provision of access services (including connectivity, ports, and trading permits). The Exchange believes this is reasonable and in line, as the Exchange operates a technology-based business that differentiates itself from its competitors based on its trading systems that rely on access to a high performance network, resulting in significant technology expense. Over two-thirds of Exchange staff are technology-related employees. The majority of the Exchange's expense is technology-based. As described above, the Exchange has only four primary sources of fees in to recover its costs, thus the Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate a material portion of its total overall expense towards access fees.
Based on the above, the Exchange believes that its provision of access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit. As discussed above, the Exchange projects that the annualized expense for 2021 to provide Full Service MEO Ports to be approximately $897,084 per annum or an average of $74,757 per month. The Exchange implemented the Proposed Access Fees on July 1, 2021 in the First Proposed Rule Change. For June 2021, prior to the Proposed Access Fees, Members and non-Members purchased a total of 20 Full Service MEO Ports, for which the Exchange charged a total of approximately $71,625. This resulted in a loss of $3,132 for that month (a margin of −4.37%). For the month of November 2021, which includes the Proposed Access Fees, Members and non-Members purchased a total of 19 Full Service MEO Ports, for which the Exchange charged a total of approximately $122,000 for that month. This resulted in a profit of $47,243 for that month, representing a profit margin of 38%. The Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees are reasonable because they are designed to generate an approximate profit margin of 38% per-month. The Exchange believes this modest profit margin will allow it to continue to recoup its expenses and continue to invest in its technology infrastructure. Therefore, the Exchange also believes that this proposed profit margin increase is reasonable because it represents a reasonable rate of return.
Again, the Exchange cautions that this profit margin is likely to fluctuate from month to month based in the uncertainty of predicting how many Full Service MEO Ports may be purchased from month to month as Members and non-Members are free to add and drop ports at any time based on their own business decisions. Notwithstanding that the revenue (and profit margin) may vary from month to month due to changes in the number of ports utilized and volume conducted on the Exchange, as well as changes to the Exchange's expenses, the number of ports utilized has not materially changed over previous months. Consequently, the Exchange believes that the months it has used as a baseline to perform its assessment are representative of reasonably anticipated costs and expenses. This profit margin may also decrease due to the significant inflationary pressure on capital items that it needs to purchase to maintain the Exchange's technology and systems.
The Exchange believes that conducting the above analysis on a per month basis is reasonable as the revenue generated from access services subject to the proposed fee generally remains static from month to month. The Exchange also conducted the above analysis on a per month basis to comply with the Guidance which requires a baseline analysis to assist in determining whether the proposal generates a supra-competitive profit. This monthly analysis was also provided in response to comment received on prior submissions of this proposed rule change.
The Exchange reiterates that it only has four primary sources of revenue and cost recovery mechanisms: Transaction fees, access fees, regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the Exchange must cover all of its expenses from these four primary sources of revenue and cost recovery mechanisms. As a result, each of these fees cannot be “flat” and cover only the expenses directly related to the fee that is charged. The above revenue and associated profit margin therefore are not solely intended to cover the costs associated with providing services subject to the proposed fees.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to allocate the respective percentages of each expense category described above towards the total cost to the Exchange of operating and supporting the network, including providing the access services associated with the Proposed Access Fees because the Exchange performed a line-by-line item analysis of nearly every expense of the Exchange, and has determined the expenses that directly relate to providing access to the Exchange. Further, the Exchange notes that, without the specific third-party and internal items listed above, the Exchange would not be able to provide
The Exchange believes the proposed tiered-pricing structure is reasonable, fair, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because it is the model adopted by the Exchange when it launched operations for its Full Service MEO Port fees. Moreover, the tiered pricing structure for Full Service MEO Ports is not a new proposal and has been in place since 2018, well prior to the filing of the First Proposed Rule Change. The proposed tiers of Full Service MEO Port fees will continue to apply to all Members and non-Members in the same manner based upon the monthly total volume executed by a Member and its Affiliates on the Exchange across all origin types, not including Excluded Contracts, as compared to the TCV in all MIAX Pearl-listed options. Members and non-Members may choose to purchase more than the two Full Service MEO Ports the Exchange currently provides upfront based on their own business decisions and needs. All similarly situated Members and non-Members would be subject to the same fees. The fees do not depend on any distinction between Members and non-Members because they are solely determined by the individual Members' or non-Members' business needs and their impact on Exchange resources.
The proposed tiered-pricing structure is not unfairly discriminatory and provides for the equitable allocation of fees, dues, and other charges because it is designed to encourage Members and non-Members to be more efficient and economical when determining how to access the Exchange and the amount of the fees are based on the number of Full Service MEO Ports utilized, in addition to the amount of volume conducted on the Exchange. The proposed tiered pricing structure should also enable the Exchange to better monitor and provide access to the Exchange's network to ensure sufficient capacity and headroom in the System.
The proposed tiered-pricing structure is not unfairly discriminatory and provides for the equitable allocation of fees, dues, and other charges because the amount of the fee is directly related to the Member or non-Member's TCV resulting in higher fees for greater TCV. The higher the volume, the greater pull on Exchange resources. The Exchange's high performance network solutions and supporting infrastructure (including employee support), provides unparalleled system throughput and the capacity to handle approximately 10.7 million order messages per second. On an average day, the Exchange handles over approximately 2.7 billion total messages. However, in order to achieve a consistent, premium network performance, the Exchange must build out and maintain a network that has the capacity to handle the message rate requirements of its most heavy network consumers. These billions of messages per day consume the Exchange's resources and significantly contribute to the overall expense for storage and network transport capabilities.
There are material costs associated with providing the infrastructure and headcount to fully-support access to the Exchange. The Exchange incurs technology expense related to establishing and maintaining Information Security services, enhanced network monitoring and customer reporting, as well as Regulation SCI mandated processes, associated with its network technology. While some of the expense is fixed, much of the expense is not fixed, and thus increases as the services associated with the Proposed Access Fees increase. For example, new Members to the Exchange may require the purchase of additional hardware to support those Members as well as enhanced monitoring and reporting of customer performance that the Exchange and its affiliates provide. Further, as the total number of Members increases, the Exchange and its affiliates may need to increase their data center footprint and consume more power, resulting in increased costs charged by their third-party data center provider. Accordingly, the cost to the Exchange and its affiliates to provide access to its Members is not fixed. The Exchange believes the Proposed Access Fees are reasonable in order to offset a portion of the costs to the Exchange associated with providing access to its network infrastructure.
The Exchange notes that the firms that purchase more than two Full Service MEO Ports that the Exchange initially provides essentially do so for competitive reasons amongst themselves and choose to utilize numerous ports based on their business needs and desire to attempt to access the market quicker by using the port with the least amount of latency. These firms are generally engaged in sending liquidity removing orders to the Exchange and seek to add more ports so they can access resting liquidity ahead of their competitors. For instance, a Member may have just sent numerous messages and/or orders over one of their Full Service MEO Ports that are in queue to be processed. That same Member then seeks to enter an order to remove liquidity from the Exchange's Book. That Member may choose to send that order over one or more of their other Full Service MEO Ports with less message and/or order traffic to ensure that their liquidity taking order accesses the Exchange quicker because that port's queue is shorter. These firms also tend to frequently add and drop ports mid-month to determine which have the least latency, which results in increased costs to the Exchange to constantly make changes in the data center.
The firms that engage in the above-described liquidity removing and advanced trading strategies typically require more than two Full Service MEO Ports and, therefore, generate higher costs by utilizing more of the Exchange's resources. Those firms may also conduct other latency measurements over their ports and drop and simultaneously add ports mid-month based on their own assessment of their performance. This results in Exchange staff processing such requests, potentially purchasing additional equipment, and performing the necessary network engineering to replace those ports in the data center. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is equitable for these firms to experience increased port costs based on their disproportionate pull on Exchange resources to provide the additional ports.
In addition, the proposed tiered-pricing structure is equitable because it is designed to encourage Members and non-Members to be more efficient and economical when determining how to connect to the Exchange. Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act requires the Exchange to provide access on terms
The Exchange does not have visibility into other equities exchanges' costs to provide ports and port access or their fee markup over those costs, and therefore cannot use other exchanges' port fees as a benchmark to determine a reasonable markup over the costs of providing port access. Nevertheless, the Exchange believes the other exchanges' port fees are a useful example of alternative approaches to providing and charging for port access. To that end, the Exchange believes the proposed tiered-pricing structure for its Full Service MEO Ports is reasonable because the proposed highest tier is still less than or similar to fees charged for similar port access provided by other options exchanges with comparable market shares. For example, NASDAQ (equity options market share of 8.38% as of December 15, 2021 for the month of December)
In the each of the above cases, the Exchange's highest tiered port fee, as proposed, is similar to or less than the port fees of competing options exchanges with like market share. Further, as described in more detail below, many competing exchanges generate higher overall operating profit margins and higher “access fees” than the Exchange, inclusive of the projected revenues associated with the proposed fees. The Exchange believes that it provides a premium network experience to its Members and non-Members via a highly deterministic system, enhanced network monitoring and customer reporting, and a superior network infrastructure than markets with higher market shares and more expensive access fees. Each of the port fee rates in place at competing options exchanges were filed with the Commission for immediate effectiveness and remain in place today.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because, for the flat fee, the Exchange provides each Member two (2) Full Service MEO Ports for each matching engine to which that Member is connected. Unlike other options exchanges that provide similar port functionality and charge fees on a per port basis,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants or affect the ability of such market participants to compete.
The Exchange believes that the Proposed Access Fees do not place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because the Proposed Access Fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the allocation of the Proposed Access Fees reflects the network resources consumed by the various size of market participants—lowest bandwidth consuming members pay the least, and highest bandwidth consuming members pays the most, particularly since higher bandwidth consumption translates to higher costs to the Exchange.
The Exchange believes the Proposed Access Fees do not place an undue burden on competition on other options exchanges that is not necessary or appropriate. In particular, options market participants are not forced to connect to (and purchase MEO Ports from) all options exchanges. The Exchange also notes that it has far less Members as compared to the much greater number of members at other options exchanges. Not only does MIAX Pearl have less than half the number of members as certain other options exchanges, but there are also a number of the Exchange's Members that do not connect directly to MIAX Pearl. There are a number of large users of the MEO Interface and broker-dealers that are members of other options exchange but not Members of MIAX Pearl. The Exchange is also unaware of any assertion that its existing fee levels or the Proposed Access Fees would somehow unduly impair its competition with other options exchanges. To the contrary, if the fees charged are deemed too high by market participants, they can simply disconnect.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor one of the 15 competing options venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive. Based on publicly-available information, and excluding index-based options, no single exchange has more than approximately 16% market share. Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. Over the course of 2021, the Exchange's market share has fluctuated between approximately 3-6% of the U.S. equity options industry.
Regrettably, the Exchange believes that the application of the Guidance to date has adversely affected inter-market competition by impeding the ability of smaller, low cost exchanges to adopt or increase fees for their market data and access services (including connectivity and port products and services). Since the adoption of the Guidance, and even more so recently, it has become harder, particularly for smaller, low cost exchanges, to adopt or increase fees to generate revenue necessary to invest in systems, provide innovative trading products and solutions, and improve competitive standing to the benefit of the affected exchanges' market participants. Although the Guidance has served an important policy goal of improving disclosures in proposed rule changes and requiring exchanges to more clearly justify that their market data and access fee proposals are fair and reasonable, it has also been inconsistently applied and therefore negatively impacted exchanges, and particularly many smaller, low cost exchanges, that seek to adopt or increase fees despite providing enhanced disclosures and rationale to support their proposed fee changes.
As described above, the Exchange received one comment letter on the First Proposed Rule Change
Until recently, the Exchange has operated at a net annual loss since it launched operations in 2017.
Therefore, a finding by the Commission that the Exchange has not met its burden to show that the proposed fee change is consistent with the Act would be different than the Commission's treatment of similar past filings, would create further ambiguity regarding the standards exchange fee changes should satisfy, and is not warranted here.
In addition, the arguments in the SIG Letter do not support their claim that the Exchange has not met its burden to show the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Prior to, and after submitting the First Proposed Rule Change, the Exchange solicited feedback from its Members, including SIG. SIG relayed their concerns regarding the proposed change. The Exchange then sought to work with SIG to address their concerns and gain a better understanding of the access/connectivity/quoting infrastructure of other exchanges. In response, SIG provided no substantive suggestions on how to amend the First Proposed Rule Change to address their concerns and instead chose to submit a comment letter. One could argue that SIG is using the comment letter process not to raise legitimate regulatory concerns regarding the proposal, but to inhibit or delay proposed fee changes by the Exchange.
Nonetheless, the Exchange has enhanced its cost and revenue analysis and data in this Third [sic] Proposed Rule Change to further justify that the Proposed Access Fees are reasonable in accordance with the Commission Staff's Guidance. Among other things, these enhancements include providing baseline information in the form of data from the month before the Proposed Access Fees became effective.
First, the SIG Letter states that 10Gb ULL “lines are critical to Exchange members to be competitive
The SIG Letter challenges the below two bases the Exchange set forth in its Initial Proposed Fee Change and herein to support the assertion that the proposal provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges:
• “If the Exchanges were to attempt to establish unreasonable pricing, then no market participant would join or connect to the Exchanges, and existing market participants would disconnect.
