Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Drug Enforcement Administration
Employment and Training Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Transportation Statistics Bureau
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule, correction.
This action corrects a final rule published in the
Effective 0901 UTC, September 8, 2022. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
Rebecca Shelby, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5857.
The FAA published a final rule in the
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, in the
Consumer Product Safety Commission.
Final rule.
The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission (Commission or CPSC) previously published a consumer product safety standard for high chairs under section 104 of the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 (CPSIA). The CPSC mandatory standard incorporates by reference the ASTM voluntary standard for high chairs. ASTM recently updated this voluntary standard. Pursuant to the CPSIA, the updated ASTM standard will become the CPSC mandatory standard for high chairs effective July 23, 2022. The Commission is issuing a final rule to update the version of the standard that is incorporated by reference in its regulations to reflect the version that will be mandatory by operation of law under the CPSIA.
This final rule is effective on July 23, 2022.
Keysha Walker, Compliance Officer, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814; telephone: (301) 504-6820; email:
Section 104(b)(1) of the CPSIA requires the Commission to assess the effectiveness of voluntary standards for durable infant or toddler products and adopt mandatory standards for these products. 15 U.S.C. 2056a(b)(1). The mandatory standard must be “substantially the same as” the voluntary standard, or it may be “more stringent than” the voluntary standard, if the Commission determines that more stringent requirements would further reduce the risk of injury associated with the product.
Section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA specifies the process for updating the Commission's rules when a voluntary standards organization revises a standard that the Commission incorporated by reference under section 104(b)(1). First, the voluntary standards organization must notify the Commission of the revision. Once the Commission receives this notification, the Commission may reject the revised standard by notifying the voluntary standards organization, within 90 days of receiving notice of the revision, that it has determined that the revised standard does not improve the safety of the consumer product and that it is retaining the existing standard. If the Commission does not take this action to reject the revised standard, then the revised voluntary standard will be considered a consumer product safety standard issued under section 9 of the Consumer Product Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 2058), effective 180 days after the Commission received notification of the revision, or on a later date specified by the Commission in the
In June 2018, under section 104(b)(1) of the CPSIA, the Commission adopted a mandatory rule for high chairs, codified in 16 CFR part 1231. The rule incorporated by reference ASTM F404-18,
In April 2019, ASTM notified CPSC that it had issued a revised standard for high chairs, ASTM F404-18a. In accordance with the procedures set out in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, the Commission determined that the updated standard did not improve the safety of high chairs and notified ASTM accordingly, thereby retaining ASTM F404-18 as the mandatory standard.
In January 2021, ASTM again notified CPSC that it had issued a revised standard for high chairs, ASTM F404-20. The Commission allowed the revised standard to become the new mandatory standard for high chairs, effective July 3, 2021. The Commission published a direct final rule to update 16 CFR part 1231, incorporating by reference ASTM F404-20, with no modifications. 86 FR 17296 (Apr. 2, 2021).
On January 24, 2022, ASTM notified CPSC that it had again revised the voluntary standard for high chairs, approving ASTM F404-21 on November 15, 2021.
To align the Commission's regulations with the update that will take effect by operation of law, this final rule updates 16 CFR part 1231 to incorporate by reference ASTM F404-21.
The ASTM standard for high chairs includes performance requirements, test methods, and requirements for warning labels and instructional literature, to address hazards to children associated with high chairs, including stability, structural integrity, trays, restraints, and entrapment. This section describes the changes in ASTM F404-21, as compared to ASTM F404-20, which is the current mandatory standard. ASTM F404-21 contains substantive revisions, as well as editorial, non-substantive revisions.
ASTM F404-21 includes updates to section 7.7, Stability Testing, to clarify the design and placement of test weights, which are used to conduct forward, sideways, and rearward stability testing, prescribed in sections 7.7.2.5, 7.7.2.6, and 7.7.27 of the standard.
The first revision is in section 7.7.1 of the standard. This section states that the test weight is a “steel weight” with specified dimensions. In ASTM F404-20, note 11 to section 7.7.1 stated that the steel test weight size was designed to allow the use of eight stacked plates of standard, cold-rolled steel, with specified dimensions. In ASTM F404-21, note 11 has been revised to allow for the use of a solid steel block as the test weight, as an alternative to the stack of cold-rolled steel plates.
The second revision is in section 7.7.2.3, which specifies the placement of test weights on the seat. ASTM F404-20 specified that test weights were to be placed horizontally on the seat bottom with the longest dimension in the front-to-back direction and in contact with the seat back. In ASTM F404-21, section 7.7.2.3 and note 12 to that section have been revised so that when test weights cannot be centered on a seating surface when oriented horizontally, they may be oriented vertically on the seat to align the center of the test weights with the center of the seat.
The third revision relocated section 7.7.2.1 to section 7.7.2.4. This section specifies that, for high chairs that include a tray, the tray is to be adjusted to the rear position, closest to the seat back for stability testing. In ASTM F404-20, tray adjustment occurred at the beginning of the stability testing procedure before test weights were placed in the high chair. In ASTM F404-21, the tray adjustment occurs after the placement of test weights. The standard now specifies that, for high chairs that include a tray, the tray is to be adjusted to the rear position, closest to the seat back or until the tray comes into contact with the test weight on the seat.
ASTM F404-21 also includes minor additions and revisions that are editorial and do not alter any substantive requirements in the standard. These changes include revising section numbers referenced throughout the standard to reflect updated section numbers in section 7 of the standard; revising wording for clarity; adding conversions to metric units for certain measurements; and changing the phrase “restraining system” to “restraint system,” to be consistent with other standards.
Section 1231.2 of the final rule incorporates by reference ASTM F404-21. The Office of the Federal Register (OFR) has regulations regarding incorporation by reference. 1 CFR part 51. Under these regulations, agencies must discuss, in the preamble to a final rule, ways in which the material the agency incorporates by reference is reasonably available to interested parties, and how interested parties can obtain the material. In addition, the preamble to the final rule must summarize the material. 1 CFR 51.5(b).
In accordance with the OFR regulations, section B. Revisions to ASTM F404 of this preamble summarizes the major provisions of ASTM F404-21 that the Commission incorporates by reference into 16 CFR part 1231. The standard is reasonably available to interested parties. Until the final rule takes effect, a read-only copy of ASTM F404-21 is available for viewing, at no cost, on ASTM's website at:
Section 14(a) of the Consumer Product Safety Act (CPSA; 15 U.S.C. 2051-2089) requires manufacturers of products subject to a consumer product safety rule under the CPSA, or to a similar rule, ban, standard, or regulation under any other act enforced by the Commission, to certify that the products comply with all applicable CPSC requirements. 15 U.S.C. 2063(a). Such certification must be based on a test of each product, or on a reasonable testing program, or for children's products, on tests of a sufficient number of samples by a third party conformity assessment body accredited by CPSC to test according to the applicable requirements. As noted, standards issued under section 104(b)(1)(B) of the CPSIA are “consumer product safety standards.” Thus, they are subject to the testing and certification requirements of section 14 of the CPSA.
Because high chairs are children's products, a CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment body must test samples of the products. Products subject to part 1231 also must comply with all other applicable CPSC requirements, such as the lead content requirements in section 101 of the CPSIA,
In accordance with section 14(a)(3)(B)(iv) of the CPSIA, the Commission previously published a notice of requirements (NOR) for accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing high chairs. 83 FR 28358 (June 19, 2018). The NOR provided the criteria and process for CPSC to accept accreditation of third party conformity assessment bodies for testing high chairs to 16 CFR part 1231. The NORs for all mandatory standards for durable infant or toddler products are listed in the Commission's rule, “Requirements Pertaining to Third Party Conformity Assessment Bodies,” codified in 16 CFR part 1112.
ASTM F404-21 includes revised requirements for testing high chairs. However, these revisions to test requirements do not require additional equipment or significant changes to existing test protocols. The change to test weight design provides an alternative to the existing requirement, and the changes to test weight orientation and tray adjustment alter only the timing and placement of features during existing test procedures. Accordingly, the revisions do not significantly change the way that third party conformity assessment bodies test these products for compliance with the safety standard for high chairs. Laboratories will begin testing to the new standard when ASTM F404-21 takes effect, and the existing accreditations that the Commission has accepted for testing to this standard will cover testing to the revised standard. Therefore, the Commission considers the existing CPSC-accepted laboratories for testing to ASTM F404-20 to be capable of testing to ASTM F404-21 as well. The existing NOR for this standard will remain in place, and CPSC-accepted third party conformity assessment bodies are expected to update the scope of the testing laboratories' accreditations to reflect the revised standard in the normal course of renewing their accreditations.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA; 5 U.S.C. 551-559) generally requires agencies to provide notice of a rule, an opportunity for interested parties to comment on it, and that the rule be published at least 30 days before its effective date. 5 U.S.C. 553(b), (c), (d). However, under section 553(b)(3)(B) of the APA, the notice and comment requirement does not apply when an agency “for good cause finds” that notice and comment procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” and includes such finding and a brief statement of supporting reasons in the rule. In addition, section 553(d)(3) of the APA allows an agency, upon finding good cause and publishing it with the rule, to make a rule effective earlier than the 30-day delay required in the statute.
As discussed above, this final rule updates the Commission's regulations to reflect a revision to the mandatory standard that automatically will take effect by operation of law under the CPSIA. Specifically, under the process set out in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, when ASTM revises a standard that the Commission has previously incorporated by reference under section 104 of the CPSIA, that revision will become the new mandatory CPSC standard, unless the Commission determines that ASTM's revision does not improve the safety of the product and so notifies ASTM. Thus, if the Commission does not take these steps to reject an update, the ASTM revision becomes CPSC's standard by operation of law. Because the Commission did not notify ASTM that it was rejecting ASTM F404-21 within 90 days of notification, the revised standard will become mandatory by operation of law on July 23, 2022.
The purpose of this final rule is to update the reference in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) so that it reflects the version of the standard that will take effect by statute. This rule updates the reference in the CFR, but under the terms of the CPSIA, ASTM F404-21 will take effect as the new CPSC standard for high chairs, even if the Commission does not issue this rule. Because the update will take effect by operation of law, this final rule does not substantively alter the mandatory standard; rather, it aligns the regulations with the statutory mandate that takes effect on July 23, 2022. As such, public comments would not alter the substance of the standard or the effect of the revised standard as a consumer product safety standard under section 104 of the CPSIA. Therefore, the Commission finds that notice and public comment on this final rule are unnecessary.
In addition, the Commission finds good cause to make this rule effective on July 23, 2022, rather than providing a 30-day delay before the effective date. If the update to the regulations is delayed, the regulations will not reflect the correct version of the ASTM standard that is mandatory, making the regulations inaccurate and potentially confusing for regulated entities. Moreover, because this final rule merely updates the regulations to reflect a statutory change to the mandatory standard, a delayed effective date is unnecessary, as regulated entities will have to comply with the revised standard as of July 23, 2022, regardless of whether the regulations have been updated. Therefore, the Commission finds good cause to make this final rule effective on July 23, 2022.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA; 5 U.S.C. 601-612) generally requires agencies to review proposed and final rules for their potential economic impact on small entities, including small businesses, and prepare regulatory flexibility analyses. 5 U.S.C. 603, 604. The RFA applies to any rule that is subject to notice and comment procedures under section 553 of the APA.
The mandatory standard for high chairs includes requirements for marking, labeling, and instructional literature that constitute a “collection of information,” as defined in the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The updated mandatory standard does not alter these requirements. The Commission took the steps required by the PRA for information collections when it adopted 16 CFR part 1231, including obtaining approval and a control number. Because the information collection is unchanged, the revision does not affect the information collection requirements or approval related to the standard.
The Commission's regulations provide a categorical exclusion for the Commission's rules from any requirement to prepare an environmental assessment or an environmental impact statement where they “have little or no potential for affecting the human environment.” 16 CFR 1021.5(c)(2). This rule falls within the categorical exclusion, so no environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.
Section 26(a) of the CPSA provides that where a consumer product safety standard is in effect and applies to a product, no state or political subdivision of a state may either establish or continue in effect a requirement dealing with the same risk of injury unless the state requirement is identical to the federal standard. 15 U.S.C. 2075(a). Section 26(c) of the CPSA also provides that states or political subdivisions of states may apply to CPSC for an exemption from this preemption under certain circumstances. Section 104(b) of the CPSIA deems rules issued under that provision “consumer product safety standards.” Therefore, once a rule issued under section 104 of the CPSIA takes effect, it will preempt in accordance with section 26(a) of the CPSA.
Under the procedure set forth in section 104(b)(4)(B) of the CPSIA, when a voluntary standards organization revises a standard that the Commission adopted as a mandatory standard, the revision becomes the CPSC standard within 180 days of notification to the Commission, unless the Commission determines that the revision does not improve the safety of the product and so notifies the standards organization, or the Commission sets a later date in the
The Congressional Review Act (CRA; 5 U.S.C. 801-808) states that before a rule may take effect, the agency issuing the rule must submit the rule, and certain related information, to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General. 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1). The CRA submission must indicate whether the rule is a “major rule.” The CRA states that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs determines whether a rule qualifies as a “major rule.”
Pursuant to the CRA, this rule does not qualify as a “major rule,” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 804(2). To comply with the CRA, CPSC will submit the required information to each House of Congress and the Comptroller General.
Consumer protection, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Imports, Infants and children, Law enforcement, Safety, Toys.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Commission amends 16 CFR chapter II as follows:
Sec. 104, Pub. L. 110-314, 122 Stat. 3016 (15 U.S.C. 2056a); Sec 3, Pub. L. 112-28, 125 Stat. 273.
Each high chair shall comply with all applicable provisions of ASTM F404-21,
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security; Department of the Treasury.
Final rule.
This document amends the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) regulations to reflect an extension and amendment of import restrictions on Pre-Classical and Classical archaeological objects, and Byzantine and Post-Byzantine ecclesiastical and ritual ethnological materials of the Republic of Cyprus. To fulfill the terms of the new agreement, titled “Agreement Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Republic of Cyprus Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Categories of Archaeological and Ethnological Material of the Republic of Cyprus”, the Designated List, which was last described in CBP-Dec. 12-13, is amended in this document to reflect additional categories of archaeological
Effective July 14, 2022.
For legal aspects, W. Richmond Beevers, Chief, Cargo Security, Carriers and Restricted Merchandise Branch, Regulations and Rulings, Office of Trade, (202) 325-0084,
Pursuant to the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, Public Law 97-446, 19 U.S.C. 2601
On July 19, 2002, the former U.S. Customs Service (U.S. Customs and Border Protection's predecessor agency) published Treasury Decision (T.D.) 02-37 in the
Import restrictions listed at 19 CFR 12.104g(a) are effective for no more than five years beginning on the date on which the agreement enters into force with respect to the United States. This period may be extended for additional periods of no more than five years if it is determined that the factors which justified the agreement still pertain and no cause for suspension of the agreement exists.
Since the initial final rule was published on July 19, 2002, the import restrictions were subsequently extended and/or amended five (5) times. First, on August 17, 2006, the Republic of Cyprus and the United States amended the 2002 Agreement (covering Pre-Classical and Classical archeological materials) to include Byzantine ecclesiastical and ritual ethnological materials dating from approximately the 4th century A.D. through approximately the 15th century A.D. that had been (and, at that time, were still) protected pursuant to an emergency action which was published in the
Second, on July 13, 2007, following the exchange of diplomatic notes, CBP published a final rule (CBP Dec. 07-52) in the
Third, on July 13, 2012, following the exchange of diplomatic notes, CBP published a final rule (CBP Dec. 12-13) in the
Fourth, on August 1, 2012, CBP published a correcting amendment to CBP Dec. 12-13 in the
Fifth and lastly, on July 14, 2017, following the exchange of diplomatic notes, CBP published a final rule (CBP Dec. 17-07) in the
On September 13, 2021, the United States Department of State proposed in the
Accordingly, CBP is amending 19 CFR 12.104g(a) to reflect the extension of the import restrictions and amending the Designated List of cultural property described in CBP Dec. 12-13 with the addition of new categories of archaeological and ethnological material. The restrictions on the importation of archaeological material and ethnological material continue to be in effect through July 13, 2027. Importation of such material from Cyprus continues to be restricted through that date unless the conditions set forth in 19 U.S.C. 2606 and 19 CFR 12.104c are met.
The Designated List and additional information may also be found at the following website address:
The Designated List contained in CBP Dec. 12-13, which describes the types of articles to which the import restrictions apply, is amended to reflect the inclusion of additional categories of archaeological and ethnological material in the Designated List. In order to clarify certain provisions of the Designated List contained in CBP Dec. 12-13, the amendment also includes minor revisions to the language and numbering of the Designated List. For the reader's convenience, CBP is reproducing the Designated List contained in CBP Dec. 12-13 in its entirety, with the changes, below.
The Designated List includes archaeological material from Cyprus ranging in date from approximately the 11th millennium B.C. to A.D. 1770, and ethnological material from Cyprus ranging in date from approximately the 4th century A.D. to A.D. 1878.
Archaeological material includes categories of objects ranging in date from approximately the 11th millennium B.C. to A.D. 1770.
1. Vessels.
a. Neolithic and Chalcolithic (c. 8800-2300 B.C.)—Bowls and jars, including spouted vessels. Varieties include Combed ware, Black Lustrous ware, Red Lustrous ware, and Red-on-White painted ware. Approximately 10-24 cm in height.
b. Early Bronze Age (c. 2300-1850 B.C.)—Forms are hand-made and include bowls, jugs, juglets, jars, and specialized forms, such as askoi, pyxides, gourd-shape, multiple-body vessels, and vessels with figurines attached. Cut-away spouts, multiple spouts, basket handles, and round bases commonly occur. Incised, punctured, molded, and applied ornament, as well as polishing and slip, are included in the range of decorative techniques. Approximately 13-60 cm in height.
c. Middle Bronze Age (c. 1850-1550 B.C.)—Forms are hand-made and include bowls, jugs, juglets, jars, zoomorphic askoi, bottles, amphorae, and amphoriskoi. Some have multiple spouts and basket or ribbon handles. Decorative techniques include red and brown paint, incised or applied decoration, and polishing. Varieties include Red Polished ware, White Painted ware, Black Slip ware, Red Slip ware, and Red-on-Black ware. Approximately 4-25 cm in height.
d. Late Bronze Age (c. 1550-1050 B.C.)—Forms include bowls, jars, lamps, jugs and juglets, tankards, rhyta, bottles, kraters, alabastra, stemmed cups, cups, stirrup jars, amphorae, and amphoriskoi. A wide variety of spouts, handles, and bases are common. Zoomorphic vessels also occur. Decorative techniques include painted design in red or brown, polishing, and punctured or incised decoration. Varieties include White Slip, Base Ring ware, White Shaved ware, Red Lustrous ware, Bichrome Wheel-made ware, and Proto-White Painted ware. Some examples of local or imported Mycenaean Late Helladic III have also been found. Approximately 5-50 cm in height.
e. Cypro-Geometric I-III (c. 1050-750 B.C.)—Forms include bowls, lamps, jugs, juglets, jars, cups, skyphoi, amphorae, amphoriskos, and tripods. A variety of spouts, handles and base forms are used. Decorative techniques include paint in dark brown and red, ribbing, polish, and applied projections. Varieties include White Painted I-III wares, Black Slip I-III wares, Bichrome II-III wares, and Black-on-Red ware. Approximately 7-30 cm in height.
f. Cypro-Archaic I-II (c. 750-475 B.C.)—Forms include bowls, lamps, plates, jugs and juglets, cups, kraters, amphoriskoi, oinochoai, and amphorae. Many of the forms are painted with bands, lines, concentric circles, and other geometric and floral patterns. Animal designs occur in the Free Field style. Molded decoration in the form of female figurines may also be applied. Red and dark brown paint is used on Bichrome ware. Black paint on a red polished surface is common on Black-on-Red ware. Other varieties include Bichrome Red, Polychrome Red, and Plain White. Approximately 12-45 cm in height.
g. Cypro-Classical I-II (c. 475-325 B.C.)—Forms include bowls, shallow dishes, lamps, jugs and juglets, oinochoai, and amphorae. The use of painted decoration in red and brown, as well as blue/green and black continues. Some vessels have molded female figurines applied. Decorative designs include floral and geometric patterns. Burnishing also occurs. Varieties include Polychrome Red, Black-on-Red, Polychrome Red, Stroke Burnished, and White Painted wares. Approximately 6-40 cm in height.
h. Hellenistic (c. 325 B.C.-50 B.C.)—Forms include bowls, dishes, cups, unguentaria, lamps, jugs and juglets, pyxides, amphorae, pithoi, and cooking pots. Most of the ceramic vessels of the period are undecorated. Those that are decorated use red, brown, or white paint in simple geometric patterns. Ribbing is also a common decorative technique. Some floral patterns are also used. Varieties include Glazed Painted ware and Glazed ware. Imports include Eastern Sigillata and “Megarian” mould-made relief bowls. Approximately 5-25 cm in height.
i. Roman (c. 50 B.C.-A.D. 330)—Forms include bowls, dishes, cups, lamps, jugs and juglets, unguentaria, amphorae, and cooking pots. Decorative techniques include incision, embossing, molded decoration, grooved decoration, and paint. Varieties include Terra Sigillata and Glazed and Green Glazed wares. Approximately 5-55 cm in height.
j. Byzantine and Medieval Frankish, Lusignan, and Venetian (c. A.D. 330-1570)—Forms include undecorated plain wares, utilitarian, tableware, serving and storage jars, lamps, special shapes such as pilgrim flasks, and can be matte painted or glazed, including incised “sgraffitto” and stamped with elaborate polychrome decorations using floral, geometric, human, and animal motifs.
k. Ottoman (c. A.D. 1570-1770)—Early examples include green and turquoise vessels that may be in the vessel shapes mentioned above. In addition, this type includes inkstands, chalices, lamps, rose water flasks, censers, incense cases, kitchenware, and tableware. Sizes and shapes are varied; colors include blue-white, red, blue, yellow, purple, and green and may include floral or other painted or inscribed decorations.
2. Sculpture.
a. Terracotta Figurines (Small Statuettes).
i. Neolithic to Late Bronze Age (c. 8800-1050 B.C.)—Figurines are small, hand-made, and schematic in form. Most represent female figures, often standing and sometimes seated and giving birth or cradling an infant. Features and attributes are marked with incisions or paint. Figurines occur in Red-on-White ware, Red Polished ware,
ii. Cypro-Geometric to Cypro-Archaic (c. 1050-475 B.C.)—Figurines show a greater diversity of form than earlier figurines. Female figurines are still common, but forms also include male horse-and-rider figurines; warrior figures; animals such as birds, bulls and pigs; tubular figurines; boat models; and human masks. In the Cypro-Archaic period, terra cotta models illustrate a variety of daily activities, including the process of making pottery and grinding grain. Other examples include musicians and men in chariots. Approximately 7-19 cm in height.
iii. Cypro-Classical to Roman (c. 475 B.C.-A.D. 330)—Figurines mirror the classical tradition of Greece and Roman. Types include draped women, nude youths, and winged figures. Approximately 9-20 cm in height.
b. Large Scale Terracotta Figurines—Dating to the Cypro-Archaic period (c. 750-475 B.C.), full figures about half life-size, are commonly found in sanctuaries. Illustrated examples include the head of a woman decorated with rosettes and a bearded male with spiral-decorated helmet. Approximately 50-150 cm in height.
c. Funerary Statuettes—Dating to the Cypro-Classical period (c. 475-325 B.C.), these illustrate both male and female figures draped, often seated, as expressions of mourning. Approximately 25-50 cm in height.
d. Architectural Elements—Baked clay (terracotta) elements used to decorate buildings, these elements include tiles, acroteria, antefixes, painted and relief plaques, metopes, cornices, roof tiles, pipes, and revetments, as well as wall and floor decorations in plaster. This category also includes wall brackets and wall-mounted lamps.
3. Inscriptions—Writing on clay either fired or unfired from the Late Bronze Age to the Ottoman period. These include inscribed tablets, weights, clay balls, inscribed handles, sling bullets, or parts of ceramic vessels.
4. Seals—Dating from the Neolithic (7500 B.C.) through the Ottoman period, conical seals, scarabs, cylinder seals, and bread stamps are incised with geometric decoration, pictorial scenes, and inscriptions. Approximately 2-12 cm in height.