• The fees will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit.”
The Exchange responds to each of SIG's challenges in turn below.
SIG asserts that “the prospect that a member may withdraw from the Exchanges if a fee is too costly is not a basis for asserting that the fee is
Next, SIG asserts that the Exchange's “profit margin comparisons do not support the Exchange's claims that they will not realize a supracompetitive profit,” that “the Exchanges' respective profit margins of 30% (for MIAX and Pearl) and 51% (for Emerald) in relation to connectivity fees are high in any event,” and “comparisons to competing exchanges' overall operating profit margins are an inapt `apples-to-oranges' comparison.”
The Exchange has provided ample data that the proposed fees would not result in excessive pricing or a supra-competitive profit. In this Third [sic] Proposed Rule Change, the Exchange no longer utilizes a comparison of its profit margin to that of other options exchanges as a basis that the Proposed Access Fees are reasonable. Rather, the Exchange has enhanced its cost and revenue analysis and data in this Third [sic] Proposed Rule Change to further justify that the Proposed Access Fees are reasonable in accordance with the Commission Staff's Guidance. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is no longer necessary to respond to this portion of the SIG Letter.
SIG challenges the proposed fees by arguing that “the Exchange[ ] provide[s] no support for [its] claim that [the] proposed tiered pricing structure is needed to encourage efficiency in connectivity usage and the Exchange[ ] provided no support for [the] claim that the tiered pricing structure allows them to better monitor connectivity usage, nor that this is an appropriate basis for the pricing structure in any event.” The tiered pricing structure for Full Service MEO Ports is not a new proposal and has been in place since 2018, well prior to the filing of the First Proposed Rule Change. Nonetheless, the Exchange provided additional justification to support that the Proposed Access Fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory above in response to SIG's assertions.
Nowhere in this proposal or in the First Proposed Rule Change did the Exchange assert that it benefits competition to allow a new exchange entrant to recoup their infrastructure costs. Rather, the Exchange asserts above that its “proposed fees are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because the Exchange, and its affiliates, are still recouping the initial expenditures from building out their systems while the legacy exchanges have already paid for and built their systems.” The Exchange no longer makes this assertion in this filing and, therefore, does not believe it is necessary to respond to SIG's assertion here.
Nonetheless, the Exchange notes that until recently it has operated at a net annual loss since it launched operations in 2017.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,
As the Exchange further details above, the Exchange first filed a proposed rule change proposing fee changes as proposed herein on July 1, 2021, with the proposed fee changes being immediately effective. That proposal, SR-PEARL-2021-33, was published for comment in the
When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present proposal, they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the exchange.
Among other things, exchange proposed rule changes are subject to Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8), which requires the rules of an exchange to: (1) Provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using the exchange's facilities;
In temporarily suspending the Exchange's fee change, the Commission intends to further consider whether the proposal to increase the monthly fees for MIAX Express Network Full Service Ports is consistent with the statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange under the Act. In particular, the Commission will consider whether the proposed rule change satisfies the standards under the Act and the rules thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange's rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not be designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the proposed rule change.
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on the following aspects of the proposal and asks commenters to submit data where appropriate to support their views:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the Exchange Act and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO] that proposed the rule change.”
The Commission believes it is appropriate to institute proceedings to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to whether the proposal is consistent with the Act, any potential comments or supplemental information provided by the Exchange, and any additional independent analysis by the Commission.
The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant concerns. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposal is consistent with Sections 6(b)(4), 6(b)(5), and 6(b)(8), or any other provision of the Act, or the rules and regulations thereunder. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposal should be approved or disapproved by March 18, 2022. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by April 1, 2022.
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”),
ICE Clear Europe proposes to modify certain provisions of its CDS Clearing Stress Testing Policy (“CDS Stress-Testing Policy”) and CDS Clearing Back-Testing Policy (“CDS Back-Testing Policy”) to make certain clarifications and updates.
In its filing with the Commission, ICE Clear Europe 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. ICE Clear Europe has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
ICE Clear Europe is proposing to [sic] its CDS Back-Testing Policy and its CDS Stress-Testing Policy to describe more fully certain existing Clearing House practices, as discussed herein.
The amendments to the CDS Back-Testing Policy would generally clarify the types of back-testing the Clearing House performs of its CDS risk models. The amendments would also make minor terminology updates to conform uses of defined terms, make typographical corrections throughout the document, and add and/or update section names and numbering to improve organization and readability.
The general discussion of the Clearing House's Back-testing approach would be amended to add a new paragraph which would specify that the Clearing House conducts several types of back-tests described in the CDS Back-Testing Policy and that the Clearing House adopts all the available reliable and validated data for each back-test in order to assess the model performance over a long period in which stressed market conditions and idiosyncratic events are likely to have occurred.
A new section would be added (and numbering would be updated accordingly) to describe the use of overlapping and non-overlapping data in the back-testing of the CDS risk model performed by the Clearing House. The section would state explicitly that using non-overlapping back-testing for static portfolios is the preferred approach because the CDS risk model is designed to cover a multi-days risk horizon, but that the lack of sufficiently long data sets may limit the use of the approach. Overlapping back-testing is used in order for the Clearing House to have a statistically significant sample, but the count of exceedances is artificially duplicated. The amendments also would discuss the ways the Clearing House addresses the problem of time dependent observations.
The discussion of the implementation of the Basel Traffic Light System (BTLS) would be updated to state explicitly that one of the main assumptions of BTLS is that excessive losses are time independent. The amendments would describe how, because multi-horizon overlapping back-testing is time dependent, the problem would be addressed by correcting the number of consecutive exceedances within the risk time horizon.
The discussion of Multi-horizon back testing (renamed Multi-days horizon back-testing) would clarify that the observed loss is calculated as the minimum NAV change over 5 days for house accounts. Further clarificatory updates that would be made include specifying that shortfall is also known as “back-test exceedances” and that unrealized loss is also known as “worst N-days P&L”. These updates would be made throughout the CDS Back-Testing Policy in order to be more descriptive and improve readability. The amendments would further reflect that the Clearing House's use of the worst N-days P&L may lead to multiple consecutive back-test exceedances following one large market move in the overlapping back-testing approach.
The discussion of detailed daily back-testing results would be updated to include further explanations of the information presented in Table 2 (Example of the minimum 5-day P/L detail for daily back-testing). Specifically, the amendments would provide that the last two examples in Table 2 shows the worst N-days P/L could be the 4-days P/L or 3-days P/L.
The section relating to back-testing the production model with Clearing Members accounts would be amended to clarify that a minimum of one year of observations is required to define the statistical significance of back-testing results.
Provisions relating to back-testing the production model with Special Strategy portfolios would be updated to describe that the set of portfolios tested include strategies like Index arbitrage portfolios with long Index and short Single Names constituent of the current Index. The strategies would refer to the main Indices where the Clearing House clears part of the underlying Single Names. Additionally, the amendments would provide that back-test results at the 99.5% quantile would be reviewed on at least a monthly basis, and that back-test results at the 99.75% quantile would be reviewed on an ad-hoc basis, when there is a large market move. A table showing portfolio reconstruction for special strategy back-testing would be removed as unnecessary detail now covered in the more general description of the special strategies.
A new section addressing stylized portfolios back-testing would be added and would provide that the Clearing Risk Department would perform back-testing on a series of stylized portfolios when a new risk factor is introduced for clearing. Such stylized portfolios aim at replicating certain trading strategies in order to make sure that the risk related to the newly introduced risk factors can be managed through the current CDS risk model. Stylized portfolios back-testing may be carried out more frequently on the risk factors that [sic] the largest open interest at the Clearing House in order to provide further assurance regarding the CDS risk model performance. The changes reflect current back-testing practice, and are intended to more clearly document such practices in the Back-Testing Policy.
The provisions relating to univariate back-testing would be updated to provide that back-testing results at 99.5% quantile would be reviewed on at least a monthly basis by the Clearing Risk Department and reported to the Model Oversight Committee on a monthly basis, which reflects current practice. Back-testing results at 99.75% quantile would be reviewed on ad-hoc basis, when stress market conditions might cause breaches at 99.5% quantile.
In the CDS Stress-Testing Policy, the description of the use of Hypothetical Scenarios would be updated to clarify
ICE Clear Europe believes that the amendments to the CDS Back-Testing Policy and the CDS Stress-Testing Policy are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A of the Act
The amendments to the CDS Back-Testing Policy are generally designed to enhance and clarify the descriptions of back-testing performed on ICE Clear Europe CDS risk models. Although these changes are largely not intended to represent a change in current Clearing House practices, they are intended to more clearly reflect those practices and thereby enhance the ongoing implementation and monitoring of back-testing. In particular, the amendments clarify the use of overlapping and non-overlapping data sets, the back-testing of stylized portfolios when new risk factors are rolled out, assumptions around time independence of exceedances, and the review process for the 99.75% quantile back tests (including the frequency of review and the Clearing House committees responsible for review). The amendment to the CDS Stress-Testing Policy would clarify the use of hypothetical scenarios in constructing forward looking credit event scenarios in stress testing of the CDS risk model. Therefore, the amendments will help ICE Clear Europe ensure that its risk model will effectively measure credit exposures and default risks, and thus that the Clearing House adequately maintains adequate financial resources to support its CDS operations. The amendments will therefore enhance the stability of the Clearing House and overall promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions and, derivative agreements, contracts, and transactions, and the public interest in the sound operation of clearing agencies. Accordingly, the amendments are consistent with the requirements of Section 17A(b)(3)(F).
For similar reasons, the proposed amendments are also consistent with relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22. ICE Clear Europe believes that the proposed amendments are consistent with the relevant requirements of Rule 17Ad-22(e)(4)(vi)(A),
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(6)(vi)
Rules 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (v)
ICE Clear Europe does not believe the proposed rule changes would have any impact, or impose any burden, on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the
Written comments relating to the proposed amendments have not been solicited or received by ICE Clear Europe. ICE Clear Europe will notify the Commission of any written comments received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
This proposed rule change would modify and enhance OCC's governance arrangements. Specifically, OCC is proposing to amend certain of its governing documents by: (i) Clarifying that OCC's Public Directors may not be affiliated with any designated contract market (“DCM”) or futures commission merchant (“FCM”); (ii) allowing the Board of Directors (“Board”) to delegate authority to (a) Board-level committees (“Committees”) to review and approve certain routine initiatives and policies, as well as to authorize certain regulatory filings and (b) an OCC Officer to authorize certain regulatory filings in more limited cases;
Proposed amendments to the By-Laws can be found in Exhibit 5A to File No. SR-OCC-2022-002. Proposed amendments to the Board of Directors Charter and Corporate Governance Principles (“Board Charter”) can be found in Exhibit 5B to File No. SR-OCC-2022-002 Proposed amendments to OCC's Fitness Standards for Directors, Clearing Members and Others (“Fitness Standards”), can be found in Exhibit 5C to File No. SR-OCC-2022-002. Proposed amendments to the Audit Committee Charter (“AC Charter”), Compensation and Performance Committee (“CPC”) Charter, Governance and Nominating Committee (“GNC”) Charter, Risk Committee Charter (“RC Charter”), and Technology Committee Charter (“TC Charter”) (collectively, “Committee Charters”)
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
This proposed rule change would enhance certain OCC governance arrangements. Specifically, OCC is proposing to: (i) Amend OCC's By-Laws, Fitness Standards and Board Charter to clarify that OCC's Public Directors may not be affiliated with any DCM or FCM; (ii) amend OCC's By-Laws, Board Charter, and Committee Charters to enable standing delegation for (a) Committees to review and approve certain routine initiatives and policies, as well as to authorize certain regulatory filings and (b) an OCC officer to authorize certain regulatory filings in more limited cases; (iii) remove the portion of Article XI, Section 1 of the By-Laws that allows OCC to deem the affirmative vote or consent of an Exchange Director to be the approval of the stockholder that elected the Exchange Director for By-Law amendments that require stockholder consent; and (iv) implement other proposed changes to the Board Charter and Committee Charters arising from annual reviews of those governing documents.
The proposed rule change would amend Sections 6A and 12 of Article III of the By-Laws, the Fitness Standards adopted by the Board thereunder, and the Board Charter to codify OCC's practice of nominating Public Directors who are, in addition to other qualifications, unaffiliated with DCMs and FCMs. Currently, OCC's By-Laws and Fitness Standards preclude individuals from serving as Public Directors who are affiliated with a national securities exchange, national securities association, or a broker or dealer in securities.
OCC proposes to amend the Board Charter and Committee Charters to delegate authority from the Board to Committees to review and approve certain routine initiatives and policies. In addition, OCC proposes to amend its By-Laws and Committee Charters to delegate authority to authorize certain regulatory filings to a Committee or, in limited cases, an OCC officer. However, as provided under the current Board Charter, in all instances, the Board would retain the obligation to oversee such delegated activity.