5. Loom Weights and Spindle Whorls—From the early Bronze Age through the Ottoman period, shapes include conical, pyramidal, disc or rings. These can be stamped, incised, or glazed.
6. Sarcophagi—From the Archaic to the Medieval period. Some have figural scenes painted on them, others have figural scenes carved in relief, and some just have decorative moldings. Approximate date: c. 700 B.C. to A.D. 1500.
7. Pipes—Clay smoking pipes from the Medieval and Ottoman periods, including partial pipes such as stems and bowls.
1. Vessels—Ground stone vessels occur from the Epipaleolithic to the Ottoman period (c. 11,000 B.C.-A.D. 1770). Early vessels are from various stones including diabase, basalt, limestone, alabaster, marble, or other stone. Most are bowl-shaped; some are trough-shaped with spouts and handles. Neolithic vessels often have incised or perforated decoration. Late Bronze Age vessels include amphoriskoi and kraters with handles. Sometimes these have incised decoration. Alabaster was also used for stone vessels in the Late Bronze Age and Hellenistic period. In the latter period, stone vessels are produced in the same shapes as ceramic vessels: amphorae, unguentaria, etc. Approximately 10-30 cm in height.
2. Sculpture.
a. Neolithic to Late Bronze Age (c. 8800-1250 B.C.)—Forms include small scale human heads, fiddle-shaped human figures, steatopygous female figures, anthropomorphic cruciform figurines with incised decoration, and animal figures. Diabase, limestone, and picrolite are commonly used in these periods. Approximately 5-30 cm in height.
b. Cypro-Geometric to Cypro-Classical (c. 1050-325 B.C.)—Small scale to life-size human figures, whole and fragments, in limestone and marble, are similar to the Classical tradition in local styles. Examples include the limestone head of a youth in Neo-Cypriote style, votive female figures in Proto-Cypriot style, a kouros in Archaic Greek style, statues and statuettes representing Classical gods such as Zeus and Aphrodite, as well as portrait heads of the Greek and Roman periods. Approximately 10-200 cm in height.
c. Later Period Statuary (c. 325 B.C.-A.D. 1770)—Both large and small, in marble, limestone, sandstone, and other stone. Subject matter includes human, animal, and mythological figures and groups of figures in the round, in relief, or as inlay, as well as floral, vegetal and abstract elements, including fragments of statues.
3. Architectural Elements—Sculpted stone building elements occur from the 12th century B.C. through the Ottoman period. These include columns and column capitals, relief decoration, chancel panels, window frames, revetments, offering tables, coats of arms, and gargoyles. These include parts from funerary, religious, domestic, or administrative buildings or structures in different kinds of stone (
4. Seals—Dating from the Neolithic (7500 B.C.) through the Ottoman period, conical seals, scarabs, cylinder seals, and bread stamps are incised with geometric decoration, pictorial scenes, and inscriptions. Approximately 2-12 cm in height.
5. Amulets, Pendants, and Beads—Dating from the Epipaleolithic up to A.D. 1770 and made from different types of stone (
6. Inscriptions—Inscribed stone materials date from the 6th century B.C. through A.D. 1770. Funerary and votive plaques and stelae, mosaic floors, and building plaques were inscribed. This category also includes inscribed tombstones or other funerary or religious monuments, milestones, etc.
7. Funerary Stelae (Uninscribed) and Sarcophagi—From the Archaic to the Ottoman period, marble, limestone, and other stone sculptural monuments have relief decoration of animals or human figures seated or standing. Stone coffins also have relief decoration. Approximately 50-155 cm in height.
8. Floor Mosaics—Floor mosaics date as early as the 4th century B.C. in domestic and public contexts and continue to be produced through the 3rd century A.D. Examples include the mosaics at Nea Paphos, Kourion, and Kouklia.
9. Tools and Weapons—Starting in the Epipaleolithic, this category includes flint, obsidian, and other hard stones. Chipped stone types include blades, small blades, borers, scrapers, sickles, cores, arrow heads, and spindle whorls. Ground stone types include grinders (
1. Copper/Bronze.
a. Vessels and Utensils—Dating from the Bronze Age (c. 2300 B.C.) through A.D. 1770, bronze vessel forms include bowls, cups, amphorae, jugs, juglets, pyxides, dippers, lamp stands, dishes, and plates. Approximately 4-30 cm in height.
b. Bronze Stands—Dating from the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550 B.C.) through the end of the Classical period (c. 325
c. Sculpture—Dating from the Late Bronze Age (c. 1550) to the end of the Hellenistic period (c. 50 B.C.), small figural sculpture includes human forms with attached attributes such as spears or goblets, animal figures, animal- and vessel-shaped weights, and Classical representations of gods and mythological figures. This category also includes statuettes and statues of votive or religious nature. Approximately 5-25 cm in height.
d. Jewelry and Personal Objects—Dating from the Early Bronze Age (c. 2300 B.C.) to the end of the Roman period (A.D. 330), forms include toggle pins, straight pins, fibulae, and mirrors.
2. Silver.
a. Vessels—Dating from the Bronze Age (c. 2300 B.C.) through the end of the Roman period (A.D. 330), forms include bowls, dishes, coffee services, and ceremonial objects such as incense burners. These are often decorated with molded or incised geometric motifs or figural scenes.
b. Jewelry and Personal Objects—Starting from the Late Bronze Age (c. 2300 B.C.), forms include fibulae, rings, bracelets, and spoons.
3. Gold Jewelry and Personal Objects—Gold jewelry has been found on Cyprus starting in the Early Bronze Age (c. 2300 B.C.). Items include hair ornaments, bands, wreaths, frontlets, pectorals, earrings, necklaces, rings, pendants, plaques, beads, and bracelets.
4. Coins of Cypriot Types.
Coins of Cypriot types made of gold, silver, and bronze including but not limited to:
a. Issues of the ancient kingdoms of Amathus, Kition, Kourion, Idalion, Lapethos, Marion, Paphos, Soli, and Salamis dating from the end of the 6th century B.C. to 332 B.C.
b. Issues of the Hellenistic period, such as those of Paphos, Salamis, and Kition from 332 B.C. to c. 30 B.C.
c. Provincial and local issues of the Roman period from c. 30 B.C. to A.D. 235. Often these have a bust or head on one side and the image of a temple (the Temple of Aphrodite at Palaipaphos) or statue (statue of Zeus Salaminios) on the other.
d. Byzantine, Medieval Frankish, Lusignan, Venetian, and Ottoman types that circulated primarily in Cyprus, ranging in date from A.D. 235 to 1770. Coins were made in copper, bronze, silver, and gold. Examples are generally round, have writing, and show imagery of animals, buildings, symbols, or royal or imperial figures.
5. Tools—In copper, bronze, iron, silver, gold, and lead. Types include hooks, weights, ingots, axes, scrapers (strigils), trowels, keys; the tools of craftspersons such as carpenters, masons and metal smiths; and medical tools such as needles, spoons, lancets, and forceps.
6. Seals and Tokens—In lead, tin, copper, bronze, silver, and gold. Types include rings, amulets, and seals with shank.
7. Weapons and Armor—In copper, bronze, iron, and lead. Types include both launching weapons (spears and javelins) and weapons for hand-to-hand combat (swords, daggers, etc.). Armor includes body armor, such as helmets, cuirasses, shin guards, and shields, and horse armor often decorated with elaborate engraved, embossed, or perforated designs.
8. Vessels—In bronze, gold, and silver. These may belong to conventional shapes such as bowls, cups, jars, jugs, strainers, cauldrons, and lamps, or may occur in the shape of an animal or part of an animal.
1. Vessels—Shapes include small jars, lamps, bowls, animal shaped, goblet, spherical, candle holders, and perfume jars (unguentaria).
2. Beads, Seals, and Spindle Whorls—Globular and relief beads, other jewelry, seals, and spindle whorls.
3. Small Statuary—Includes human and animal figures in the round, scarabs, and other imitations of eastern themes. These range from approximately 3 to 20 cm in height.
1. Small Statuary and Figurines—Usually in ivory or wood. Subject matter includes human and animal figures and groups of figures in the round or as part of composite objects. These range from approximately 10 cm to 1 m in height.
2. Personal Ornaments—In bone, ivory, and shell. Types include amulets, combs, pins, spoons, small containers, necklaces, bracelets, buckles, and beads.
3. Seals and Stamps—Small devices usually in ivory with at least one side engraved with a design for stamping or sealing; they can be discoid, cuboid, conoid, or in the shape of animals or fantastic creatures (
4. Tools—Including needles, handles, spatulae, and spindle whorls.
5. Vessels—Often decorated with an incised scene (
6. Furniture—Bone and ivory furniture inlays and veneers.
7. Ships and Vehicles—This includes whole ships and vehicles or pieces used in composing a ship, chariot, or other vehicle; typically in wood.
Ethnological material covered by the agreement includes ecclesiastical ritual and ceremonial objects, emblems of the state, structural and decorative architectural material, documents and manuscripts, and traditional clothing that contribute to the knowledge of the origins, development, and history of the Cypriot people. This includes objects from the 4th century A.D. starting in the Byzantine Period and ending in A.D. 1878 with the British Protectorate.
1. Metal.
a. Bronze—Ceremonial objects include icons, small figural sculpture, crosses, censers (incense burners), rings, and buckles for ecclesiastical garments. The objects may be decorated with engraved or modeled designs or Greek inscriptions. Crosses, rings and buckles are often set with semi-precious stones.
b. Lead—Lead objects include ampulla (small bottle-shaped forms) used in religious observance.
c. Silver and Gold—Ceremonial vessels and objects used in ritual and as components of church treasure. Ceremonial objects include icons, censers (incense burners), book covers, liturgical crosses, archbishop's crowns, buckles, and chests including reliquaries. These are often decorated with molded or incised geometric motifs or scenes from the Bible, and encrusted with semi-precious or precious stones. The gems themselves may be engraved with religious figures or inscriptions. Church treasure may include all of the above, as well as rings, earrings, and necklaces (some decorated with ecclesiastical themes) and other implements (
2. Wood—Artifacts made of wood are primarily those intended for ritual or ecclesiastical use. These include painted icons, painted wood screens (iconostases), carved doors, crosses, painted wooden beams from churches or monasteries, thrones, chests including reliquaries, and musical instruments. Religious figures (Christ, the Apostles, the Virgin, and others) predominate in the painted and carved figural decoration. Ecclesiastical furniture and architectural elements may also be decorated with geometric or floral designs.
3. Ivory and Bone—Ecclesiastical and ritual objects of ivory and bone boxes, plaques, pendants, candelabra, stamp rings, crosses, and relics. Carved and engraved decoration includes religious
4. Glass—Ecclesiastical objects such as lamps and ritual vessels.
5. Textiles and Ritual Garments—Ecclesiastical garments and other ritual textiles. Robes, vestments and altar clothes are often of a fine fabric and richly embroidered in silver and gold. Embroidered designs include religious motifs and floral and geometric designs.
6. Stone.
a. Wall Mosaics—Wall mosaics are found in ecclesiastical buildings. These generally portray images of Christ, Archangels, the Apostles, and Saints in scenes of Biblical events. Surrounding panels may contain animal, floral, or geometric designs.
b. Floor Mosaics—Floor mosaics from ecclesiastical contexts. Examples include the mosaics at Nea Paphos, Kourion, Kouklia, Chrysopolitissa Basilica and Campanopetra Basilica. Floor mosaics may have animal, floral, geometric designs, or inscriptions.
7. Funerary Objects—This category includes objects related to funerary rites and burials in all materials. Examples of funerary objects include, but are not limited to, the following objects:
a. Sepulchers—Sepulchers are repositories for remains of the dead, primarily in stone (usually limestone or marble), but also in metal and wood. Types of burial containers include sarcophagi, caskets, coffins, and urns. These may also have associated sculpture in relief or in the round. May be plain or have figural, geometric, or floral motifs either painted or carved in relief. May also contain human or animal remains.
b. Inscriptions, Memorial Stones, Epitaphs, and Tombstones—This category includes inscribed funerary objects, primarily slabs in limestone, marble, and ceramic; engraved in a variety of languages and scripts. These may also have associated sculpture in relief or in the round.
8. Frescoes/Wall Paintings—Wall paintings from religious structures (churches, monasteries, chapels, etc.). Like the mosaics, wall paintings generally portray images of Christ, Archangels, the Apostles, and Saints in scenes of Biblical events. Surrounding paintings may contain animal, floral, or geometric designs.
This category includes items that provide information on periods of social and political history of the people of Cyprus from the Byzantine Period through the end of the Ottoman Period that may be absent from written records.
1. Clothing—Ceremonial garments, clothing emblematic of imperial, court, or government position, and other accessories thereof such as shoes, headdresses and hats, belts, and jewelry.
2. Weapons and Armor.
a. Weapons—These are often in iron, steel, or other metal. This category includes arrows, daggers, swords, saifs, scimitars, other blades with or without sheaths, spears, and pre-industrial firearms and cannon; may be for use in combat or ceremonial. May be inlaid with gemstones, embellished with silver or gold, or engraved with floral or geometric motifs. Grips or hilts may be made of metal, wood, or semi-precious stones such as agate, or bound with leather.
b. Armor—Armor may consist of small metal scales, originally sewn to a backing of textile or leather. This type also includes helmets, body armor, shields, and horse armor. Other objects may be made of leather, including archer's bags, shields, and masks.
c. Auxiliary Objects and Vehicles—Powder horns and belts; military standards; and boats, chariots, or other means of official or military transportation, and parts thereof.
3. Ceremonial Objects and Containers—Objects of imperial, court, or government office such as scepters, staffs, insignia, relics, and monumental boxes, trays, and containers.
4. Stamps, Seals, and Writing Instruments—Stamps, seals including seal rings, and writing implements for official use by the state.
5. Wall Hangings and Flags—Often in silk or linen, tapestries, wall hangings, and other representations and emblems of the imperial court; flags, banners, flagstaffs, and finials.
6. Musical Instruments—This category includes instruments important for state ceremonies, such as drums of various sizes in leather, metal instruments, such as cymbals and trumpets, and wooden instruments.
This category includes architectural elements and decoration from religious and public buildings. These buildings are comparatively rare due to the combination of historical influences on the island of Cyprus, including successive cycles of Arab and Byzantine conquest, occupation during the Medieval Crusades, and a period of Ottoman influence.
1. Structural Material—Usually in stone, plaster, metal, or wood, including blocks; columns, capitals, bases, lintels, jambs, friezes, and pilasters; panels, doors, door frames, and window fittings; altars, prayer niches (mihrab), screens, iconostasis, fountains, ceilings, tent poles, and carved and molded brick.
2. Relief and Inlay Sculpture—Usually in stone or plaster, includes relief and inlay sculpture such as appliques and plaques that may have been part of a building. May be plain, molded, carved, or inscribed. Decorative motifs may be incised or in high relief.
3. Other Decorative Material—In stone, metal, wood, glass, and plaster. Metal elements are primarily in copper, brass, lead, and alloys, and may include doors, door fixtures, lathes, finials, chandeliers, screens, and sheets to protect domes. Glass elements include windows and mosaic tesserae in floors, walls, and ceilings.
This category includes written records of religious, political, or scientific importance, including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Works on Papyrus, Parchment, Paper, or Leather—Papyrus documents are often rolled and/or fragmentary. Parchment and paper documents may be single leaves or bound as scrolls or books. Works on paper and parchment may have illustrations or illuminated paintings with gold or other colors. There are also examples of religious and/or rare books written on leather pages.
2. Containers and Covers—Boxes for books or scrolls made of wood or other organic materials, and book or manuscript covers made of leather, textile, or metal.
Traditional Cypriot clothing and textiles were signifiers of identity, social status, and culture, providing information about the multiple religious and ethnic populations in Cyprus from the Byzantine through Ottoman periods which may be absent from written records as historical documents rarely address ceremonies or social customs of non-elite groups. This category includes, but is not limited to, headdresses, headbands, hats, and pins (
This amendment involves a foreign affairs function of the United States and is, therefore, being made without notice or public procedure under 5 U.S.C.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking is required, the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
CBP has determined that this document is not a regulation or rule subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12866 because it pertains to a foreign affairs function of the United States, as described above, and therefore is specifically exempted by section 3(d)(2) of Executive Order 12866.
This regulation is being issued in accordance with 19 CFR 0.1(a)(1), pertaining to the Secretary of the Treasury's authority (or that of his/her delegate) to approve regulations related to customs revenue functions.
Chris Magnus, the Commissioner of CBP, having reviewed and approved this document, has delegated the authority to electronically sign this document to Robert F. Altneu, who is the Director of the Regulations and Disclosure Law Division for CBP, for purposes of publication in the
Cultural property, Customs duties and inspection, Imports, Prohibited merchandise, and Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth above, part 12 of title 19 of the Code of Federal Regulations (19 CFR part 12) is amended as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 66, 1202 (General Note 3(i), Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)), 1624.
Sections 12.104 through 12.104i also issued under 19 U.S.C. 2612;
(a) * * *
Social Security Administration.
Final rule.
We are extending the expiration dates of the following body systems in the Listing of Impairments (listings) in our regulations: Low Birth Weight and Failure to Thrive, Endocrine Disorders, and Cancer (Malignant Neoplastic Diseases). We are making no other revisions to these body systems in this final rule. This extension ensures that we will continue to have the criteria we need to evaluate impairments in the affected body systems at step three of the sequential evaluation processes for initial claims and continuing disability reviews.
This final rule is effective on July 18, 2022.
Michael J. Goldstein, Director, Office of Medical Policy, Social Security Administration, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235-6401, (410) 965-1020.
For information on eligibility or filing for benefits, call our national toll-free number, 1-800-772-1213, or TTY 1-800-325-0778, or visit our internet site, Social Security Online, at
We use the listings in appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of 20 CFR at the third step of the sequential evaluation process to evaluate claims filed by adults and children for benefits based on disability under the title II and title XVI programs.
In this final rule, we are extending the dates on which the listings for the following three body systems will no longer be effective as set out in the following chart:
We continue to revise and update the listings on a regular basis, including those body systems not affected by this final rule.
We follow the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures specified in 5 U.S.C. 553 in promulgating regulations. Section 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. 902(a)(5). Generally, the APA requires that an agency provide prior notice and opportunity for public comment before issuing a final regulation. The APA provides exceptions to the notice-and-comment requirements when an agency finds there is good cause for dispensing with such procedures because they are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
We determined that good cause exists for dispensing with the notice and public comment procedures. 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This final rule only extends the date on which the three body system listings will no longer be effective. It makes no substantive changes to our rules. Our current regulations
In addition, for the reasons cited above, we find good cause for dispensing with the 30-day delay in the effective date of this final rule. 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). We are not making any substantive changes to the listings in these body systems. Without an extension of the expiration date for these listings, we will not have the criteria we need to assess medical impairments in these three body systems at step three of the sequential evaluation processes. We therefore find it is in the public interest to make this final rule effective on the publication date.
We consulted with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and determined that this final rule does not meet the requirements for a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, as supplemented by Executive Order 13563. Therefore, OMB did not review it. We also determined that this final rule meets the plain language requirement of Executive Order 12866.
We certify that this final rule does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only individuals. Therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, as amended.
This final rule only extends the date for the medical listings cited above, but does not create any new or affect any existing collections, or otherwise change any content of the currently published rules. Accordingly, it does not impose any burdens under the Paperwork Reduction Act and does not require OMB approval.
Administrative practice and procedure, Blind, Disability benefits, Old-Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Social Security.
The Acting Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, Kilolo Kijakazi, Ph.D., M.S.W., having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Faye I. Lipsky, who is the primary Federal Register Liaison for SSA, for purposes of publication in the
For the reasons set out in the preamble, we are amending appendix 1 to subpart P of part 404 of chapter III of title 20 of the Code of Federal Regulations as set forth below.
Secs. 202, 205(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 216(i), 221(a) and (h)-(j), 222(c), 223, 225, and 702(a)(5) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402, 405(a)-(b) and (d)-(h), 416(i), 421(a) and (h)-(j), 422(c), 423, 425, and 902(a)(5)); sec. 211(b), Pub. L. 104-193, 110 Stat. 2105, 2189; sec. 202, Pub. L. 108-203, 118 Stat. 509 (42 U.S.C. 902 note).
1. Low Birth Weight and Failure to Thrive (100.00): August 14, 2026.
10. Endocrine Disorders (9.00 and 109.00): August 14, 2026.
14. Cancer (Malignant Neoplastic Diseases) (13.00 and 113.00): August 14, 2026.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is changing the operating schedule that governs the CSX Transportation Railroad swing bridge across the Mobile River, mile 13.1 near Hurricane, Alabama. The bridge will continue to open according to the drawbridge regulations but the bridge tender will operate this bridge from a remote location at the CSX railroad terminal in Mobile, Alabama.
This rule is effective August 17, 2022.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Doug Blakemore, Eighth Coast Guard Bridge Administrator at (504) 671-2128 or email
On January 27, 2020 the Coast Guard published a temporary deviation from regulations; request for comments (TD) entitled Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Mobile River, Hurricane, AL in the
On January 26, 2021 the Coast Guard published a second deviation to the regulations under the same title in the
On March 31, 2021 the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking under the same title in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The CSX Railroad Company, the owner of the bridge requested to change operation of the bridge from a tended drawbridge to a remotely operated drawbridge. The CSX Transportation Railroad drawbridge has a vertical clearance of 5′ in the closed to navigation position and operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.5. This rule will not change the operation schedule of the bridge. This bridge will be operated from the CSX railroad yard located in Mobile, AL.
The waterway users include recreational vessels and commercial tows; which combined requires approximately six openings a day.
The 8 comments received during the NPRM were the exact same comments provided during the both test deviations. The Coast Guard addressed all comments in the NPRM.
33 CFR 117.42 sets Coast Guard drawbridge regulations to operate a bridge from a remote location. This rule does not change the operating schedule nor does it change the request to open the bridge. Mariners requiring an opening may do so by contacting the CSX remote control center on Channels 13/16 or by the phone number posted at the bridge.
This rule allows CSX to control the drawbridge from their remote control center located in Mobile, AL and requires CSX to have the capability, including resources and manpower to return the operator to the bridge location within 3 hours following any of the below situations:
• Any component of the remote operations system fails and prevents the remote operator from being able to visually identify vessels, communicate with vessels, detect vessels immediately underneath the bridge or visually identify trains approaching the bridge.
• CSX fails to meet Federal Railway Administration (FRA) or any other government agency safety requirements.
• At the direction of the District Commander.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protesters.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given notice.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V. A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) The draw of the CSX Transportation Railroad bridge, mile 13.1 near Hurricane, AL shall be remotely operated by the bridge tender at CSX's bridge remote control center in Mobile, AL and shall open promptly and fully when signaled to open. Vessels can contact the CSX bridge tender via VHF-FM channel 13 or by telephone at the number displayed on the signs posted at the bridge to request an opening of the draw.
(b) CSX will return the tender to the bridge location within 3 hours following any of the below situations:
(1) Any component of the remote operations system fails and prevents the remote operator from being able to visually identify vessels, communicate with vessels, detect vessels immediately underneath the bridge or visually identify trains approaching the bridge;
(2) CSX fails to meet Federal Railway Administration (FRA) or any other government agency safety requirements;
(3) Anytime at the direction of the District Commander.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is temporarily modifying the operating schedule that governs the E-200 North Main Street Bridge, mile 293.15, over the Erie Canal to allow contractors to rehabilitate the bridge.
This temporary final rule is effective from October 1, 2022, through April 1, 2024.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this temporary final rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary final rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because the bridge will be locked in the fully open position during the rehabilitation process and will only encroach on the waterway with under bridge type vehicles. Also an NPRM at this time would be impractical since the contractors and dates have been secured; by the time an NPRM can be published, there would be no time to reschedule this type of work. There are also a number of bridges in close proximity to this project for land traffic. This rehabilitation project is required to maintain the bridge in serviceable condition for all modes of transportation at this crossing.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 33 U.S.C. 499. The E-200 North Main Street Bridge, mile 293.15, over the Erie Canal is required to open on signal and be manned by a drawtender twenty-four hours a day, for twelve months a year as required by 33 CFR 117.7. The bridge provides a vertical clearance of 3-feet in the closed position and 16-feet in the open position and a horizontal clearance of 120-feet.
The Erie Canal is part of the New York State Canal System and is a 525-mile federally regulated waterway that connects Hudson Bay to Lake Erie and is listed on the National Register of Historic Places in its entirety as a National Historic Landmark. Powered and unpowered recreational vessels and commercial and historic vessels travel the waterway.