While the Board Charter and Committee Charters delegate many reviews of routine initiatives or policies to Committees, each Committee often must recommend approval of the initiatives or amendments to policies to the Board for final approval or seek delegated authority to approve from the Board on a case-by-case basis. Currently, all regulatory filings are approved by the Board except for changes to OCC's fees, for which the Board has delegated authority to the CPC pursuant to the CPC Charter,
With respect to Committees, the proposal would allow the Board to delegate authority to each Committee to review and approve certain initiatives and policies without the need for separate Board approval. Specifically, OCC would amend the Board Charter and Committee Charters to allow for delegated authority for the Committees to review and approve the following initiatives and policies that currently require Board approval:
Each Committee generally would also have the authority to amend OCC policies filed with the Commission as rules of the clearing corporation for matters that are within the scope of the Committee's responsibilities. With respect to risk management-related policies, OCC would amend the RC Charter by deleting the provisions requiring the committee to recommend changes to certain risk-related policies to the Board for approval—under this proposal, the Risk Committee would be delegated to authorize such regulatory filings. The Board would retain its annual review of OCC's risk management policies, procedures and systems, as required by Rule 17Ad-22(e)(3)(i),
OCC would also amend the Committee Charters to include among each Committee's functions and responsibilities the authorization of regulatory submissions within the scope of the functions and responsibilities delegated to the Committee.
The proposed changes would also allow the Board to delegate authority to an OCC officer to make certain regulatory filings. Such delegated authority would help OCC to more efficiently revise its Rules and rule-filed policies to improve their clarity and ensure their consistency. Factors the Board would consider in delegating such authority to an officer include, but are not limited to, the responsibilities and expertise of the officer to whom authority would be delegated and any limitations on the scope of the delegated authority, including limitations to the subject matter, materiality of the changes, the regulatory approval process required to implement the amendments, and the manner in which the officer must notify the Board or a Committee about filings approved pursuant to such authority. These factors are identified in proposed amendments to the Board Charter. To facilitate this delegated authority, OCC would also amend Section 2 of Article XI of the By-Laws to allow the Board to delegate authority to an officer to authorize regulatory filings that would amend OCC's Rules. OCC anticipates that when implemented, the Board shall delegate authority to the Chief Legal Officer and Chief Regulatory Counsel to authorize regulatory filings that (1) may be filed for immediate effectiveness pursuant to Section 19(b)(3) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (“Exchange Act”),
OCC is proposing to amend Article XI of the By-Laws to remove the provision
The proposed change would make other housekeeping amendments to the Board Charter and Committee Charters arising from the annual review of OCC's governance arrangements. These proposed amendments are intended to increase consistency across OCC's governance arrangements and to make other conforming changes to improve their clarity and transparency.
This proposed rule change would amend the Board Charter by clarifying that the Board has delegated to Committees the “oversight” of specific risks, not the “management” of those risks. This proposed change better aligns the Board Charter with the Committee Charters and better distinguishes responsibilities of the Board, Committees, and management. The Board Charter would also be amended to replace reference to “senior management” or management in instances where referring to OCC's Management Committee would more clearly delineate OCC's governance structure. The proposed change would also amend the discussion of the Board's mission to more accurately reflect that OCC's services to the industry are not limited to clearance and settlement.
The proposed change would also amend provisions governing the composition of the Board and the Risk Committees to reflect OCC's belief that strong and transparent governance with robust member input on relevant risk issues is necessary to provide effective risk management, consistent with OCC's current practice. Proposed changes to the Board Charter and RC Charter would codify that one of the factors OCC considers when nominating Directors to the Board and Risk Committee is to obtain input from a broad array of market participants on risk management issues. This amendment would align the Board Charter and RC Charter with the By-Laws, which require significant Clearing Member representation on the Board.
In addition, the proposed changes would amend the Board Charter to provide for a minimum of four meetings per year, rather than five. This proposed change would align the Board Charter with the Committee Charters, which generally require at least four meetings each year. The proposed changes would also modify the attendance guidelines to provide that attendance telephonically or by videoconference for meetings scheduled for in-person attendance is discouraged. This proposed change conforms with the current Director Code of Conduct and would be applied to each of the Committee Charters.
The proposed changes would also revise the description of the Conflict of Interest Policy. Specifically, OCC would streamline the discussion by defining “conflict of interest” to include actual, potential or apparent conflicts of interest. Accordingly, OCC would remove references to “potential” conflicts of interests or matters that may “be reasonably perceived by others to raise questions about potential conflicts of interest” because potential or apparent conflicts of interest would now be subsumed by the defined term. These changes would align the Board Charter with the current Director Code of Conduct, which employs the same defined term. The Board Charter's discussion of ethics and conflicts of interest would also be amended to reflect the full title of the Director Code of Conduct and the corporate title for OCC's general counsel. In addition, the Board Charter would be updated to clarify that an Exchange Director's, Member Director's, or Public Director's qualification as independent for purposes of service on the Audit Committee is subject to the assessment of the Board and GNC for other disqualifying material relationships, as provided by the current Board Charter.
The proposed changes would also apply other administrative changes to remove unnecessary verbiage to certain provisions to enhance the clarity and concision of the Board Charter.
The Audit Committee assists the Board in overseeing OCC's financial reporting process, OCC's system of internal control, OCC's auditing process, OCC's process for monitoring compliance with applicable laws and
OCC is also proposing to update the cadence of certain Audit Committee reviews to reflect that the Audit Committee shall conduct the review each regular meeting. The current AC Charter contemplates that the Audit Committee shall conduct certain reviews quarterly based on the assumption that regular meetings will occur quarterly. While it is generally the case that regular meetings are scheduled each quarter, the proposed change would avoid the need to call special meetings to address items on a quarterly cadence if a regularly scheduled meeting happens to fall at the beginning of the next quarter or the end of the last quarter. The cadence of reviews for other certain reports described as “periodic” or occurring “regularly” would also be amended to reflect that that the review is conducted at each regular meeting of the Audit Committee. Similar changes would be made to the CPC Charter and TC Charter.
OCC is also proposing certain administrative edits to the AC Charter. Reference to the Audit Committee's review of the “Compliance Policy” would be changed to the “Compliance Risk Policy” to align with the current title of that policy. The proposed change would also modify reference to the General Counsel to reflect that the General Counsel is OCC's Chief Legal Officer. In addition, the proposed change would clarify that in the section addressing competencies of Audit Committee members, “working familiarity with basic finance and accounting practices” means “financial literacy.” The proposed changes would also remove unnecessary verbiage or otherwise modify the verbiage in certain provisions to enhance the clarity, concision and consistency of the AC Charter with other Committee Charters.
The Board established the CPC to assist the Board in overseeing general business, regulatory capital, investment, corporate planning, and compensation and human capital risks, as well as executive management succession planning and performance assessment.
OCC is also proposing certain administrative edits to the CPC Charter. Specifically, OCC would amend the CPC Charter by removing gendered pronouns that assume the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer necessarily will be individuals who identify as male. Similar changes would be applied to the Board Charter and AC Charter. The proposed changes would also provide for CPC oversight of OCC's succession planning for “critical roles,” in alignment with terminology in OCC's policies and procedures that address succession planning. In addition, references to the “Corporate Plan” would be replaced with references to the “corporate performance report,” which better describes the initiative by which the CPC assesses OCC's performance against its corporate goals.
The proposed changes would also include administrative changes by removing unnecessary verbiage or otherwise modifying the verbiage in certain provisions to enhance the clarity and concision, and consistency of the CPC Charter with other Committee Charters.
The Board established the GNC to assist the Board in overseeing OCC's corporate governance processes, including assessing the clarity and transparency of OCC's governance arrangements, establishing the qualifications necessary for Board service to ensure that the Board is able to discharge its duties and responsibilities, identifying and recommending to the Board candidates eligible for service as Public Directors and Member Directors, and resolving certain conflicts of interests.
The proposed changes would also include administrative changes by removing unnecessary verbiage or otherwise modifying the verbiage in certain provisions to enhance the clarity, concision, and consistency of the GNC Charter with other Committee Charters.
The Board established the Risk Committee to assist the Board in overseeing OCC's financial, collateral, risk model and third-party risk management processes, among other responsibilities.
OCC also proposes certain administrative changes to the RC Charter, including (i) to specify that the Risk Committee recommends changes to OCC's Recovery and Orderly Wind-Down Plan “for approval,” consistent with language used with respect to policies for which the Board has retained oversight with respect to amendments; and (ii) to replace “examinations” with “audits” in the description of the Risk Committee's oversight of internal or external audits of OCC's financial, collateral, risk model and third party risk management processes, consistent with the use of the term “audit” elsewhere in that description.
The Board established the Technology Committee to assist the Board in overseeing OCC's information technology (“IT”) strategy and other company-wide operational capabilities.
OCC believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 17A of the Exchange Act,
OCC believes the proposed changes to codify OCC's practice of nominating Public Directors who are unaffiliated with DCMs and FCMs are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.
In addition, OCC believes that proposed changes to Article III, Section 6A are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2)(i) and (vi).
OCC believes the proposed changes to establish a framework for delegated authority are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.
In addition, OCC believes the proposed changes to facilitate delegated authority are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2).
OCC believes the proposed change to Article XI of OCC's By-Laws is consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act.
In addition, OCC believes the proposed change to Article XI is consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2).
OCC believes the proposed changes to the Board Charter and Committee Charters to apply recommendations made as part of OCC's annual review of those governance arrangements are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of
In addition, for the reasons described below, OCC believes these proposed amendments increase consistency, accuracy, and transparency across these documents, consistent Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2);
• Amendments to the Board Charter would better align the Board Charter with the Committee Charters and better distinguish responsibilities of the Board, Committees, and management by clarifying that the Board has delegated to Committees the “oversight” of specific risks, not the “management” of those risks, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), which requires, in part, that OCC's governance arrangements specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
• Further amendments to the Board Charter would replace references to “senior management” or “management” in instances where a reference to OCC's Management Committee would more clearly delineate OCC's governance structure, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), which requires, in part, that OCC's governance arrangements specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
• Further amendments to the Board Charter and RC Charter would codify that one of the factors OCC considers when nominating Directors to the Board and Risk Committee is to obtain input from a broad array of market participants, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), which requires, in part, that OCC's governance arrangements support the objectives of participants and consider the interests of other relevant stakeholders.
• Further amendments to the Board Charter and Committee Charters would align with the current Director Code of Conduct by (1) modifying the attendance guidelines to provide that attendance telephonically or by videoconference for meetings scheduled for in-person attendance is discouraged and (2) in the case of the Board Charter, revising the description of the Conflict of Interest Policy, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), which requires, in part, that OCC's governance arrangements be clear and transparent.
• Amendments to the AC Charter, CPC Charter, RC Charter, and TC Charter to align with language in the Board Charter would clarify each Committee's oversight of management's responsibility to “measure” the risks within the scope of those risks that the Board has charged each Committee to assist the Board in overseeing, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), which requires, in part, that OCC's governance arrangements be clear and transparent and specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
• Amendments to the Board Charter and RC Charter would align with other Committee Charters in providing for a minimum of four meetings per year, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), which requires, in part, that OCC's governance arrangements be clear and transparent.
• Amendments to the AC Charter, CPC Charter, and TC Charter would align the cadence of certain reviews by and reports to those committees with each regularly scheduled meeting, regardless of whether regularly scheduled meetings occur within each fiscal quarter, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), which requires, in part, that OCC's governance arrangements be clear and transparent and specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
• Amendments to the AC Charter to clarify that the Audit Committee recommends such material changes for Board approval would better delineate the responsibilities between the Board and AC Charter, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), which requires, in part, that OCC's governance arrangements specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
• Amendments to the CPC Charter would include the CPC's oversight of OCC's diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, reflecting OCC's commitment to a diverse and inclusive workplace, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), which requires, in part, that OCC's governance arrangements support the public interest requirements of the Exchange Act and establish that the board of directors and senior management have appropriate experience and skills to discharge their duties and responsibilities.
• Further amendments to the CPC Charter would remove gendered pronouns to help ensure the accuracy of the CPC Charter regardless of the gender identity of its senior management or directors, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), which requires, in part, that OCC's governance arrangements be clear and transparent.
• Amendments to the GNC Charter would delineate responsibilities between the Board and GNC by providing that in addition to recommending changes to the Committee Charters, as currently provided, the GNC shall also recommend changes to the Board Charter, as appropriate, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), which requires, in part, that OCC's governance arrangements specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
• Amendments to the TC Charter would reflect that the Technology Committee is responsible for overseeing all security risks, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), which requires, in part, that OCC's governance arrangements specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
• Amendments to the RC Charter would reflect the Board's delegation to the Risk Committee to review and have the authority to approve at least once every twelve months OCC's risk appetites and risk tolerances, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2), which requires, in part, that OCC's governance arrangements specify clear and direct lines of responsibility.
• Other administrative amendments to the Board Charter and Committee Charters would help ensure the continued clarity and transparency of these governing documents and employ consistent language across the Board Charter and Committee Charters, consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2).
OCC does not believe that the proposed rule change would have any impact or impose any burden on competition.
For the foregoing reasons, OCC believes that the proposed rule change is in the public interest, would be consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act applicable to clearing agencies, and would not have any impact or impose a burden on competition.
Written comments on the proposed rule change were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) By order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
OCC shall post notice on its website of proposed changes that are implemented. The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
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 Vanessa Countryman, Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All comments received will be posted without change. Persons submitting comments are cautioned that we do not redact or edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly.
All submissions should refer to File Number SR-OCC-2022-002 and should be submitted on or before
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Kansas (FEMA-4640-DR), dated 02/17/2022.
Issued on 02/17/2022.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on 02/17/2022, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17352 B and for economic injury is 17353 0.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Notice of funding opportunity.
The Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces the opportunity to apply for approximately $1 billion in FY 2022 discretionary funds for the newly established Airport Terminal Program (ATP), made available under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021 (IIJA), Public Law 117-58, herein referred to as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). The purpose of the ATP is to make annual grants available to eligible airports for airport terminal development projects that address the aging infrastructure of the nation's airports. In addition, ATP grants will align with DOT's Strategic Framework FY2022-2026 at
Airport sponsors that wish to be considered for FY 2022 ATP discretionary funding should submit an application that meets the requirements of this NOFO as soon as possible, but no later than 5:00 p.m. Eastern time, March 28, 2022. Submit applications electronically at
BIL Implementation Team, FAA Office of Airports, at our FAA BIL email address:
BIL established the ATP, a competitive discretionary grant program, which provides approximately $1 billion in grant funding annually for five years (Fiscal Years 2022-2026) to upgrade, modernize, and rebuild our nation's airport terminals and sponsor-owned Airport Traffic Control Towers (ATCTs). This includes bringing airport facilities into conformity with current standards; constructing, modifying, or expanding facilities as necessary to meet demonstrated aeronautical demand; enhancing environmental sustainability; encouraging actual and potential competition; and providing a balanced system of airports to meet the roles and functions necessary to support civil aeronautical demand. This program also supports the President's goals to mobilize American ingenuity to build modern infrastructure and an equitable, clean energy future. In support of Executive Order 13985,
The ATP falls under the project grant authority for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) in 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 47104. Per 2 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200—
Consistent with statutory criteria and Executive Order 14008,
The ATP is a $5 billion grant program, distributed as approximately $1 billion annually for five years (Fiscal Years 2022, 2023, 2024, 2025, and 2026), subject to annual allocations limitations based on airport roles found in the published National Plan of Integrated Airport Systems (NPIAS), as updated with current year data. In general, the $5 billion in ATP grant funding is subject to the following annual award allocation limitations: Not more than 55% shall be for large hub airports, not more than 15% shall be for medium hub airports, not more than 20% shall be for small hub airports, and not less than 10% shall be for nonhub and nonprimary airports.
The FAA will consider projects that increase capacity and passenger access; projects that replace aging infrastructure; projects that achieve compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101,
Projects for relocating, reconstructing, repairing, or improving an airport-owned ATCT will also be considered. In addition to the considerations above, these projects will also be evaluated based on overall impact on the national airspace system including age of facility, operational constraints, and nonstandard facilities. The FAA will publish a NOFO annually to announce additional funding made available, approximately $1 billion per year, for Fiscal Years 2023-2026.
Eligible applicants are those airport sponsors normally eligible for Airport Improvement Program (AIP) discretionary grants as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47115. This includes a public agency, private entity, state agency, Indian Tribe or Pueblo owning a public-use NPIAS airport, the Secretary of the Interior for Midway Island Airport, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, Republic of Palau.
The Federal cost share of ATP grants is 80 percent for large and medium hub airports, and 95 percent for the remainder of airports eligible to receive ATP grants, which includes small hub, nonhub, and nonprimary airports.
All projects funded from the ATP must be:
i. Airport terminal development, defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(28) as development of an airport passenger terminal building, including terminal gates; access roads servicing exclusively airport traffic that leads directly to or from an airport passenger terminal building; and walkways that lead directly to or from an airport passenger terminal building. Under the ATP, the FAA may consider projects that qualify as “terminal development” (including multimodal terminal development), as that term is defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(28);
ii. On-airport rail access projects as set forth in Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Update 75-21 (86 FR 48793, August 31, 2021);
iii. Airport-owned ATCT that includes relocating, reconstructing, repairing, or improving the ATCT; and
iv. Justified based on civil aeronautical demand.
An application for ATP terminal or ATCT projects, FAA Form 5100-144,
Direct all inquiries regarding applications to the appropriate Regional Office (RO) or Airports District Office (ADO). RO/ADO contact information is below:
Applicants will be required to submit information contained in FAA Form 5100-144,
All applications must be submitted electronically following the instruction on the form. Once the form is complete, save a copy of the form electronically to your files for future reference. Next, scroll to the bottom of the form and press the “submit” button. The form will be automatically emailed to the FAA BIL Team for review and evaluation, or as a backup, email the form manually to:
Applicants selected to receive an ATP grant will then be required to follow AIP grant application procedures prior to award, which include meeting all prerequisites for funding, and submission of Standard Form SF-424,
Airports covered under the FAA's State Block Grant Program should coordinate with their associated state agencies, and submit project application via the procedures noted above.
Applicants must comply with 2 CFR part 25—
Once awarded, the FAA grant recipient must maintain the currency of its information in SAM until the grantee submits the final financial report required under the grant or receives the final payment, whichever is later. A grant recipient must review and update the information at least annually after the initial registration and more frequently if required by changes in information or another award term.
The FAA may not make an award until the applicant has complied with all applicable UEI and SAM requirements. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the FAA is ready to make an award, the FAA may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive an award and use that determination as a basis for making a federal award to another applicant.
Non-federal entities that have received a federal award are required to report certain civil, criminal, or administrative proceedings to SAM (currently the Federal Awardee Performance and Integrity Information System (FAPIIS)
Airports that wish to be considered for FY 2022 ATP discretionary funding should submit an application that meets the requirements of this NOFO as soon as possible, but no later than 5:00 p.m.
All projects funded from the ATP must be airport terminal development, defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(28) as development of an airport passenger terminal building, including terminal gates; access roads servicing exclusively airport traffic that leads directly to or from an airport passenger terminal building; and walkways that lead directly to or from an airport passenger terminal building. Under the ATP, the FAA may consider projects that qualify as “terminal development” (including multimodal terminal development), as that term is defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(28); and projects for on-airport rail access projects as set forth in Passenger Facility Charge (PFC) Update 75-21 (86 FR 48793, August 31, 2021).
Additionally, ATP eligible projects include relocating, reconstructing, repairing, or improving an airport-owned ATCT. ATP funds may not be used to support or oppose union organizing.
Applications for FY 2022 ATP will be rated using the following criteria:
i. Must meet eligibility requirements under the ATP, which includes terminal development (including multimodal terminal development) as defined in 49 U.S.C. 47102(28), on-airport rail access projects, or airport-owned ATCT relocation, reconstruction, repair, or improvements.
ii. Timeliness of implementation, with priority given to those projects that can satisfy all statutory and administrative requirements for grant award in FY 2022.
iii. Favorable consideration will be given to eligible and justified terminal development (including multimodal terminal development), on-airport rail access projects, and ATCT projects that:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
iv. ATCT projects that relocate, reconstruct, repair, or improve an airport-owned ATCT will also be evaluated based on overall impact on the national airspace system including age of facility, operational constraints, and nonstandard facilities.
v. FAA will provide a preference to projects that achieve a complete development objective, even if awards for the project must be phased, and prioritize projects that have received partial awards.
vi. The applicant should describe whether and how project delivery and implementation create good-paying jobs with the free and fair choice to join a union to the greatest extent possible, the use of demonstrated strong labor standards, practices and policies (including for direct employees, contractors, and sub-contractors); use of project labor agreements; distribution of workplace rights notices; the use of Local Hire Provisions;
Applications will be evaluated based on the information submitted related to the above criteria in E.1 to ensure responsiveness to this NOFO and the intent of the ATP. Applicants are encouraged to submit projects that meet as many of the above criteria as possible, but do not need to meet all criteria to be considered. Federal awarding agency personnel will evaluate applications based on how well the projects meet the criteria in E.1, including project eligibility, justification, readiness, and the availability of matching funds. The FAA will also consider projects that advance the goals of the following Executive Orders: The President's January 20, 2021, Executive Order 13990,
Prior to making a Federal award with a total amount of Federal share greater than the simplified acquisition threshold, FAA is required to review and consider any information about the applicant that is in the designated integrity and performance system accessible through SAM (currently FAPIIS) (see 41 U.S.C. 2313). An applicant, at its option, may review information in the designated integrity and performance systems accessible through SAM and comment on any information about itself that a Federal awarding agency previously entered. FAA will consider any comments by the applicant, in addition to the other information in the designated integrity and performance system, in making a judgment about the applicant's integrity, business ethics, and record of performance under Federal awards when completing the review of risk posed by applicants as described in § 200.206.
BIL awards are announced through a Congressional notification process and a DOT Secretary's Notice of Intent to Fund. The FAA RO/ADO representative will contact the airport with further information and instructions. Once all pre-grant actions are complete, the FAA RO/ADO will offer the airport sponsor a grant for the announced project. This offer may be provided through postal mail or by electronic means. Once this offer is signed by the airport sponsor, it becomes a grant agreement. Awards made under this program are subject to conditions and assurances in the grant agreement.
Costs incurred after enactment of the BIL, November 15, 2021, are eligible for reimbursement under the ATP.
All grant recipients are subject to the grant requirements of the AIP, found in 49 U.S.C. Chapter 471. Grant recipients are subject to requirements in the FAA's
Each grant recipient must assure that it will comply with all applicable federal statutes, regulations, executive orders, directives, FAA circulars, and other federal administrative requirements in carrying out any project supported by the ATP grant. The grant recipient must acknowledge that it is under a continuing obligation to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant agreement issued for its project with the FAA. The grant recipient understands that federal laws, regulations, policies, and administrative practices might be modified from time to time and may affect the implementation of the project. The grant recipient must agree that the most recent Federal requirements will apply to the project unless the FAA issues a written determination otherwise.
The grant recipient must submit the Certifications at the time of grant application and Assurances must be accepted as part of the grant agreement at the time of accepting a grant offer.
Grant recipients are subject to financial reporting per 2 CFR 200.328 and performance reporting per 2 CFR 200.329. Under the ATP, the grant recipient is required to comply with all Federal financial reporting requirements and payment requirements, including the submittal of timely and accurate reports. Financial and performance reporting requirements are available in the FAA October 2020 Financial Reporting Policy, which is available at
The grant recipient must comply with annual audit reporting requirements. The grant recipient and sub-recipients, if applicable, must comply with 2 CFR part 200 subpart F Audit Reporting Requirements. The grant recipient must comply with any requirements outlined in 2 CFR part 180,
For further information concerning this notice, please contact the FAA BIL Implementation Team via email at
All applicants, including those requesting full federal share of eligible projects costs, should have a plan to address potential cost overruns as part of an overall funding plan.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the Noise Exposure Maps submitted by City of Chicago Department of Aviation for Chicago Midway International Airport seq (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act) are in compliance with applicable requirements.
The effective date of the FAA's determination on the noise exposure maps is February 18, 2022.
Amy Hanson, Environmental Protection Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Chicago Airports District Office, 2300 East Devon Avenue, Des Plaines, IL 60018, Phone: 847-294-7354.
This notice announces that the FAA finds that the noise exposure maps submitted for Chicago Midway International Airport are in compliance with applicable requirements of Part 150, effective February 18, 2022. Under 49 U.S.C. 47503 of the Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), an airport operator may submit to the FAA noise exposure maps which meet applicable regulations and which depict non-compatible land uses as of the date of submission of such maps, a description of projected aircraft operations, and the ways in which such operations will affect such maps. The Act requires such maps to be developed in consultation with interested and affected parties in the local community, government agencies, and persons using the airport. An airport operator who has submitted noise exposure maps that are found by FAA to be in compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations (FAR) Part 150, promulgated pursuant to the Act, may submit a noise compatibility program for FAA approval which sets forth the measures the operator has taken or proposes to take to reduce existing non-compatible uses and prevent the introduction of additional non-compatible uses.
The FAA has completed its review of the noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation submitted by City of Chicago Department of Aviation. The documentation that constitutes the “noise exposure maps” as defined in section 150.7 of Part 150 includes: Exhibit 3-1 and Exhibit 4-1 of the Part 150 study document. The FAA has determined that these noise exposure maps and accompanying documentation are in compliance with applicable requirements. This determination is effective on February 18, 2022.
FAA's determination on an airport operator's noise exposure maps is limited to a finding that the maps were developed in accordance with the procedures contained in appendix A of FAR Part 150. Such determination does not constitute approval of the applicant's data, information or plans, or a commitment to approve a noise compatibility program or to fund the implementation of that program. If questions arise concerning the precise relationship of specific properties to noise exposure contours depicted on a noise exposure map submitted under section 47503 of the Act, it should be noted that the FAA is not involved in any way in determining the relative locations of specific properties with regard to the depicted noise contours, or in interpreting the noise exposure maps to resolve questions concerning, for example, which properties should be covered by the provisions of section 47506 of the Act. These functions are inseparable from the ultimate land use control and planning responsibilities of local government. These local responsibilities are not changed in any way under Part 150 or through FAA's review of noise exposure maps. Therefore, the responsibility for the detailed overlaying of noise exposure contours onto the map depicting properties on the surface rests exclusively with the airport operator that submitted those maps, or with those public agencies and planning agencies with which consultation is required under section 47503 of the Act. The FAA has relied on the certification by the airport operator, under section 150.21 of FAR Part 150, that the statutorily required consultation has been accomplished.
The full noise exposure map documentation and of the FAA's evaluation of the maps is available for examination at the
Questions may be directed to the individual named above under the heading
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of revised regulatory guidance.