This rule will allow the contractor to utilize under bridge equipment to temporarily encroach on the navigational clearance of the bridge to perform steel rehabilitation work to the bridge. The bridge will be locked in the fully open to navigation position for the duration of the project and the contractor will provide spotters to warn of approaching vessels and move the man lifts to allow vessels to pass under the bridge. The permitted navigation lights for the bridge will be replaced by steady burning yellow lights on the bottom and four-corners of the draw span after power is disconnected from the bridge. The regular permitted navigation lights will be replaced and re-energized at the end of the project.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge throughout the rehabilitation process.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because vessels may pass through the bridge at any time during the rehabilitation.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
The E-200 North Main Street Bridge, mile 293.15, over the Erie Canal, in Albion, NY will be rehabilitated with under bridge vehicles. The Bridge will remain in the open to navigation position for the duration of the project. Spotters will warn of approaching vessels and move the man lift to allow vessels to pass. Bridge lighting will be temporarily replaced with steady burning yellow lights on the bottom and four-corners of the bridge where they can best be seen by vessels approaching from up river or down river of the bridge.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is changing how the CSX Transportation Railroad swing bridge across Bayou Sara, mile 0.1 near Saraland, Alabama will be operated. The bridge will continue to open according to the drawbridge regulations but the bridge tender will operate this bridge from a remote location at the CSX railroad terminal in Mobile, Alabama.
This rule is effective August 17, 2022.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Doug Blakemore, Eighth Coast Guard Bridge Administrator at (504) 671-2128 or email
On January 22, 2020, the Coast Guard published a Test Deviation, with a request for comments, entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Bayou Sara, Saraland, AL” in the
On March 30, 2021, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Bayou Sara, Saraland, AL” in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499.
The CSX Railroad Company, the owner of the bridge requested to change operation of the bridge from a tended drawbridge to a remotely operated drawbridge. The CSX Transportation Railroad drawbridge has a vertical clearance of 5′ in the closed to navigation position and operates in accordance with 33 CFR 117.105. This rule will not change the operation schedule of the bridge. This bridge will be operated from the CSX railroad yard located in Mobile, AL.
The waterway users include recreational vessels and commercial tows; which combined requires approximately six openings a day.
As mentioned above in Section II, two comments were received during the test period
This rule continues to allow opening on signal, except eight hours' notice is required for openings between 6 p.m. and 10 a.m. The rule also allows CSX to control the drawbridge from their remote control center located in Mobile, AL and requires CSX to have the capability, including resources and manpower to return the operator to the bridge location within 3 hours following any of the below situations:
• Any component of the remote operations system fails and prevents the remote operator from being able to visually identify vessels, communicate with vessels, detect vessels immediately underneath the bridge or visually identify trains approaching the bridge.
• CSX fails to meet Federal Railway Administration (FRA) or any other government agency safety requirements.
• At the direction of the District Commander.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, it has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard received 0 comments from the Small Business Administration on this rule. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V. A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA)(42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; and Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
(a) The draw of the CSX Transportation Railroad bridge, mile 0.1 near Saraland, shall open on signal; except that, from 6 p.m. to 10 a.m. the draw shall open on signal if at least eight hours' notice is given. During
(b) The draw of the CSX Transportation Railroad bridge, mile 0.1 near Saraland, AL shall be remotely operated by the bridge tender at CSX's bridge remote control center in Mobile, Alabama. Vessels can contact the CSX bridge tender via VHF-FM channel 13 or by telephone at the number displayed on the signs posted at the bridge to request an opening of the draw.
(c) CSX will return the tender to the bridge location within 3 hours following any of the below situations:
(1) Any component of the remote operations system fails and prevents the remote operator from being able to visually identify vessels, communicate with vessels, detect vessels immediately underneath the bridge or visually identify trains approaching the bridge;
(2) CSX fails to meet Federal Railway Administration (FRA) or any other government agency safety requirements;
(3) Anytime at the direction of the District Commander.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone located in federal regulations for a recurring marine event. This action is necessary and intended for the safety of life and property on navigable waters during this event. During the enforcement period, no person or vessel may enter the respective safety zone without the permission of the Captain of the Port Buffalo or his designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.939, as listed in entry (b)(6) in Table 165.939, will be enforced from 8:45 a.m. through 11:15 p.m. on July 23, 2022.
If you have questions about this notice of enforcement, call or email LT. Jared Stevens, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard Marine Safety Unit Cleveland; telephone 216-937-0124, email
The Coast Guard will enforce a Safety Zone; Annual Events in the Captain of the Port Buffalo Zone listed in 33 CFR 165.939, Table 165.939(b)(6) for the Parade of Lights on July 23, 2022. Pursuant to 33 CFR 165.23, entry into, transiting, or anchoring within the safety zone during an enforcement period is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Buffalo (COTP) or his designated representative. Those seeking permission to enter the safety zone may request permission from the COTP Buffalo via channel 16, VHF-FM. Vessels and persons granted permission to enter the safety zone shall obey the directions of the COTP Buffalo or his designated representative. While within a safety zone, all vessels shall operate at the minimum speed necessary to maintain a safe course.
This notice of enforcement is issued under authority of 33 CFR 165.939 and 5 U.S.C. 552 (a). In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone on the navigable waters of Lake Tahoe, near Homewood, CA, in support of the Homewood Wedding Fireworks display on July 23, 2022. This safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from the dangers associated with pyrotechnics. Unauthorized persons or vessels are prohibited from entering into, transiting through, or remaining in the safety zone without permission of the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 7:30 p.m. to 10:03 p.m. on July 23, 2022.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this rule, call or email Lieutenant Anthony I. Solares, Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, at 415-399-3585,
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. The Coast Guard did not receive final details for this event until June 25, 2022. It is impracticable to go through the full notice and comment rule making process because the Coast Guard must establish this safety zone by July 23, 2022, and lacks sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231). The Captain of the Port San Francisco has determined that potential hazards associated with the Homewood Wedding Fireworks Display on July 23, 2022, will be a safety concern for anyone within a 100-foot radius of the fireworks display dock during loading and staging and anyone within a 140-foot radius of the fireworks starting 30 minutes before the fireworks display is scheduled to commence and ending 30 minutes after the conclusion of the fireworks display. For this reason, this temporary safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters around the fireworks display location and during the fireworks display.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone from 7:30 p.m. until 10:03 p.m. on July 23, 2022, during the loading and staging of the fireworks until 30 minutes prior to the start of the fireworks display, the safety zone will encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks display location, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 100 feet out from the fireworks display. The pyrotechnics will be loaded and staged on the dock from 7:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. on July 23, 2022, at the display location in Homewood, CA, where the fireworks will remain until the conclusion of the fireworks display.
At 9 p.m. on July 23, 2022, 30 minutes prior to the commencement of the 3-minute Homewood Wedding Fireworks Display, the safety zone will increase in size and encompass the navigable waters around and under the fireworks display dock, from surface to bottom, within a circle formed by connecting all points 140 feet from the circle center at approximate position 39°07′41.7″ N, 120°09′32.3″ W (North American Datum of 1983 (NAD 83)). The safety zone will terminate at 10:03 p.m. on July 23, 2022 or as announced via Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
This regulation is necessary to keep persons and vessels away from the immediate vicinity of the fireworks loading, staging, and display site. Except for persons or vessels authorized by the Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) or the COTP's designated representative, no person or vessel may enter or remain in the restricted area. A “designated representative” means a Coast Guard Patrol Commander, including a Coast Guard coxswain, petty officer, or other officer operating a Coast Guard vessel, or a Federal, State, or local officer designated by or assisting the COTP in the enforcement of the safety zone. This regulation is necessary to ensure the safety of personnel, vessels, and the marine environment.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the limited duration and narrowly tailored geographic area of the safety zone. Although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the safety zone, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterways users will be notified to ensure the safety zone will result in minimum impact. The vessels desiring to transit through or around the temporary safety zone may do so upon express permission from the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a temporary safety zone in the navigable waters around the loading, staging, and display of fireworks at a dock located in Homewood, CA on Lake Tahoe. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) The safety zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(3) Vessel operators desiring to enter or operate within the safety zone must contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative to obtain permission to do so. Vessel operators given permission to enter or operate in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative. Persons and vessels may request permission to enter the safety zone on VHF-23A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547.
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is updating the list of chemicals subject to toxic chemical release reporting under the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) and the Pollution Prevention Act (PPA). Specifically, this action updates the regulations to identify five per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) that must be reported pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (FY2020 NDAA) enacted on December 20, 2019. As this action is being taken to conform the regulations to a Congressional legislative mandate, notice and comment rulemaking is unnecessary.
This final rule is effective August 17, 2022.
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-TRI-2022-0453, is available at
You may be potentially affected by this action if you manufacture, process, or otherwise use any of the PFAS listed in this rule. The following list of North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this action applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Facilities included in the following NAICS manufacturing codes (corresponding to Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes 20 through 39): 311*, 312*, 313*, 314*, 315*, 316, 321, 322, 323*, 324, 325*, 326*, 327, 331, 332, 333, 334*, 335*, 336, 337*, 339*, 111998*, 211130*, 212324*, 212325*, 212393*, 212399*, 488390*, 511110, 511120, 511130, 511140*, 511191, 511199, 512230*, 512250*, 519130*, 541713*, 541715* or 811490*. *Exceptions and/or limitations exist for these NAICS codes.
• Facilities included in the following NAICS codes (corresponding to SIC codes other than SIC codes 20 through 39): 211130 (corresponds to SIC code 1321, Natural Gas Liquids, and SIC 2819, Industrial Inorganic Chemicals, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 212111, 212112, 212113 (corresponds to SIC code 12, Coal Mining (except 1241)); or 212221, 212222, 212230, 212299 (corresponds to SIC code 10, Metal Mining (except 1011, 1081, and 1094)); or 221111, 221112, 221113, 221118, 221121, 221122, 221330 (limited to facilities that combust coal and/or oil for the purpose of generating power for distribution in commerce) (corresponds to SIC codes 4911, 4931, and 4939, Electric Utilities); or 424690, 425110, 425120 (limited to facilities previously classified in SIC code 5169, Chemicals and Allied Products, Not Elsewhere Classified); or 424710 (corresponds to SIC code 5171, Petroleum Bulk Terminals and Plants); or 562112 (limited to facilities primarily engaged in solvent recovery services on a contract or fee basis (previously classified under SIC code 7389, Business Services, NEC); or 562211, 562212, 562213, 562219, 562920 (limited to facilities regulated under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, subtitle C, 42 U.S.C. 6921
• Federal facilities.
A more detailed description of the types of facilities covered by the NAICS codes subject to reporting under EPCRA section 313 can be found at:
EPA is codifying the five additional PFAS that were added to the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals (more commonly known as the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)) since the last conforming rule pursuant to the FY2020 NDAA (86 FR 29698, June 3, 2021) (FRL-10022-25)).
This action is issued under the authority of section 313 of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act (EPCRA) (42 U.S.C. 11001
On December 20, 2019, the FY2020 NDAA was signed into law. Among other provisions, section 7321(c) identifies certain regulatory activities that automatically add PFAS or classes of PFAS to the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals. Specifically, PFAS or classes of PFAS are added to the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals beginning January 1 of the calendar year after any one of the following dates:
• Final Toxicity Value. The date on which the Administrator finalizes a toxicity value for the PFAS or class of PFAS;
• Significant New Use Rule. The date on which the Administrator makes a covered determination for the PFAS or class of PFAS;
• Addition to Existing Significant New Use Rule. The date on which the PFAS or class of PFAS is added to a list of substances covered by a covered determination;
• Addition as an Active Chemical Substance. The date on which the PFAS or class of PFAS to which a covered determination applies is:
(1) Added to the list published under section 8(b)(1) of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) (15 U.S.C. 2601
(2) Designated as an active chemical substance under TSCA section 8(b)(5)(B) on the list published under TSCA section 8(b)(1).
The FY2020 NDAA defines “covered determination” as a determination made by rule under TSCA section 5(a)(2) that a use of a PFAS or class of PFAS is a significant new use (except such a determination made in connection with a determination described in TSCA sections 5(a)(3)(B) or 5(a)(3)(C)).