FMCSA announces a revision to its regulatory guidance concerning the use of the term “medical treatment” for the purpose of accident reporting. The revised guidance explains that an x-ray examination is a diagnostic procedure and should no longer be considered “medical treatment” in determining whether a crash should be included on a motor carrier's accident register.
This revised guidance is applicable on February 25, 2022 and expires February 25, 2027.
Mr. Richard Clemente, Driver and Carrier Operations Division, FMCSA, (202) 366-2722,
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations define
A person is transported to a hospital from the scene of a commercial motor vehicle traffic accident.
In one situation, the person undergoes observation or a “checkup.[”] Is this considered “medical treatment,” making the CMV occurrence an “accident” for purposes of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations?
In another situation, the person undergoes x-ray examination or is given a prescription, but is released from the facility without being admitted as an inpatient. Is the x-ray or prescription considered “medical treatment,” making the CMV occurrence [an] “accident” for purposes of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations?
In the second situation, yes. A person who undergoes x-ray examination (or other imaging, such as computed tomography or CT), or is given prescription medication (or the prescription itself), has received “medical treatment.”
In accordance with 49 CFR 390.15(b), motor carriers are required to maintain an accident register for 3 years after the date of each “accident.” A motor carrier's Crash Indicator Behavior Analysis and Safety Improvement Category (BASIC) score illustrates a historical pattern of crash involvement, including frequency and severity. The Crash Indicator BASIC score is based on information from State-reported crashes that meet reportable crash standards.
A petition was submitted to FMCSA requesting a revision to Question 27, stating that an x-ray is a diagnostic test that may find no injury and should not be considered a form of medical treatment. The petitioner suggested that the Agency mirror the Occupational Safety and Health Administration's definition of medical treatment that excludes diagnostic procedures, such as x-rays and blood tests. FMCSA agrees with the revision.
FMCSA clarifies when a person is considered to have received medical treatment after an accident. FMCSA revises Question 27 under 49 CFR 390.5 and 390.5T, which is available at
This guidance lacks the force and effect of law, except as incorporated into a contract, and is not meant to bind the public in any way. This guidance document is intended only to provide clarity to the public regarding existing requirements under the law or Agency policies.
A person is transported to a hospital from the scene of a commercial motor vehicle traffic accident.
In one situation, the person undergoes observation or a checkup. Is this considered “medical treatment,” making the CMV occurrence an “accident” for purposes of the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations?
In another situation, the person undergoes x-ray examination or is given a prescription but is released from the facility without being admitted as an inpatient. Is the x-ray or prescription considered “medical treatment,” making the CMV occurrence an “accident” for purposes of the FMCSRs?
In the second situation, a person who undergoes an x-ray examination (or other imaging, such as computed tomography or CT) has not received “medical treatment.” The x-ray examination is a diagnostic procedure but is not considered “medical treatment.” However, a person who is given prescription medication (or the prescription itself) has received “medical treatment.”
In accordance with section 5203(a)(2)(A) and (a)(3) of the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, Public Law 114-94, 129 Stat. 1312, 1535 (Dec. 4, 2015), the revised regulatory guidance will be posted in the guidance portal on FMCSA's website,
Departmental Offices, Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests 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. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Molly Stasko by emailing
Departmental Offices, U.S. Department of the Treasury.
Notice.
The Department of the Treasury will submit the following information collection requests 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. The public is invited to submit comments on these requests.
Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of the submissions may be obtained from Molly Stasko by emailing
The Highway and Transportation Funding Act of 2014 (HATFA), Public Law 113-159, was enacted on August 8, 2014, and was effective retroactively for single employer defined benefit pension plans, optional for plan years beginning in 2013 and mandatory for plan years beginning in 2014.
Section 3608(b) of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act), Public Law 116-136 provides that for purposes of applying § 436 of the Code (and § 206(g) of ERISA), a sponsor of a single-employer defined benefit pension plan may elect to treat the plan's adjusted funding target attainment percentage (AFTAP) for the last plan year ending before January 1, 2020, as the AFTAP for plan years that include calendar year 2020. Notice 2020-61, in part, provides guidance on the rules relating to this election.
Section 115(a) of the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act), Division O of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020, Public Law 116-94, added new § 430(m) to the Code to permit the plan sponsor of a community newspaper plan under which no participant has had an increase in accrued benefit after December 31, 2017 to elect to have alternative minimum funding standards apply to the plan in lieu of the minimum funding requirements that would otherwise apply under § 430. Pursuant to § 430(m)(2), any election under § 430(m) will be made at such time and in such manner as prescribed by the Secretary, and once an election is made with respect to a plan year, it will apply to all subsequent plan years unless revoked with the consent of the Secretary. Notice 2020-60 provides guidance regarding this election.
Notice 2021-48 provides guidance on the changes to the funding rules for single-employer defined benefit pension plans under § 430 of the Code that were made by §§ 9705 and 9706 of the (the ARP), Public Law 117-2. The ARP added § 430(c)(8), respect to plan years beginning after December 31, 2021 (or, at the election of the plan sponsor, plan years beginning after December 31, 2018, December 31, 2019, or December 31, 2020), the shortfall amortization bases for all plan years preceding the first plan year to which this provision applies (and all shortfall amortization installments determined with respect to those bases) are reduced to zero, and shortfall amortization installments for all new shortfall amortization bases are calculated to amortize each shortfall amortization base over 15 plan years.
In addition, § 9706 of the ARP provides changes to the applicable minimum and maximum percentages for the 24-month average segment rates set forth in the table in § 430(h)(2)(C)(iv)(II) of the Code, effective with respect to plan years beginning after December 31, 2019. However, § 9706(c)(2) provides that a plan sponsor may elect not to have the amendments made by § 9706 apply to any plan year beginning before January 1, 2022, either (as specified in the election) for all purposes or solely for purposes of determining the AFTAP for the plan year. This notice provides guidance regarding the elections under § 430(c)(8) of the Code and § 9706(c)(2) of the ARP.
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2022 for the Teacher Quality Partnership Grant (TQP) program, Assistance Listing Number 84.336S. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Mia Howerton, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 3C152, Washington, DC 20202-5960. Telephone: (202) 205-0147. Email:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
In the FY 2022 TQP competition, through Absolute Priority 1 and 2, we support new pre-baccalaureate and teacher residency models that would emphasize the creation or expansion of high-quality, comprehensive pathways into the classroom. Through Absolute Priorities 3 and 4, we add a focus on school leadership. Absolute Priority 3 supports the development of school leader programs in conjunction with the preparation of pre-baccalaureate teachers under Absolute Priority 1. Absolute Priority 4 supports the development of school leader programs in conjunction with the residency model under Absolute Priority 2.
Research on the TQP program shows that high-quality residency models can expand the pool of well-prepared applicants entering the teaching profession, promoting diversity of the workforce and bringing a wide range of experiences into the classroom to support students. In addition, the close partnership between school districts and IHEs required by the TQP program ensures that training programs are closely aligned with practice. A 2014 implementation study published by the Institute of Education Sciences
The Department also recognizes that school leaders are second only to classroom teachers among school-based factors that affect student learning. School leaders play a critically important role in students' academic success, especially in underserved schools, by creating cultures of high expectations for all students, recruiting and retaining highly effective teachers, and creating positive working conditions.
A recent report, “How Principals Affect Students and Schools: A Systematic Synthesis of Two Decades of Research”,
This competition includes four competitive preference priorities. Competitive Preference Priority 1, from the Effective Educator Development (EED) notice of final priorities, focuses on projects that propose to increase educator diversity. Under Competitive Preference Priority 1, projects must be designed to address identified teacher shortage areas and developed and implemented in partnership with Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic-Serving Institutions, Tribally Controlled Colleges and Universities, and other minority-serving institutions, in order to diversify the teacher pipeline. Teachers of color benefit all students and can have a particularly strong positive impact on students of color.
Competitive Preference Priorities 2, 3, and 4 are all from the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities. Competitive Preference Priority 2 focuses on projects that propose to support a diverse educator workforce that is prepared with the necessary certification and credentialing to teach in shortage areas, while recognizing the teachers' needs in the high-need schools to be served by the proposed project.
Competitive Preference Priority 2 focuses on strengthening teacher recruitment, selection, preparation, support, development, and effectiveness in ways that are consistent with the Department's policy goals of supporting teachers as the professionals they are and improving outcomes for all students by ensuring that underserved students have equal access to well-qualified, experienced, diverse, and effective educators. There is significant inequity in students' access to well-qualified, experienced, and effective teachers
Competitive Preference Priorities 3 and 4 focus on projects that propose to meet students' social, emotional, and academic needs and support projects that propose to promote equity in student access to educational resources and opportunities. These competitive preference priorities recognize the social, emotional, and academic needs of teacher candidates, as well as the importance of preparing those teachers to create inclusive, supportive, equitable, unbiased, and identity-safe learning environments for their students.
Research has demonstrated that, in elementary and secondary schools, children learn, grow, and achieve at higher levels in safe and supportive environments, and in the care of responsive adults they can trust.
Lastly, this competition includes one invitational priority for applicants that propose Grow Your Own (GYO) projects that encourage members of the community to pursue teaching careers. GYO projects can help address teacher shortages by increasing retention rates while also enhancing educator diversity.
The Biden Administration is committed to strengthening and diversifying teacher preparation, including by supporting GYO programs, to strengthen teacher pipelines and address shortages, increase the number of teachers of color, and support the growth of teachers. GYO programs encourage partnerships between LEAs and educator preparation programs. The effort to recruit and retain diverse educators, including through GYO programs, starts with such a collaboration. By fostering a shared reliance on the teacher preparation work that both the districts and IHEs provide, GYO models promote the preparation of local residents who will then be retained in that community and help to build capacity. A report from New America,
Applications will be peer reviewed and scored based on the selection criteria. Applications will be scored and placed in rank order by absolute priority; thus, applications will be scored and ranked separately to create four funding slates. Applications that address more than one absolute priority or do not clearly identify the absolute priority being addressed will not be reviewed.
Under this priority, an eligible partnership must carry out an effective pre-baccalaureate teacher preparation program or a fifth-year initial licensing program that includes all of the following:
(a)
(1) Preparing—
(i) New or prospective teachers to meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) (including teachers in rural school districts, special educators, and teachers of students who are limited English proficient);
(ii) Such teachers and, as applicable, early childhood educators, to understand empirically based practice and scientifically valid research related to teaching and learning and the applicability of such practice and research, including through the effective use of technology instructional techniques, and strategies consistent with the principles of universal design for learning, and through positive behavioral interventions and support strategies to improve student achievement; and
(iii) As applicable, early childhood educators to be highly competent; and
(2) Promoting strong teaching skills and, as applicable, techniques for early childhood educators to improve children's cognitive, social, emotional, and physical development.
(b)
(1) Implementing teacher preparation program curriculum changes that improve, evaluate, and assess how well all prospective and new teachers develop teaching skills;
(2) Using empirically-based practice and scientifically valid research, where applicable, about teaching and learning so that all prospective teachers and, as applicable, early childhood educators—
(i) Understand and can implement research-based teaching practices in classroom instruction;
(ii) Have knowledge of student learning methods;
(iii) Possess skills to analyze student academic achievement data and other measures of student learning and use such data and measures to improve classroom instruction;
(iv) Possess teaching skills and an understanding of effective instructional strategies across all applicable content areas that enable general education and special education teachers and early childhood educators to—
(A) Meet the specific learning needs of all students, including students with disabilities, students who are limited English proficient, students who are gifted and talented, students with low literacy levels, and, as applicable, children in ECE programs; and
(B) Differentiate instruction for such students;
(v) Can effectively participate as a member of the individualized education program team, as defined in section 614(d)(1)(B) of the IDEA; and
(vi) Can successfully employ effective strategies for reading instruction using the essential components of reading instruction;
(3) Ensuring collaboration with departments, programs, or units of a partner institution outside of the teacher preparation program in all academic content areas to ensure that prospective teachers receive training in both teaching and relevant content areas in order to meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA, which may include training in multiple subjects to teach multiple grade levels as may be needed for individuals preparing to teach in rural communities and for individuals preparing to teach students with disabilities;
(4) Developing and implementing an induction program;
(5) Developing admissions goals and priorities aligned with the hiring objectives of the high-need LEA in the eligible partnership; and
(6) Implementing program and curriculum changes, as applicable, to ensure that prospective teachers have the requisite content knowledge, preparation, and degree to teach Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate courses successfully.
(c)
(1) Incorporate year-long opportunities for enrichment, including—
(i) Clinical learning in classrooms in high-need schools served by the high-need LEA in the eligible partnership, and identified by the eligible partnership; and
(ii) Closely supervised interaction between prospective teachers and faculty, experienced teachers, principals, other administrators, and school leaders at ECE programs (as applicable), elementary schools, or secondary schools, and providing support for such interaction;
(2) Integrate pedagogy and classroom practice and promote effective teaching skills in academic content areas;
(3) Provide high-quality teacher mentoring;
(4) Be offered over the course of a program of teacher preparation;
(5) Be tightly aligned with course work (and may be developed as a fifth year of a teacher preparation program);
(6) Where feasible, allow prospective teachers to learn to teach in the same LEA in which the teachers will work, learning the instructional initiatives and curriculum of that LEA;
(7) As applicable, provide training and experience to enhance the teaching skills of prospective teachers to better prepare such teachers to meet the unique needs of teaching in rural or urban communities; and
(8) Provide support and training for individuals participating in an activity for prospective or new teachers described in this paragraph, or paragraphs (a) and (b), or (d) of this priority, and for individuals who serve as mentors for such teachers, based on each individual's experience. Such support may include—
(i) With respect to a prospective teacher or a mentor, release time for such individual's participation;
(ii) With respect to a faculty member, receiving course workload credit and compensation for time teaching in the eligible partnership's activities; and
(iii) With respect to a mentor, a stipend, which may include bonus, differential, incentive, or performance pay, based on the mentor's extra skills and responsibilities.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1) Individuals from underrepresented populations;
(2) Individuals to teach in rural communities and teacher shortage areas, including mathematics, science, special education, and the instruction of limited English proficient students; and
(3) Mid-career professionals from other occupations, former military personnel, and recent college graduates with a record of academic distinction.
(g)
(1) To implement literacy programs that incorporate the essential components of reading instruction;
(2) To use screening, diagnostic, formative, and summative assessments to determine students' literacy levels, difficulties, and growth in order to improve classroom instruction and improve student reading and writing skills;
(3) To provide individualized, intensive, and targeted literacy instruction for students with deficiencies in literacy skills; and
(4) To integrate literacy skills in the classroom across subject areas.
I.
(a) Supporting a teaching residency program described in paragraph II for high-need subjects and areas, as determined by the needs of the high-need LEA in the partnership.
(b) Placing graduates of the teaching residency program in cohorts that facilitate professional collaboration, both among graduates of the teaching residency program and between such graduates and mentor teachers in the receiving school.
(c) Ensuring that teaching residents who participate in the teaching residency program receive—
(1) Effective pre-service preparation as described in paragraph II;
(2) Teacher mentoring;
(3) Support required through the induction program as the teaching residents enter the classroom as new teachers; and
(4) The preparation described below:
(i) Incorporate year-long opportunities for enrichment, including—
(A) Clinical learning in classrooms in high-need schools served by the high-need LEA in the eligible partnership, and identified by the eligible partnership; and
(B) Closely supervised interaction between prospective teachers and faculty, experienced teachers, principals, other administrators, and school leaders at ECE programs (as applicable), elementary schools, or secondary schools, and providing support for such interaction.
(ii) Integrate pedagogy and classroom practice and promote effective teaching skills in academic content areas.
(iii) Provide high-quality teacher mentoring.
II.
(a)
(1) The integration of pedagogy, classroom practice, and teacher mentoring.
(2) Engagement of teaching residents in rigorous graduate-level course work leading to a master's degree while undertaking a guided teaching apprenticeship.
(3) Experience and learning opportunities alongside a trained and experienced mentor teacher—
(i) Whose teaching must complement the residency program so that classroom clinical practice is tightly aligned with coursework;
(ii) Who must have extra responsibilities as a teacher leader of the teaching residency program, as a mentor for residents, and as a teacher coach during the induction program for new teachers; and for establishing, within the program, a learning community in which all individuals are expected to continually improve their capacity to advance student learning; and
(iii) Who may be relieved from teaching duties as a result of such additional responsibilities.
(4) The establishment of clear criteria for the selection of mentor teachers based on measures of teacher effectiveness and the appropriate subject area knowledge. Evaluation of teacher effectiveness must be based on, but not limited to, observations of the following—
(i) Planning and preparation, including demonstrated knowledge of content, pedagogy, and assessment, including the use of formative and
(ii) Appropriate instruction that engages students with different learning styles.
(iii) Collaboration with colleagues to improve instruction.
(iv) Analysis of gains in student learning, based on multiple measures that are valid and reliable and that, when feasible, may include valid, reliable, and objective measures of the influence of teachers on the rate of student academic progress.
(v) In the case of mentor candidates who will be mentoring new or prospective literacy and mathematics coaches or instructors, appropriate skills in the essential components of reading instruction, teacher training in literacy instructional strategies across core subject areas, and teacher training in mathematics instructional strategies, as appropriate.
(5) Grouping of teaching residents in cohorts to facilitate professional collaboration among such residents.
(6) The development of admissions goals and priorities—
(i) That are aligned with the hiring objectives of the LEA partnering with the program, as well as the instructional initiatives and curriculum of such agency, in exchange for a commitment by such agency to hire qualified graduates from the teaching residency program; and
(ii) Which may include consideration of applicants who reflect the communities in which they will teach as well as consideration of individuals from underrepresented populations in the teaching profession.
(7) Support for residents, once the teaching residents are hired as teachers of record, through an induction program, professional development, and networking opportunities to support the residents through not less than the residents' first two years of teaching.
(b)
(1)
(i) Be a recent graduate of a four-year IHE or a mid-career professional from outside the field of education possessing strong content knowledge or a record of professional accomplishment; and
(ii) Submit an application to the teaching residency program.
(2)
(i) Strong content knowledge or record of accomplishment in the field or subject area to be taught.
(ii) Strong verbal and written communication skills, which may be demonstrated by performance on appropriate tests.
(iii) Other attributes linked to effective teaching, which may be determined by interviews or performance assessments, as specified by the eligible partnership.
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Serve as a full-time teacher for a total of not less than three academic years immediately after successfully completing the teaching residency program;
(ii) Fulfill the requirement under paragraph II-(c)(3)(i) of this priority by teaching in a high-need school served by the high-need LEA in the eligible partnership and teach a subject or area that is designated as high need by the partnership;
(iii) Provide to the eligible partnership a certificate, from the chief administrative officer of the LEA in which the resident is employed, of the employment required under paragraph II-(c)(3)(i) and (ii) of this priority at the beginning of, and upon completion of, each year or partial year of service;
(iv) Meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA, when the applicant begins to fulfill the service obligation under paragraph II-(c)(3) of this priority; and
(v) Comply with the requirements set by the eligible partnership under paragraph II-(d) of this priority if the applicant is unable or unwilling to complete the service obligation required by paragraph II-(c)(3).
(d)
(1)
(2)
(3)
Under this priority the Secretary gives priority to applications from eligible partnerships that propose to carry out an effective school leadership program that will prepare individuals enrolled or preparing to enroll in those programs for careers as superintendents, principals, ECE program directors, or other school leaders (including individuals preparing to work in LEAs located in rural areas who may perform multiple duties in addition to the role of a school leader).
An eligible partnership may carry out the school leadership program either in the partner high-need LEA or in further partnership with an LEA located in a rural area.
The school leadership program carried out under this priority must include the following activities:
(a) Preparation of school leaders. In preparing school leaders, the school
(1) Promoting strong leadership skills and, as applicable, techniques for school leaders to effectively—
(i) Create and maintain a data-driven, professional learning community within the leader's schools;
(ii) Provide a climate conducive to the professional development of teachers, with a focus on improving student achievement and the development of effective instructional leadership skills;
(iii) Understand the teaching and assessment skills needed to support successful classroom instruction and to use data to evaluate teacher instruction and drive teacher and student learning;
(iv) Manage resources and school time to improve student academic achievement and ensure the school environment is safe;
(v) Engage and involve parents, community members, the LEA, businesses, and other community leaders, to leverage additional resources to improve student academic achievement; and
(vi) Understand how students learn and develop in order to increase academic achievement for all students.
(2) Developing and improving a sustained and high-quality preservice clinical education program to further develop the leadership skills of all prospective school leaders involved in the program. This clinical education program must do the following:
(i) Incorporate year-long opportunities for enrichment, including—
(A) Clinical learning in high-need schools served by the high-need LEA or an LEA located in a rural area in the eligible partnership and identified by the eligible partnership; and
(B) Closely supervised interaction between prospective school leaders and faculty, new and experienced teachers, and new and experienced school leaders, in those high-need schools.
(ii) Integrate pedagogy and practice and promote effective leadership skills, meeting the unique needs of urban, rural, or geographically isolated communities, as applicable.
(iii) Provide for mentoring of new school leaders.
(3) Creating an induction program for new school leaders.
(4) Ensuring that individuals who participate in the school leadership program receive—
(i) Effective preservice preparation as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this priority;
(ii) Mentoring; and
(iii) If applicable, full State certification or licensure to become a school leader.
(5) Developing and implementing effective mechanisms to ensure that the eligible partnership is able to recruit qualified individuals to become school leaders through activities that may include an emphasis on recruiting into school leadership professions—
(i) Individuals from underrepresented populations;
(ii) Individuals to serve as superintendents, principals, or other school administrators in rural and geographically isolated communities and school leader shortage areas; and
(iii) Mid-career professionals from other occupations, former military personnel, and recent college graduates with a record of academic distinction.
(b) In order to be eligible for the school leadership program under this priority, an individual must be enrolled in or preparing to enroll in an IHE, and must—
(1) Be a—
(i) Recent graduate of an IHE;
(ii) Mid-career professional from outside the field of education with strong content knowledge or a record of professional accomplishment;
(iii) Current teacher who is interested in becoming a school leader; or
(iv) School leader who is interested in becoming a superintendent; and
(2) Submit an application to the leadership program.
Under this priority the Secretary gives priority to applications from eligible partnerships that propose to carry out an effective school leadership program that will prepare individuals enrolled or preparing to enroll in those programs for careers as superintendents, principals, ECE program directors, or other school leaders (including individuals preparing to work in LEAs located in rural areas who may perform multiple duties in addition to the role of a school leader).
An eligible partnership may carry out the school leadership program either in the partner high-need LEA or in further partnership with an LEA located in a rural area.
The school leadership program carried out under this priority must include the following activities:
(a) Preparation of school leaders. In preparing school leaders, the school leadership program must include the following activities:
(1) Promoting strong leadership skills and, as applicable, techniques for school leaders to effectively—
(i) Create and maintain a data-driven, professional learning community within the leader's schools.
(ii) Provide a climate conducive to the professional development of teachers, with a focus on improving student achievement and the development of effective instructional leadership skills;
(iii) Understand the teaching and assessment skills needed to support successful classroom instruction and to use data to evaluate teacher and drive teacher and student learning;
(iv) Manage resources and school time to improve student academic achievement and ensure a safe school environment;
(v) Engage and involve parents, community members, the LEA, businesses, and other community leaders, to leverage additional resources to improve student academic achievement; and
(vi) Understand how students learn and develop in order to increase academic achievement for all students.
(2) Developing and improving a sustained and high-quality preservice clinical education program to further develop the leadership skills of all prospective school leaders involved in the program. This clinical education program must do the following:
(i) Incorporate year-long opportunities for enrichment, including—
(A) Clinical learning in high-need schools served by the high-need LEA or an LEA located in a rural area in the eligible partnership and identified by the eligible partnership; and
(B) Closely supervised interaction between prospective school leaders and faculty, new and experienced teachers, and new and experienced school leaders, in those high-need schools.
(ii) Integrate pedagogy and practice and promote effective leadership skills, meeting the unique needs of urban, rural, or geographically isolated communities, as applicable.
(iii) Provide for mentoring of new school leaders.
(3) Creating an induction program for new school leaders.
(4) Ensuring that individuals who participate in the school leadership program receive—
(i) Effective preservice preparation as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this priority.
(ii) Mentoring; and
(iii) If applicable, full State certification or licensure to become a school leader.
(5) Developing and implementing effective mechanisms to ensure that the eligible partnership is able to recruit qualified individuals to become school leaders through activities that may
(i) Individuals from underrepresented populations.
(ii) Individuals to serve as superintendents, principals, or other school administrators in rural and geographically isolated communities and school leader shortage areas; and
(iii) Mid-career professionals from other occupations, former military personnel, and recent college graduates with a record of academic distinction.
(b) In order to be eligible for the school leadership program under this priority, an individual must be enrolled in or preparing to enroll in an IHE, and must—
(1) Be a—
(i) Recent graduate of an IHE;
(ii) Mid-career professional from outside the field of education with strong content knowledge or a record of professional accomplishment;
(iii) Current teacher who is interested in becoming a school leader; or
(iv) School leader who is interested in becoming a superintendent; and
(2) Submit an application to the leadership program.
If an applicant chooses to address one or more of the competitive preference priorities, the project narrative section of its application must identify its response to the competitive preference priorities it chooses to address. We will only review responses to the competitive preference priorities for those applications that, after review and scoring for the absolute priority and selection criteria, are within potential funding range.
These priorities are:
Under this priority, applicants must develop projects that are designed to improve the recruitment, outreach, preparation, support, development, and retention of a diverse educator workforce through adopting, implementing, or expanding one or both of the following:
(a) High-quality, comprehensive teacher preparation programs in Historically Black Colleges and Universities (eligible institutions under part B of title III and subpart 4 of part A title VII of the HEA), Hispanic Serving Institutions (eligible institutions under section 502 of the HEA), Tribal Colleges and Universities (eligible institutions under section 316 of the HEA), or other Minority Serving Institutions (eligible institutions under title III and title V of the HEA) that include one year of high-quality clinical experiences (prior to becoming the teacher of record) in high-need schools (as defined in this notice) and that incorporate best practices for attracting, supporting, graduating, and placing underrepresented teacher candidates.
(b) Reforms to teacher preparation programs to improve the diversity of teacher candidates, including changes to ensure underrepresented teacher candidates are fully represented in program admission, completion, placement, and retention as educators.
Projects that are designed to increase the proportion of well-prepared, diverse, and effective educators serving students, with a focus on underserved students, through increasing the number of teachers with certification or dual certification in a shortage area, or advanced certifications from nationally recognized professional organizations.