Under FY2020 NDAA section 7321(e), EPA must review confidential business information (CBI) claims before PFAS are added to the list pursuant to subsections (b)(1), (c)(1), or (d)(3) whose identities are subject to a claim of protection from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), pursuant to subsection (b)(4) of that section. Under the FY2020 NDAA EPA must:
• Review a claim of protection from disclosure; and
• Require that person to reassert and substantiate or resubstantiate that claim in accordance with TSCA section 14(f) (15 U.S.C. 2613(f)).
In addition, if EPA determines that the chemical identity of a PFAS or class of PFAS qualifies for protection from disclosure, EPA must include the PFAS or class of PFAS on the TRI in a manner that does not disclose the protected information.
EPA has reviewed the above-listed criteria and found five chemicals that meet the requirements of this part of the FY2020 NDAA and whose identity is not claimed as confidential business information (CBI).
As stated above, under FY2020 NDAA section 7321(e), EPA must review CBI claims before PFAS whose identities are subject to a claim of protection from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) (pursuant to subsection (b)(4)) are added to the list. The substance with the CAS No. 203743-03-7 met the criteria under FY2020 NDAA section 7321(c)(1)(A)(iii), but was subject to a claim of protection from disclosure under 5 U.S.C. 552(b)(4) at that time. That substance's identity has since been published on the non-confidential portion of the TSCA Inventory in 2021; therefore, the chemical was added to the list.
As established by the FY2020 NDAA, the addition of these PFAS to the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals is effective January 1 of the calendar year following any of the dates identified in FY2020 NDAA section 7321(c)(1)(A). Accordingly, four of these five non-CBI PFAS are reportable for the 2022 reporting year (
EPA is issuing this final rule to amend the EPCRA section 313 list of reportable chemicals in 40 CFR 372.65 to include these five non-CBI PFAS added pursuant to the FY2020 NDAA.
Section 553(b)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that public notice and comment procedures are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for public comment. The EPA has determined that there is good cause for making this rule final without prior proposal and opportunity for comment because such notice and opportunity for comment is unnecessary. This action is being taken to comply with a mandate in an Act of Congress, where Congress identified actions that automatically add these chemicals to the TRI. Thus, EPA has no discretion as to the outcome of this rule, which merely aligns the regulations with the self-effectuating changes provided by the FY2020 NDAA.
The following is a listing of the documents that are specifically referenced in this document. The docket includes these documents and other information considered by EPA, including documents that are referenced within the documents that are included in the docket, even if the referenced document is not itself physically located in the docket. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person listed under
1. EPA. Human Health Toxicity Values for Perfluorobutane Sulfonic Acid and Related Compound Potassium Perfluorobutane Sulfonate. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-20/345F: April 2021.
2. EPA. Updates to Confidential Status of Chemicals on the TSCA Inventory. October 15, 2021.
Additional information about these statutes and Executive orders can be found at
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review
This action does not impose any new information collection burden under the PRA, 44 U.S.C 3501
Currently, the facilities subject to the reporting requirements under EPCRA section 313 and PPA section 6607 may use either EPA Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form R (EPA Form 9350-1), or EPA Toxic Chemicals Release Inventory Form A (EPA Form 9350-2). The Form R must be completed if a facility manufactures, processes, or otherwise uses any listed chemical above threshold quantities and meets certain other criteria. For the Form A, EPA established an alternative threshold for facilities with low annual reportable amounts of a listed toxic chemical. The annual reportable amount is equal to the combined total quantities of the following waste management activities:
• Released at the facility (including disposed of within the facility);
• Treated at the facility (as represented by amounts destroyed or converted by treatment processes);
• Recovered at the facility as a result of recycling operations;
• Combusted for the purpose of energy recovery at the facility; and
• Amounts transferred from the facility to off-site locations for the purpose of recycling, energy recovery, treatment, and/or disposal.
A facility that meets the appropriate reporting thresholds, but estimates that the total annual reportable amount of the chemical does not exceed 500 pounds per year, can take advantage of an alternative manufacture, process, or otherwise use threshold of 1 million pounds per year of the chemical, provided that certain conditions are met, and submit the Form A instead of the Form R. In addition, respondents may designate the specific chemical identity of a substance as a trade secret pursuant to EPCRA section 322 (42 U.S.C. 11042) and 40 CFR part 350. OMB has approved the reporting and recordkeeping requirements related to Forms A and R, supplier notification, and petitions under OMB Control No. 2070-0212 (EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) No. 2613.04) and those related to trade secret designations under OMB Control No. 2050-0078 (EPA ICR No. 1428.12).
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 OMB control numbers relevant to EPA's regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and displayed on the information collection instruments (
This action is not subject to the RFA, 5 U.S.C. 601
This action does not contain any unfunded mandate of $100 million or more as described in UMRA, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, and does not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The action imposes no enforceable duty on any state, local, or tribal governments or the private sector.
This action does not have federalism implications, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999). It will not have substantial direct effects on the states, on the relationship between the National Government and the states, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
This action does not have tribal implications as specified in Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This rule will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal Governments. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this action.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) as applying only to those regulatory actions that concern environmental health or safety risks that EPA has reason to believe may disproportionately affect children, per the definition of “covered regulatory action” in section 2-202 of the Executive order. This action is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does not concern an environmental health risk or safety risk.
This action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
This rulemaking does not involve technical standards. As such, NTTAA section 12(d), 15 U.S.C. 272
The EPA believes that this action is not subject to Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) because it does not establish an environmental health or safety standard. This regulatory action makes changes to the reporting requirements for PFAS that will result in more information being collected and provided to the public; it does not have any impact on human health or the environment. This action does not address any human health or environmental risks and does not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment. This action makes changes to the reporting requirements for PFAS which will provide information that government agencies and others can use to identify potential problems, set priorities, and help inform activities.
Likewise, Executive Order 14008 (86 FR 7619, January 27, 2021) directs Federal agencies, as part of a Government wide approach to reduce climate pollution impacts on minority populations and low-income populations. However, the EPA believes that this type of action does not directly concern human health or environmental conditions and therefore cannot be evaluated with respect to potentially disproportionate and adverse effects on people of color, low-income populations and/or indigenous peoples. This action involves additions to reporting requirements that will not affect the level of protection provided to human health or the environment Although this action does not concern human health or environmental conditions, the information collected through TRI reporting will serve to inform communities living near facilities that report to TRI, and there is the potential for new information about toxic chemical releases and waste management practices occurring in those communities to become available through the TRI reporting data.
This action is subject to the CRA, 5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Community right-to-know, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Toxic chemicals.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA amends 40 CFR part 372 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 11023 and 11048.
The additions read as follows:
(d) * * *
(e) * * *
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, to ensure that the providers of Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) are compensated for the provision of internet Protocol Relay Service (IP Relay), the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) adopts a formula to compensate such providers from the Interstate TRS Fund for the provision of service for the next four-year compensation period.
This rule is effective July 18, 2022.
William Wallace, Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, at (202) 418-2716, or email
This is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order, document FCC 22-48, adopted on June 25, 2022, released on June 30, 2022, in CG Docket No. 03-123 and RM-11820. The Commission previously sought comment on these issues in a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (
The Commission sent a copy of document FCC 22-48 to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
Document FCC 22-48 does not contain new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Therefore, it also does not contain any new or modified information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
1. IP Relay is an internet-based text-to-voice relay service. With IP Relay, an individual with a hearing or speech disability can communicate with voice telephone users by transmitting text via the internet. The text transmission is delivered to an IP Relay call center, where a communications assistant (CA) converts the user's text to speech for the hearing party and converts that party's speech to text for the IP Relay user.
2. IP Relay is supported entirely by the Interstate TRS Fund. Under the current methodology for determining IP Relay provider compensation, a base level of per-minute compensation is determined every three years, based on the weighted average of providers' reasonable costs. The base compensation level approved by the Commission is subject to annual adjustments for inflation and efficiency based on pre-approved factors, as well as ad hoc adjustment in the event that a provider incurs eligible “exogenous” costs. The current inflation factor is the Gross Domestic Product—Price Index (GDP-PI). After three years, a new reasonable-cost-based compensation level is determined for the next period. The current compensation period began July 1, 2019, and ended June 30, 2022.
3. The Commission continues the practice of periodically resetting the base level of IP Relay compensation based on a determination of reasonable provider cost. While certain criteria for determining reasonable IP Relay costs need adjustment in light of subsequent experience, the record does not support more radical changes in the IP Relay compensation methodology. The Commission has developed a consistent approach to determining the reasonable costs of providing TRS, which can be applied without imposing undue administrative burdens on either providers or the Commission. Further, although any ratemaking method is subject to imprecision, provider cost data, which is subject to audit, has been reasonably reliable and consistent. T-Mobile fails to support its claim that the current methodology “precludes any increase in compensation regardless of the extent to which the costs of supplying the service may have risen.” To the contrary, over the last eight years, compensation has risen from $1.0147 to $1.7146 per minute, due to rising costs and waivers of certain allowable-cost criteria.
4.
5. The Commission also finds that there is an affirmative need for TRS Fund support of IP Relay outreach. Given the limited current use of the service, the Commission's rules should not discourage providers from making efforts to effectively educate consumers—especially relatively narrow subgroups of eligible users, such as consumers who are deafblind—regarding the availability of and improvements to the service. Further, with only one IP Relay provider, the Commission believes that provider outreach expenditures are more likely to be focused on educating potential new users about the service rather than on encouraging or preventing “churn” among existing customers. Finally, the Commission acknowledges the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau's (Bureau) conclusion that a review of the outreach reports submitted by T-Mobile indicates that its outreach activity since 2016 has not shown that it is misdirected toward ineligible users. The Commission does not find it necessary at this time to impose a quantitative limit on allowable outreach
6.
7. The comments do not persuade the Commission that this rationale is flawed. Although the Commission sought comment on a number of questions relevant to this issue, none of the comments addresses those questions in any detail. For example, the record does not provide any explanation of what kinds of costs fall into this category, the amount of such costs that would be allocated to TRS, were such allocation allowed, and why overhead costs attributable to TRS could not be directly assigned.
8.
9.
10. The Commission adopts its proposal to allow an IP Relay provider a reasonable operating margin—
11. Like VRS and IP CTS, IP Relay requires providers to invest relatively little in physical plant. Therefore, for the same reasons as described above, the Commission concludes that allowing an IP Relay provider a reasonable margin over expenses, which is not tied to the relatively low investment in physical plant that is needed for the provision of this service, will help ensure sufficient investment in the provision of this service. Taking this step appropriately harmonizes the Commission's general approach to compensation methodology for all forms of internet-based TRS.
12. When setting the operating margin for VRS, the Commission reviewed the operating margins for various interpretation and translation services and government contractors who are paid for services mandated by law and supervised by the government. The Commission selected the range from 7.6% to 12.35% as a reasonable range of operating margins for VRS. The cost structure of IP Relay is similar to that of VRS in that an IP Relay provider also relies on communications assistants to relay conversations between a hearing party and a non-hearing party. Given these similarities, the range of operating margins deemed reasonable for VRS is also a reasonable range for IP Relay.
13. In setting a margin within this range, the Commission recognizes that, because there is currently only one IP Relay provider, the Commission's risk-benefit analysis is different for IP Relay than for VRS and IP CTS. If the operating margin should turn out to be significantly lower than margins that currently can be earned in comparable lines of business, the current provider might exit the business, leaving consumers stranded. To guard against this risk, the Commission sets the IP Relay operating margin at 12%, near the high end of the reasonable range.
14. The Commission does not agree with T-Mobile's argument that an operating margin
15. Given these significant differences between TRS and the more capital-intensive market segments in which T-Mobile otherwise operates, the Commission is unpersuaded by T-Mobile's argument that providing an operating margin somewhat lower than those earned by more capital intensive operations would force T-Mobile “to redirect resources currently allocated to that service to other service offerings,” or even to exit the IP Relay business altogether. The logic of T-Mobile's
16. The Commission also does not agree that the recent surge of inflation dictates a higher operating margin “to provide some cushion against the cost increases T-Mobile Accessibility would have to absorb before the next annual adjustment.” As discussed below, the compensation formula includes an inflation adjustment factor linked to an appropriate index. The Commission does not find a valid reason to include an additional inflation factor in the operating margin. Inflation affects all businesses, and the record does not contain evidence showing such a unique impact on IP Relay as to warrant special treatment in setting the allowed operating margin. Further, if, due to an increase in the inflation rate, the annual adjustment factor applicable to a given year lags behind actual inflation in that year, any resulting losses are likely to be offset by windfall gains in a future year, when the actual inflation rate subsides below the applicable adjustment factor derived from the previous year's higher rate.