Projects that are designed to improve students' social, emotional, academic, and career development, with a focus on underserved students, through creating a positive, inclusive, and identity-safe climate at institutions of higher education, through one or more of the following activities:
(a) Fostering a sense of belonging and inclusion for underserved students.
(b) Implementing evidence-based practices for advancing student success for underserved students.
Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the applicant proposes a project designed to promote educational equity and adequacy in resources and opportunity for underserved students—
(a) In one or more of the following educational settings:
(1) Early learning programs.
(2) Elementary school.
(3) Middle school.
(4) High school.
(5) Career and technical education programs.
(6) Out-of-school-time settings.
(7) Alternative schools and programs.
(b) That examines the sources of inequity and inadequacy and implement responses, and that may include pedagogical practices in educator preparation programs and professional development programs that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status so that educators are better prepared to create inclusive, supportive, equitable, unbiased, and identity-safe learning environments for their students.
This priority is:
Projects that establish Grow Your Own programs that are designed to address shortages of teachers in high-need areas, schools, and/or geographic areas, or shortages of school leaders in high-need schools, and increase the diversity of qualified individuals entering the teacher, principal, or other school leader workforce.
(1) When referring to an organizational unit of an IHE, any academic unit that offers one or more academic majors in disciplines or content areas corresponding to the academic subject matter areas in which teachers provide instruction; and
(2) When referring to a specific academic subject area, the disciplines or content areas in which academic majors are offered by the arts and sciences organizational unit.
(1) In accordance with a specific State statute authorizing the granting of charters to schools, is exempt from significant State or local rules that inhibit the flexible operation and management of public schools, but not from any rules relating to the other requirements of this paragraph;
(2) Is created by a developer as a public school, or is adapted by a developer from an existing public school, and is operated under public supervision and direction;
(3) Operates in pursuit of a specific set of educational objectives determined by the school's developer and agreed to by the authorized public chartering agency;
(4) Provides a program of elementary or secondary education, or both;
(5) Is nonsectarian in its programs, admissions policies, employment practices, and all other operations, and is not affiliated with a sectarian school or religious institution;
(6) Does not charge tuition;
(7) Complies with the Age Discrimination Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C. 6101
(8) Is a school to which parents choose to send their children, and that—
(i) Admits students on the basis of a lottery, consistent with 20 U.S.C. 7221b(c)(3)(A) if more students apply for admission than can be accommodated; or
(ii) In the case of a school that has an affiliated charter school (such as a school that is part of the same network of schools), automatically enrolls students who are enrolled in the immediate prior grade level of the affiliated charter school and, for any additional student openings or student openings created through regular attrition in student enrollment in the affiliated charter school and the enrolling school, admits students on the basis of a lottery as described in clause (1);
(9) Agrees to comply with the same Federal and State audit requirements as do other elementary schools and secondary schools in the State, unless such State audit requirements are waived by the State;
(10) Meets all applicable Federal, State, and local health and safety requirements;
(11) Operates in accordance with State law;
(12) Has a written performance contract with the authorized public chartering agency in the State that includes a description of how student performance will be measured in charter schools pursuant to State assessments that are required of other schools and pursuant to any other assessments mutually agreeable to the authorized public chartering agency and the charter school; and
(13) May serve students in early childhood education programs or postsecondary students.
(1) Phonemic awareness;
(2) Phonics;
(3) Vocabulary development;
(4) Reading fluency, including oral reading skills; and
(5) Reading comprehension strategies.
(1) Is a highly qualified teacher such as a master teacher;
(2) Has been teaching for at least five years in a public or private school or IHE;
(3) Is recommended to be an exemplary teacher by administrators and other teachers who are knowledgeable about the individual's performance;
(4) Is currently teaching and based in a public school; and
(5) Assists other teachers in improving instructional strategies, improves the skills of other teachers, performs teacher mentoring, develops curricula, and offers other professional development.
(1) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).
(2) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (
(3) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (
(1)(i) For which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the agency are children from low-income families;
(ii) That serves not fewer than 10,000 children from low-income families;
(iii) That meets the eligibility requirements for funding under the Small, Rural School Achievement (SRSA) program under section 5211(b) of the ESEA; or
(iv) That meets eligibility requirements for funding under the Rural and Low-Income School (RLIS) program under section 5221(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7351(b)); and—
(2)(i) For which there is a high percentage of teachers not teaching in the academic subject areas or grade levels in which the teachers were trained to teach; or
(ii) For which there is a high teacher turnover rate or a high percentage of teachers with emergency, provisional, or temporary certification or licensure.
(1) The school is in the highest quartile of schools in a ranking of all schools served by an LEA, ranked in descending order by percentage of students from low-income families enrolled in such schools, as determined by the LEA based on one of the following measures of poverty:
(i) The percentage of students aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted in the most recent census data approved by the Secretary.
(ii) The percentage of students eligible for a free or reduced-price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
(iii) The percentage of students in families receiving assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act.
(iv) The percentage of students eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program.
(v) A composite of two or more of the measures described in paragraphs (1)(i) through (1)(iv).
(2) In the case of—
(i) An elementary school, the school serves students not less than 60 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced-price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act; or
(ii) Any other school that is not an elementary school, the other school serves students not less than 45 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced-price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act.
(3) The Secretary may, upon approval of an application submitted by an eligible partnership seeking a grant under title II of the HEA, designate a school that does not qualify as a high-need school under this definition, as a high-need school for the purpose of this competition. The Secretary must base the approval of an application for designation of a school under this clause on a consideration of the information required under section 200(11)(B)(ii) of the HEA and may also take into account other information submitted by the eligible partnership.
(1) With specialized education and training in development and education of young children from birth until entry into kindergarten;
(2) With—
(i) A baccalaureate degree in an academic major in the arts and sciences; or
(ii) An associate's degree in a related educational area; and
(3) Who has demonstrated a high level of knowledge and use of content and pedagogy in the relevant areas associated with quality early childhood education.
(1) High-quality teacher mentoring.
(2) Periodic, structured time for collaboration with teachers in the same department or field, including mentor teachers, as well as time for information-sharing among teachers, principals, administrators, other appropriate instructional staff, and participating faculty in the partner institution.
(3) The application of empirically-based practice and scientifically valid research on instructional practices.
(4) Opportunities for new teachers to draw directly on the expertise of teacher mentors, faculty, and researchers to support the integration of empirically-
(5) The development of skills in instructional and behavioral interventions derived from empirically-based practice and, where applicable, scientifically valid research.
(6) Faculty who—
(i) Model the integration of research and practice in the classroom; and
(ii) Assist new teachers with the effective use and integration of technology in the classroom.
(7) Interdisciplinary collaboration among exemplary teachers, faculty, researchers, and other staff who prepare new teachers with respect to the learning process and the assessment of learning.
(8) Assistance with the understanding of data, particularly student achievement data, and the applicability of such data in classroom instruction.
(9) Regular and structured observation and evaluation of new teachers by multiple evaluators, using valid and reliable measures of teaching skills.
(1) Who is aged 3 through 21;
(2) Who is enrolled or preparing to enroll in an elementary school or secondary school;
(3)(i) Who was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English;
(ii)(A) Who is a Native American or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas; and
(B) Who comes from an environment where a language other than English has had a significant impact on the individual's level of English language proficiency; or
(iii) Who is migratory, whose native language is a language other than English, and who comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; and
(4) Whose difficulties in speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language may be sufficient to deny the individual—
(i) The ability to meet the challenging State academic standards;
(ii) The ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of instruction is English; or
(iii) The opportunity to participate fully in society.
(a) A child participating in an early learning program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education who has a parent or guardian who is a member of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101), in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Space Force, National Guard, Reserves, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or Public Health Service or is a veteran of the uniformed services with an honorable discharge (as defined by 38 U.S.C. 3311).
(b) A student who is a member of the uniformed services, a veteran of the uniformed services, or the spouse of a service member or veteran.
(c) A child participating in an early learning program, a student enrolled in preschool through grade 12, or a student enrolled in career and technical education or postsecondary education who has a parent or guardian who is a veteran of the uniformed services (as defined by 37 U.S.C. 101).
(1) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(2) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(3) A single experimental study or quasi-experimental design study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, as appropriate, and that—
(i) Meets WWC standards with or without reservations;
(ii) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(iii) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks; and
(iv) Is based on a sample from more than one site (
(1) Whose graduates exhibit strong performance on State-determined qualifying assessments for new teachers through—
(i) Demonstrating that 80 percent or more of the graduates of the program who intend to enter the field of teaching have passed all of the applicable State qualification assessments for new teachers, which must include an assessment of each prospective teacher's subject matter knowledge in the content area in which the teacher intends to teach; or
(ii) Being ranked among the highest-performing teacher preparation programs in the State as determined by the State—
(A) Using criteria consistent with the requirements for the State report card under section 205(b) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1022d(b)) before the first publication of the report card; and
(B) Using the State report card on teacher preparation required under section 205(b) (20 U.S.C. 1022d(b)), after the first publication of such report card and for every year thereafter; and
(2) That requires—
(i) Each student in the program to meet high academic standards or demonstrate a record of success, as determined by the institution (including prior to entering and being accepted into a program), and participate in intensive clinical experience;
(ii) Each student in the program preparing to become a teacher who meets the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)); and
(iii) Each student in the program preparing to become an early childhood educator to meet degree requirements, as established by the State, and become highly competent.
(1) Apply rigorous, systematic, and objective methodology to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs;
(2) Present findings and make claims that are appropriate to, and supported by, the methods that have been employed; and
(3) Include, appropriate to the research being conducted—
(i) Use of systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;
(ii) Use of data analyses that are adequate to support the general findings;
(iii) Reliance on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and generalizable findings;
(iv) Strong claims of causal relationships, only with research designs that eliminate plausible competing explanations for observed results, such as, but not limited to, random-assignment experiments;
(v) Presentation of studies and methods in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, to offer the opportunity to build systematically on the findings of the research;
(vi) Acceptance by a peer-reviewed journal or critique by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review; and
(vii) Consistency of findings across multiple studies or sites to support the generality of results and conclusions.
(1) Are an integral part of school and LEA strategies for providing educators (including teachers, principals, other school leaders, specialized instructional support personnel, paraprofessionals, and, as applicable, early childhood educators) with the knowledge and skills necessary to enable students to succeed in a well-rounded education and to meet the challenging State academic standards; and
(2) Are sustained (not stand-alone, one-day, or short term workshops), intensive, collaborative, job-embedded, data-driven, and classroom-focused, and may include activities that—
(i) Improve and increase teachers'—
(A) Knowledge of the academic subjects the teachers teach;
(B) Understanding of how students learn; and
(C) Ability to analyze student work and achievement from multiple sources, including how to adjust instructional strategies, assessments, and materials based on such analysis;
(ii) Are an integral part of broad schoolwide and districtwide educational improvement plans;
(iii) Allow personalized plans for each educator to address the educator's specific needs identified in observation or other feedback;
(iv) Improve classroom management skills;
(v) Support the recruitment, hiring, and training of effective teachers, including teachers who became certified through State and local alternative routes to certification;
(vi) Advance teacher understanding of—
(A) Effective instructional strategies that are evidence-based; and
(B) Strategies for improving student academic achievement or substantially increasing the knowledge and teaching skills of teachers;
(vii) Are aligned with, and directly related to, academic goals of the school or LEA;
(viii) Are developed with extensive participation of teachers, principals, other school leaders, parents, representatives of Indian Tribes (as applicable), and administrators of schools to be served under the ESEA;
(ix) Are designed to give teachers of English learners, and other teachers and instructional staff, the knowledge and skills to provide instruction and appropriate language and academic support services to those children, including the appropriate use of curricula and assessments;
(x) To the extent appropriate, provide training for teachers, principals, and other school leaders in the use of technology (including education about the harms of copyright piracy), so that technology and technology applications are effectively used the classroom to improve teaching and learning in the curricula and academic subjects in which the teachers teach;
(xi) As a whole, are regularly evaluated for their impact on increased teacher effectiveness and improved student academic achievement, with the findings of the evaluations used to improve the quality of professional development;
(xii) Are designed to give teachers of children with disabilities or children with developmental delays, and other teachers and instructional staff, the knowledge and skills to provide instruction and academic support services, to those children, including positive behavioral interventions and supports, multi-tier system of supports, and use of accommodations;
(xiii) Include instruction in the use of data and assessments to inform and instruct classroom practice;
(xiv) Include instruction in ways that teachers, principals, other school leaders, specialized instructional support personnel, and school administrators may work more effectively with parents and families;
(xv) Involve the forming of partnerships with IHEs, including, as applicable, Tribal Colleges and Universities as defined in section 316(b) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1059c(b)), to establish school-based teacher, principal, and other school leader training programs that provide prospective teachers, novice teachers, principals, and other school leaders with an opportunity to work under the guidance of experienced teachers, principals, other school leaders, and faculty of such institutions;
(xvi) Create programs to enable paraprofessionals (assisting teachers employed by an LEA receiving assistance under part A of title I of the ESEA) to obtain the education necessary for those paraprofessionals to become certified and licensed teachers;
(xvii) Provide follow-up training to teachers who have participated in activities described in this paragraph that are designed to ensure that the knowledge and skills learned by the teachers are implemented in the classroom; and
(xviii) Where practicable, provide jointly for school staff and other ECE program providers, to address the transition to elementary school, including issues related to school readiness.
(1) A practice guide prepared by WWC reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(2) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(3) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that—
(i) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (
(ii) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(1) A practice guide prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “strong evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(2) An intervention report prepared by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks reporting a “positive effect” on a relevant outcome based on a “medium to large” extent of evidence, with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(3) A single experimental study reviewed and reported by the WWC using version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, or otherwise assessed by the Department using version 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks, as appropriate, and that—
(i) Meets WWC standards without reservations;
(ii) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
(iii) Includes no overriding statistically significant and negative effects on relevant outcomes reported in the study or in a corresponding WWC intervention report prepared under version 2.1, 3.0, 4.0, or 4.1 of the WWC Handbooks; and
(iv) Is based on a sample from more than one site (
(1) Includes clear criteria for the selection of teacher mentors who will provide role model relationships for mentees, which criteria must be developed by the eligible partnership and based on measures of teacher effectiveness;
(2) Provides high-quality training for such mentors, including instructional strategies for literacy instruction and classroom management (including approaches that improve the schoolwide climate for learning, which may include positive behavioral interventions and supports);
(3) Provides regular and ongoing opportunities for mentors and mentees to observe each other's teaching methods in classroom settings during the day in a high-need school in the high-need LEA in the eligible partnership;
(4) Provides paid release time for mentors, as applicable;
(5) Provides mentoring to each mentee by a colleague who teaches in the same field, grade, or subject as the mentee;
(6) Promotes empirically-based practice of, and scientifically valid research on, where applicable—
(i) Teaching and learning;
(ii) Assessment of student learning;
(iii) The development of teaching skills through the use of instructional and behavioral interventions; and
(iv) The improvement of the mentees' capacity to measurably advance student learning; and
(7) Includes—
(i) Common planning time or regularly scheduled collaboration for the mentor and mentee; and
(ii) Joint professional development opportunities.
(1) For one academic year, teaches alongside a mentor teacher, who is the teacher of record;
(2) Receives concurrent instruction during the year described in paragraph (1) from the partner institution, which courses may be taught by LEA personnel or residency program faculty, in the teaching of the content area in which the teacher will become certified or licensed;
(3) Acquires effective teaching skills; and
(4) Prior to completion of the program—
(i) Attains full State certification or licensure and, with respect to special education teachers, meets the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)); and
(ii) Acquires a master's degree not later than 18 months after beginning the program.
(1) Increase student learning, achievement, and the ability to apply knowledge;
(2) Effectively convey and explain academic subject matter;
(3) Effectively teach higher-order analytical, evaluation, problem-solving, and communication skills;
(4) Employ strategies grounded in the disciplines of teaching and learning that—
(i) Are based on empirically-based practice and scientifically valid research, where applicable, related to teaching and learning;
(ii) Are specific to academic subject matter; and
(iii) Focus on the identification of students' specific learning needs, particularly students with disabilities, students who are limited English proficient, students who are gifted and talented, and students with low literacy levels, and the tailoring of academic instruction to such needs;
(5) Conduct an ongoing assessment of student learning, which may include the
(6) Effectively manage a classroom, including the ability to implement positive behavioral interventions and support strategies;
(7) Communicate and work with parents, and involve parents in their children's education; and
(8) Use, in the case of an early childhood educator, age-appropriate and developmentally appropriate strategies and practices for children in early childhood education programs.
(1) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with high concentrations of students living in poverty.
(2) A student of color.
(3) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe.
(4) An English learner.
(5) A child or student with a disability.
(6) A disconnected youth.
(7) A technologically unconnected youth.
(8) A migrant student.
(9) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.
(10) A lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex (LGBTQI+) student.
(11) A student who is in foster care.
(12) A student without documentation of immigration status.
(13) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.
(14) A student impacted by the justice system, including a formerly incarcerated student.
(15) A student who is the first in their family to attend postsecondary education.
(16) A student enrolling in or seeking to enroll in postsecondary education for the first time at the age of 20 or older.
(17) A student who is working full-time while enrolled in postsecondary education.
(18) A student who is enrolled in or is seeking to enroll in postsecondary education who is eligible for a Pell Grant.
(19) An adult student in need of improving their basic skills or an adult student with limited English proficiency.
(20) A student performing significantly below grade level.
(21) A military- or veteran-connected student.
For purposes of the definition of
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
1.
(1) Must include—
(i) A high-need LEA;
(ii) (A) A high-need school or a consortium of high-need schools served by the high-need LEA; or
(B) As applicable, a high-need ECE program;
(iii) A partner institution;
(iv) A school, department, or program of education within such partner institution, which may include an existing teacher professional development program with proven outcomes within a four-year IHE that provides intensive and sustained collaboration between faculty and LEAs consistent with the requirements of title II of the HEA; and
(v) A school or department of arts and sciences within such partner institution; and
(2) May include any of the following:
(i) The Governor of the State.
(ii) The State educational agency (SEA).
(iii) The State board of education.
(iv) The State agency for higher education.
(v) A business.
(vi) A public or private nonprofit educational organization.
(vii) An educational service agency.
(viii) A teacher organization.
(ix) A high-performing LEA, or a consortium of such LEAs, that can serve as a resource to the partnership.
(x) A charter school.
(xi) A school or department within the partner institution that focuses on psychology and human development.
(xii) A school or department within the partner institution with comparable expertise in the disciplines of teaching, learning, and child and adolescent development.
(xiii) An entity operating a program that provides alternative routes to State certification of teachers.
More information on eligible partnerships can be found in the TQP FAQ document on the program website at
2. a.
Consistent with 2 CFR 200.306(b) of the Uniform Guidance, any cost share or matching funds must be an allowable use of funds consistent with the cost principles detailed in Subpart E of the Uniform Guidance, and not included as a contribution for any other Federal award.
Section 203(c) of the HEA authorizes the Secretary to waive this cost share or matching requirement for any fiscal year for an eligible partnership if the Secretary determines that applying the cost share or matching requirement to the eligible partnership would result in serious hardship or an inability to carry out authorized TQP program activities. The Secretary does not, as a general matter, anticipate waiving this requirement in the future. Furthermore, given the importance of cost share or matching funds to the long-term success of the project, eligible entities must identify appropriate cost share or matching funds for the proposed five-year project period. Finally, the selection criteria include factors such as “the adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization” and “the extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the resources to operate the project beyond the length of the grant, including a multi-year financial and operating model and accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of any partners; evidence of broad support from stakeholders (
b.
c.
3.
4.
a.
Under HEA section 203(d) (20 U.S.C. 1022b(d)), an eligible partnership that receives a grant under this program may not use more than two percent of the funds provided to administer the grant.
b.
All applicants must meet the following general application requirements in order to be considered for funding. The general application requirements are from HEA section 202(b) (20 U.S.C. 1022a(b)).
Each eligible partnership desiring a grant under this program must submit an application that contains—
(a) A needs assessment of the partners in the eligible partnership with respect to the preparation, ongoing training, professional development, and retention of general education and special education teachers, principals, and, as applicable, early childhood educators;
(b) A description of the extent to which the program to be carried out with grant funds, as described in the applicable absolute priority, will prepare prospective and new teachers with strong teaching skills;
(c) A description of how such a program will prepare prospective and new teachers to understand and use research and data to modify and improve classroom instruction;
(d) A description of—
(1) How the eligible partnership will coordinate strategies and activities assisted under the grant with other teacher preparation or professional development programs, including
(2) How the activities of the partnership will be consistent with State, local, and other education reform activities that promote teacher quality and student academic achievement;
(e) An assessment that describes the resources available to the eligible partnership, including—
(1) The integration of funds from other related sources;
(2) The intended use of the grant funds; and
(3) The commitment of the resources of the partnership to the activities assisted under this program, including financial support, faculty participation, and time commitments, and to the continuation of the activities when the grant ends;
(f) A description of—
(1) How the eligible partnership will meet the purposes of the TQP program as specified in section 201 of the HEA;
(2) How the partnership will carry out the activities required under the applicable absolute priority, based on the needs identified in paragraph (a), with the goal of improving student academic achievement;
(3) If the partnership chooses to use funds under this section for a project or activities under section 202(f) of the HEA, how the partnership will carry out such project or required activities based on the needs identified in paragraph (a), with the goal of improving student academic achievement;
(4) The partnership's evaluation plan under section 204(a) of the HEA;
(5) How the partnership will align the teacher preparation program with the—
(i) State early learning standards for ECE programs, as appropriate, and with the relevant domains of early childhood development; and
(ii) Challenging State academic standards under section 1111(b)(1) of the ESEA, established by the State in which the partnership is located;
(6) How the partnership will prepare general education teachers to teach students with disabilities, including training related to participation as a member of individualized education program teams, as defined in section 614(d)(1)(B) of the IDEA;
(7) How the partnership will prepare general education and special education teachers to teach students who are limited English proficient;
(8) How faculty at the partner institution will work during the term of the grant, with teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA, in the classrooms of high-need schools served by the high-need LEA in the partnership to—
(i) Provide high-quality professional development activities to strengthen the content knowledge and teaching skills of elementary school and secondary school teachers; and
(ii) Train other classroom teachers to implement literacy programs that incorporate the essential components of reading instruction;
(9) How the partnership will design, implement, or enhance a year-long and rigorous teaching preservice clinical program component;
(10) How the partnership will support in-service professional development strategies and activities; and
(11) How the partnership will collect, analyze, and use data on the retention of all teachers and early childhood educators in schools and ECE programs located in the geographic area served by the partnership to evaluate the effectiveness of the partnership's teacher and educator support system; and
(g) With respect to the induction program required as part of the activities carried out under the applicable absolute priority—
(1) A demonstration that the schools and departments within the IHE that are part of the induction program will effectively prepare teachers, including providing content expertise and expertise in teaching, as appropriate;
(2) A demonstration of the eligible partnership's capability and commitment to, and the accessibility to and involvement of faculty in, the use of empirically based practice and scientifically valid research on teaching and learning;
(3) A description of how the teacher preparation program will design and implement an induction program to support, through not less than the first two years of teaching, all new teachers who are prepared by the teacher preparation program in the partnership and who teach in the high-need LEA in the partnership, and, to the extent practicable, all new teachers who teach in such high-need LEA, in the further development of the new teachers' teaching skills, including the use of mentors who are trained and compensated by such program for the mentors' work with new teachers; and
(4) A description of how faculty involved in the induction program will be able to substantially participate in an ECE program or elementary school or secondary school classroom setting, as applicable, including release time and receiving workload credit for such participation.
1.
2.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger or no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
Furthermore, applicants are strongly encouraged to include a table of contents that specifies where each required part of the application is located.
6.
1.
(a)
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale.
(ii) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable.
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support rigorous academic standards for students.
(iv) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice.
(v) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.
(vi) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance.
(b)
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes.
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project.
(c)
The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization.
(ii) The extent to which the budget is adequate to support the proposed project.
(iii) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project.
(iv) The extent to which the applicant demonstrates that it has the resources to operate the project beyond the length of the grant, including a multi-year financial and operating model and accompanying plan; the demonstrated commitment of any partners; evidence of broad support from stakeholders (
(v) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project.
(d)
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks.
(ii) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
5.
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We identify administrative and national policy requirements in the application package and reference these and other requirements in the
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may provide a grantee with additional funding for data collection analysis and reporting. In this case the Secretary establishes a data collection period.
5.
Under 34 CFR 75.110, the following measures will be used by the Department to evaluate the overall effectiveness of the grantee's project, as well as the TQP program as a whole:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
All grantees will be expected to submit an annual performance report documenting their success in addressing these performance measures.
Applicants must also address the evaluation requirements in section 204(a) of the HEA (20 U.S.C. 1022c(a)). This section asks applicants to develop objectives and measures for increasing—
(1) Achievement for all prospective and new teachers, as measured by the eligible partnership;
(2) Teacher retention in the first three years of a teacher's career;
(3) Improvement in the pass rates and scaled scores for initial State certification or licensure of teachers; and
(4) The percentage of teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)), hired by the high-need LEA participating in the eligible partnership;
(5) The percentage of teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)), hired by the high-need LEA who are members of underrepresented groups;
(6) The percentage of teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)), hired by the high-need LEA who teach high-need academic subject areas (such as reading, mathematics, science, and foreign language, including less commonly taught languages and critical foreign languages);
(7) The percentage of teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)), hired by the high-need LEA who teach in high-need areas (including special education, language instruction educational programs for limited English proficient students, and early childhood education);
(8) The percentage of teachers who meet the applicable State certification and licensure requirements, including any requirements for certification obtained through alternative routes to certification, or, with regard to special education teachers, the qualifications described in section 612(a)(14)(C) of the IDEA (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(14)(C)), hired by the high-need LEA who teach in high-need schools, disaggregated by the elementary school and secondary school levels;
(9) As applicable, the percentage of ECE program classes in the geographic area served by the eligible partnership taught by early childhood educators who are highly competent; and
(10) As applicable, the percentage of teachers trained—
(i) To integrate technology effectively into curricula and instruction, including technology consistent with the principles of universal design for learning; and
(ii) To use technology effectively to collect, manage, and analyze data to improve teaching and learning for the purpose of improving student academic achievement.
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the