17. The Commission adopts its proposal to use projected costs and demand as the basis for calculating the base compensation level for IP Relay. Historically, this was the Commission's practice in setting cost-based compensation for any form of TRS. However, the Commission found that VRS and IP CTS providers' projections of cost and demand proved unreliable, resulting in overcompensation of providers. For those services, therefore, the Commission has adopted a different approach, averaging providers' projected per-minute costs for the current calendar year and historical per-minute costs for the preceding calendar year. The Commission found that this blended approach was consistently a more accurate predictor of actual costs for both VRS and IP CTS.
18. Until 2019, however, the base level for IP Relay compensation was still set based on projected costs only. In that year, the Bureau switched to the blended approach, to align the IP Relay methodology with those for VRS and IP CTS.
19. As explained in the
20.
21. The Commission concludes that current conditions justify increasing the compensation period from three to four years. IP Relay costs and demand have been relatively stable and accurate in recent years, and T-Mobile does not anticipate any significant changes to the service in the near future. A four-year period will provide T-Mobile a substantial degree of predictability in its reimbursements from the Fund, improving its ability to plan future operations. Although T-Mobile recommends a longer compensation period, the Commission has not previously set a period longer than four years for any form of internet-based TRS. Given the inherent uncertainty of setting compensation formulas in the absence of price competition, the Commission declines at this time to extend the compensation term beyond previous precedent.
22. The Commission delegates authority to the Chief of the Bureau to extend the compensation period by Order, should such extension prove to be necessary to prevent the termination of TRS Fund support for IP Relay (
23.
24. The Commission delegates authority to the Chief of the Bureau to approve annual inflation adjustments for IP Relay, beginning with Fund Year 2023-24. The Commission directs the TRS Fund administrator to specify in its annual TRS Fund report, beginning with the report due May 1, 2023, the index values for each quarter of the previous calendar year and the last quarter of the year before that. The Commission also directs the TRS Fund administrator to propose a compensation level for IP Relay that is adjusted from the previous year by a percentage equal to the percentage change in the index between the first and fifth quarters specified in the report. After notice and opportunity for comment, the Chief of the Bureau, acting under delegated authority, shall review the administrator's proposed adjustment and approve it, or make any necessary modifications to ensure consistency with the Commission's rules and orders.
25.
26.
27. The Commission finds that these exogenous cost criteria are also appropriate for IP Relay. Although T-Mobile urges deletion of the last criterion, contending that exogenous cost should be recoverable even if recovery would add to the provider's revenues, the Commission finds that this criterion is appropriate to ensure that exogenous cost recovery is warranted,
28. The Commission is unpersuaded that it should derive IP Relay compensation by proxy, from the Multi-State Average Rate Structure (MARS) based compensation formula for interstate traditional (TTY-based) TRS, as advocated by T-Mobile. To implement its proposed approach, T-Mobile explains, the Commission would take as a starting point the current MARS-based formula for interstate traditional TRS, which is calculated annually as a weighted average of the per-minute compensation levels for intrastate traditional TRS (and speech-to-speech relay service (STS)) in each state TRS program. Next, the Commission would (1) multiply the interstate traditional TRS formula by projected IP Relay minutes for the next Fund Year, (2) subtract from that figure those annual costs that are incurred by T-Mobile in providing traditional TRS but not IP Relay, and (3) add in those annual costs that are incurred in providing IP Relay but not traditional TRS. The resulting funding total would be divided by projected IP Relay demand to determine the per-minute compensation level.
29.
30. Even if there were not such a large disparity between the proposed proxy and actual costs, T-Mobile's proposed formula must be rejected, as it would be substantially
31. Further, the record does not indicate that T-Mobile's costs for providing traditional TRS are currently reviewed by state regulatory authorities. Therefore, the costs identified by T-Mobile as unique to traditional TRS would need to be collected, reported, and audited by the TRS Fund administrator—even though none of those costs is actually relevant to providing IP Relay. And because these costs are to be
32. T-Mobile claims that the calculation could be simplified after the first year by continuing indefinitely to apply the percentage cost difference initially calculated. In subsequent years, T-Mobile suggests, the MARS formula simply could be adjusted by a constant percentage factor, which represents the initially calculated ratio of the net difference in the costs of the two services to total traditional TRS compensation. While such a simplified approach may be less burdensome than repeatedly recalculating the relevant costs, it would remove IP Relay compensation even further from any plausible relationship to actual IP Relay costs. Such reliance on the initially calculated cost difference to set compensation for future years would be especially misleading given the record evidence that the cost difference between the services is continually increasing. By contrast, the methodology the Commission adopts relies on readily available data collected by the TRS Fund administrator from providers of IP Relay with reasonable adjustments based on Department of Labor statistics. The Commission does not need to engage in the unusually complicated calculations entailed by T-Mobile's proposal when a simpler and more accurate methodology is readily available.
33. TRS Fund Year 2022-23 will be the first year of a new compensation cycle for IP Relay, which will extend for four years, through June 30, 2026. With the addition of a 12% operating margin to the average of T-Mobile's projected per-minute costs for calendar years 2022 and 2023—based on the most recent submissions of cost and demand data to the Fund administrator—the resulting base compensation formula is $1.9576 per minute, a 14.2% increase from the current compensation level of $1.7146 per minute. This base level of compensation shall be applicable during Fund Year 2022-23. For the second, third, and fourth years, compensation for IP Relay shall be adjusted in accordance with the inflation and exogenous cost adjustment factors adopted above.
34. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended, the Commission incorporated an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) into the
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41. Pursuant to sections 1, 2, and 225 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 51, 152, and 225, document FCC 22-48 is adopted, and the Commission's rules are amended.
42. The Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau, Reference Information Center, shall send a copy of the document FCC 22-48, including the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration.
Individuals with Disabilities, Telecommunications, Telephones.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 64 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
47 U.S.C. 151-154; 225, 255, 303(r), 616, and 620.
(a) For the period from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2026, TRS Fund compensation for the provision of IP Relay shall be as described in this section.
(b) For Fund Year 2022-23, comprising the period from July 1, 2022, through June 30, 2023, the Compensation Level for IP Relay shall be $1.9576 per minute.
(c) For each succeeding Fund Year through June 30, 2026, the per-minute Compensation Level (L
(d) The inflation adjustment factor for a Fund Year (IF
(1) The fourth quarter of the Calendar Year ending 6 months before the beginning of the Fund Year; and
(2) The fourth quarter of the preceding Calendar Year.
(e) In addition to L
(f) An exogenous cost adjustment shall be paid if an IP Relay provider incurs well-documented costs that:
(1) Belong to a category of costs that the Commission has deemed allowable;
(2) Result from new TRS requirements or other causes beyond the provider's control;
(3) Are new costs that were not factored into the applicable compensation formula; and
(4) If unrecovered, would cause a provider's current allowable-expenses-plus-operating margin to exceed its revenues.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat District of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the 2022 total allowable catch of Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat District of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), July 13, 2022, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2022.
Steve Whitney, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Regulations governing fishing by U.S. vessels in accordance with the FMP appear at subpart H of 50 CFR parts 600 and 679.
The 2022 total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat District of the GOA is 1,409 metric tons (mt) as established by the final 2022 and 2023 harvest specifications for groundfish of the GOA (87 FR 11599, March 2, 2022).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(i), the Administrator, Alaska Region, NMFS (Regional Administrator), has determined that the 2022 TAC of Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat District of the GOA will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 1,309 mt, and is setting aside the remaining 100 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii), the Regional Administrator finds that this directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat District of the GOA. While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the closure of directed fishing of Pacific ocean perch in the West Yakutat district of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of July 12, 2022.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Bureau of Consumer Financial Protection.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; extension of comment period.
On June 22, 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (Bureau or CFPB) issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) requesting information regarding credit card late fees and late payments, and card issuers' revenue and expenses. The ANPR was published in the
The end of the comment period for the Credit Card Late Fees and Late Payments ANPR published on June 29, 2022, at 87 FR 38679, is extended from July 22, 2022, until August 1, 2022.
You may submit responsive information and other comments, identified by Docket No. CFPB-2022-0039, by any of the following methods:
1.
2.
3.
All submissions in response to this notice, including attachments and other supporting materials, will become part of the public record and subject to public disclosure. Proprietary information or sensitive personal information, such as account numbers or Social Security numbers, or names of other individuals, should not be included. Submissions will not be edited to remove any identifying or contact information.
If you wish to submit trade secret or confidential commercial information, please contact the individuals listed in the
Adrien Fernandez, Counsel, Krista Ayoub and Steve Wrone, Senior Counsels, Office of Regulations, at 202-435-7700. If you require this document in an alternative electronic format, please contact
On June 22, 2022, the Bureau issued an ANPR requesting information regarding credit card late fees and late payments, and card issuers' revenue and expenses. The ANPR was published in the
The ANPR provided a comment period that was set to close on July 22, 2022. The Bureau has since received requests from several card issuer trade groups for an extension of the comment period in order to give card issuers more time to gather, validate, and analyze the requested information. The Bureau has determined that an extension of the ANPR comment period to August 1, 2022, is appropriate. This extension will allow card issuers, consumer groups, and the public more time to pull together the requested information for submission. The ANPR comment period will now close on August 1, 2022.
Drug Enforcement Administration, Department of Justice.
Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) is issuing this advance notice of proposed rulemaking to obtain information regarding the procurement of controlled substances by a medical officer for emergency kits on board ocean vessels, aircraft, and certain other entities. The regulations permitting controlled substances acquired by and dispensed under the general supervision of a medical officer to be stored in and dispensed from emergency kits on board ocean vessels, aircraft, and other entities were established in 1971 and have not been significantly modified since. DEA is considering revising these regulations and seeks to gain a better understanding of the industry's current needs and practices.
Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must be postmarked, on or before September 16, 2022. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
To ensure proper handling of comments, please reference “RIN 1117-AB60/Docket No. DEA-598” on all correspondence, including any attachments.
•
•
Scott A. Brinks, Regulatory Drafting and Policy Support Section, Diversion Control Division, Drug Enforcement Administration; Telephone: (571) 776-2265.
Please note that all comments received in response to this docket are considered part of the public record. They will, unless reasonable cause is given, be made available by DEA for public inspection online at
If you want to submit confidential business information as part of your comment, but do not want it to be made publicly available, you must include the phrase “CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION” in the first paragraph of your comment. You must also prominently identify the confidential business information to be redacted within the comment.
Comments containing personal identifying information or confidential business information identified as directed above will be made publicly available in redacted form. If a comment has so much confidential business information or personal identifying information that it cannot be effectively redacted, all or part of that comment may not be made publicly available. Comments posted to
An electronic copy of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking is available at
The Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) implements and enforces the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970, often referred to as the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) and the Controlled Substances Import and Export Act, as amended.
As mandated by the CSA, DEA establishes and maintains a closed system of control for manufacturing, distribution, and dispensing of controlled substances, and requires any person who manufactures, distributes, dispenses, imports, exports, or conducts research or chemical analysis with controlled substances to register with DEA, unless they meet an exemption.
The existing regulations in 21 CFR 1301.25 that allow controlled substances to be held for stocking, maintained in, and dispensed from medicine chests, first aid packets, and dispensaries on board ocean vessels, aircraft, and in certain other entities were published in 1971 as part of the original regulations implementing the CSA.
The current regulations allow controlled substances to be kept in emergency kits on board vessels, aircraft, and other entities if they are acquired by and dispensed under the general supervision of a medical officer or the master or first officer of certain vessels.
DEA notes that all passenger-carrying aircraft certified by the Federal Aviation Administration are required to have an approved emergency medical kit on board.
The current regulations also allow controlled substances to be kept in emergency kits “in any entity of fixed or transient location approved by the Administrator. . . .”
The regulations require the medical officer to be licensed as a physician, employed by the owner or operator of the vessel, aircraft, or other entity, and registered with DEA at the principal office of the owner or operator of the vessel, aircraft, or other entity.
The regulations also provide that, in the absence of a registered medical officer, the master or first officer of a vessel may purchase controlled substances by personally appearing before a registered manufacturer, distributor, or authorized pharmacy.
DEA is soliciting information from the maritime and aviation and other industries to gain a better understanding of current industry practices, needs, and requirements with respect to controlled substances maintained in emergency kits. Although all comments are welcome, DEA is particularly interested in comments regarding the questions listed below.
1. Please describe in detail the procedures followed by vessels, aircraft, or any other approved entity to obtain controlled substances for medicine chests, first aid packets, or dispensaries.
2. Are there any other regulations, standards, or requirements (other than DEA regulations) that the entities must comply with when acquiring and maintaining controlled substances for medicine chests, first aid packets, or dispensaries?
3. Is a medical officer always involved in the procurement of the controlled substances? If not, please describe in detail: (1) the circumstances under which controlled substances are acquired without a medical officer, and
4. Please describe in detail the current role of a medical officer, including all services provided, on board vessels, aircraft, or any other approved entity.
5. Please describe in detail how controlled substances are acquired by those entities who do not employ a medical officer.
6. Who generally supplies the controlled substances to the vessels, aircraft, or other entities? DEA-registered distributors, pharmacies, manufacturers, etc.?
7. Please describe the safeguards that are in place to provide effective controls against diversion of controlled substances.
a. Please describe the procedures that must be followed when handling controlled substances.
b. Who has access to the controlled substances?
c. Who is permitted to dispense or administer controlled substances and under what circumstances are they permitted to do so?
d. Are there recordkeeping requirements for maintaining inventory, documenting any controlled substances administered, dispensed, lost, stolen, or disposed of?
e. Who is responsible for recordkeeping?
8. Please describe the procedures followed for disposing of damaged, expired, or otherwise unwanted controlled substances.
9. Please describe the procedure for reporting theft or loss of controlled substances.
10. Please provide any information that would help DEA quantify (or discuss qualitatively) the potential costs and benefits of a rule that would promote or restrict the use of contract and part-time medical officers.
11. Please provide any information that could be used to help DEA quantify (or discuss qualitatively) the potential costs and benefits of a rule that would require a DEA registration to obtain controlled substances for stocking, maintaining in, and dispensing from medicine chests, first aid packets, or dispensaries on board vessels, aircraft, or other entities.
12.
a. If so, please describe how the controlled substances are obtained.
b. Are medical officers frequently employed by the airline industry?
c. If a medical emergency arises, who on the airplane is permitted to dispense or administer controlled substances, if needed?
13.
a. Are the controlled substances shipped from the medical officer to the vessel or other entity while in port or prior to offshore deployment?
b. Are controlled substances ever shipped directly from the vendor to the vessel or other entity?
c. Who on board the vessel or other entity is responsible for receiving the shipment?
This ANPRM was developed in accordance with the principles of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review” and E.O. 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review.” Since this action is an ANPRM, the requirement of E.O. 12866 to assess the costs and benefits of this action does not apply.
Furthermore, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act do not apply to this action because, at this stage, it is an ANPRM and not a “rule” as defined in 5 U.S.C. 601. Following review of the comments received in response to this ANPRM, if DEA proceeds with a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding this matter, DEA will conduct all relevant analyses as required by statute or Executive Order.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 13, 2022, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a security zone in the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay near Yerba Buena Island within the San Francisco Captain of the Port (COTP) zone. This security zone is necessary to provide for the security of military service members on board vessels moored at the pier and the government property associated with these valuable national assets. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit the entry of, transiting through, or anchoring within a portion of the San Francisco Bay extending from Yerba Buena Island unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San Francisco. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before August 17, 2022.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2022-0483 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LT William Harris, Sector San Francisco, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 415-399-7443, email
In October 2021, the Captain of the Port (COTP) San Francisco identified a need for clearer Aids to Navigation to
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the security of Coast Guard facilities, personnel, and vessels, at all times within the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay on the east side of Yerba Buena Island from a point along the southeastern shore of Yerba Buena Island at 37°48′27″ N, 122°21′44″ W; east to 37°48′27″ N, 122°21′35″ W; north to 37°48′49″ N, 122°21′35″ W, a point on the northeastern side of Yerba Buena Island. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034 (previously 33 U.S.C. 1231).
The COTP is proposing to establish a security zone which would cover all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay on the east side of Yerba Buena Island from a point along the southeastern shore of Yerba Buena Island at 37°48′27″ N, 122°21′44″ W; east to 37°48′27″ N, 122°21′35″ W; north to 37°48′49″ N, 122°21′35″ W, a point on the northeastern side of Yerba Buena Island. This zone is intended to protect the personnel and facilities of U.S. Coast Guard units and assets located on and within the waters of Yerba Buena Island. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the security zone unless authorized by the COTP. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size and location of the security zone. The effect of this proposed rule will not be significant because vessel traffic can pass safely around the area, and this proposed rule will encompass only a small portion of the waterway.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the security zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a security zone that would prohibit entry within navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay on the east side of Yerba Buena Island from a point along the southeastern shore of Yerba Buena Island at 37°48′27″ N, 122°21′44″ W; east to 37°48′27″ N, 122°21′35″ W; north to 37°48′49″ N, 122°21′35″ W, a point on the northeastern side of Yerba Buena Island. Normally such actions are
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking, and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.2.
(a)
(b)
(2) The security zone is closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP.
(3) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP by VHF Marine Radio channel 16 or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547. Those in the security zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP.
(c)
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is acknowledging a recent filing requesting the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal Two). This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On July 7, 2022, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports.
The second variability calculation method offered by the Commission in Order No. 5932 was termed the “Minimization of Error Distance Between Predicted and Actual Cost” (MEDBPAC) method, which was also referred to as a “geometrical” approach.
The Postal Service considered and evaluated the two methods and determined that the MEDBPAC method provides a stronger foundation than the LSVPTV method for calculating Postmaster attributable costs.
The Postal Service contends that in comparison, the MEDBPAC method has several advantages. First, it is much closer in form to established methods of variability calculation.
The Postal Service also determined to extract Form 150 WSC data from 2022 to update the logit models used in Docket No. RM2022-2, as those logit models were estimated from older Form 150 WSC data from 2019.
As the 2022 Postmaster variabilities depend not only on the logit models estimated on the 2022 WSC data, but also on the EAS salary schedule for 2022, the Postal Service summarized the changes in EAS salary schedule for 2022 in comparison with the EAS salary schedule for 2019.
Based on the logit models estimated on the 2022 WSC data and the 2022 EAS salary schedule, the Postal Service calculated the 2022 Postmaster variabilities.
The Postal Service states that under the proposed approach the new overall variability is lower than the existing variability for three reasons. First, the Postal Service observes that current variability calculation method is overstated due to a computational error.
Second, the Postal Service notes that the Post Office Structure Plan (POStPlan) eliminated the lower EAS grades.
Third, the Postal Service states that the current variability calculation method measures only the potential increase in cost from an increase in WSCs, not the actual increase captured by the distribution of offices, by WSCs, and within each grade.
The Postal Service calculated the impact of new Postmaster variabilities on costs of domestic Market Dominant products in Table 2.
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2022-8 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's website at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2022-8 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Two), filed July 7, 2022.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than August 26, 2022.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Madison Lichtenstein to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is acknowledging a recent filing requesting the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal Three). This document informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On July 8, 2022, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports.
The Postal Service states that its proposal would not directly affect “the national totals of outbound international contract mail pieces reported in RPW.”
The Postal Service details these indirect effects in a version of the international outbound portion of the FY 2022 Q2 YTD RPW report showing data resulting from use of the proposed methodology compared to data resulting from use of the current methodology.
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2022-9 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's website at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2022-9 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Three), filed July 8, 2022.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than August 12, 2022.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Jennaca D. Upperman to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this order in the
By the Commission.
Federal Communications Commission.
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) proposes and seeks comment on a number of actions aimed protecting consumers from illegal calls. The document proposes and seeks comment on a number of steps to protect American consumers from all illegal calls, whether they originate domestically or abroad. Specifically, this document proposes to require domestic intermediate providers that are not gateway providers in the call path to apply STIR/SHAKEN caller ID authentication to calls. It also seeks comment on a number of robocall mitigation requirements, enhancements to enforcement, clarifications on certain aspects of STIR/SHAKEN, and limitations on the use of U.S. North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbers for foreign-originated calls and indirect number access.
Comments are due on or before August 17, 2022, and reply comments are due on or before September 16, 2022. Written comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before September 16, 2022.
Pursuant to §§ 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.415, 1.419, interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in this document. Comments and reply comments may be filed using the Commission's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS). See
•
•
• Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission.
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See
•
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
For further information, please contact either Jonathan Lechter, Attorney Advisor, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at
You may submit comments, identified by the Commission's Seventh Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in CG Docket No. 17-59 and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking in WC Docket No. 17-97, FCC 22-37, adopted on May 19, 2022, and released on May 20, 2022. The full text of this document is available for public inspection at the following internet address:
In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of any comments on the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection requirements contained herein should be submitted to the Federal Communications Commission via email to
This document contains proposed information collection requirements. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, invites the general public to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this document, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Public and agency comments are due September 16, 2022.
Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and (e) way to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. In addition, pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
1. In the final rule regarding gateway providers (
2. First, the Commission proposes to extend its caller ID authentication requirement to cover domestic intermediate providers that are not gateway providers in the call path. Second, the Commission seeks comment on extending some, but not all, of the robocall mitigation duties the Commission adopts in the
3. Because the TRACED Act defines “voice service” in a manner that excludes intermediate providers, our authentication and Robocall Mitigation Database rules use “voice service provider” in this manner. Our call blocking rules, many of which the Commission adopted prior to adoption of the TRACED Act, use a definition of “voice service provider” that includes intermediate providers. In that context, use of the TRACED Act definition of “voice service” would create inconsistency with our existing rules. To avoid confusion, for purposes of this item, we use the term “voice service provider” consistent with the TRACED Act definition and where discussing caller ID authentication or the Robocall Mitigation Database. In all other instances, we use “provider” and specify the type of provider as appropriate. Unless otherwise specified, we mean any provider, regardless of its position in the call path.
4. The Commission anticipates that the impact of its proposals will account for another large share of the annual $13.5 billion minimum benefit the Commission originally estimated in the
5. To further combat illegal robocalls consistent with the rules the Commission adopts in the
6. As the Commission has previously explained, application of caller ID authentication by intermediate providers “will provide significant benefits in facilitating analytics, blocking, and traceback by offering all parties in the call ecosystem more information.” At the time the Commission reached this conclusion, given the concerns that an authentication requirement on all intermediate providers “was unduly burdensome in some cases,” the Commission established that instead of authenticating unauthenticated calls, intermediate providers could “register and participate with the industry traceback consortium as an alternative means of complying with [its] rules.”
7. Since the Commission established those requirements in the
8. Intermediate providers could play a crucial role in further promoting effective, network-wide caller ID authentication. Requiring all intermediate providers to authenticate caller ID information for all unauthenticated SIP calls will provide information to downstream providers that will facilitate analytics and promote traceback efforts. SHAKEN verification, even “C-level” attestation, provides relevant and helpful information to downstream providers, particularly as the STIR/SHAKEN regime becomes even more ubiquitous. Adopting this proposal would bring all U.S. providers within the STIR/SHAKEN regime and prevent gaming by providers, allowing “for more robust abilities to either trust the caller or perform traceback because an illegal caller can be more easily identified.” Indeed, STIR/SHAKEN becomes more useful the more providers there are that employ it.
9. The Commission believes this proposal is in line with commenter assertions that expanding call authentication requirements will have a “significant impact in curtailing illegal robocalls” and that imposing these obligations “on more providers will promote fewer spoofed calls overall.” The Commission anticipates that its expansion of the STIR/SHAKEN regime may spur other countries and regulators to develop and adopt STIR/SHAKEN, further increasing the standards' benefit. The Commission seeks comment on this analysis and on the possible benefits of the requirement the Commission proposes. Are there reasons the Commission should not require all intermediate providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN for SIP calls? Should the Commission specifically target providers that are most responsible for illegal robocalls? Are there any downsides to only targeting specific providers?
10. The Commission also seeks comment on the proposal's implementation costs and burdens. Acknowledging that many intermediate providers are also gateway providers to some degree and are now required to implement STIR/SHAKEN per the
11. The Commission does not anticipate that its proposal to expand this requirement to the remaining intermediate providers will be unusually costly or unduly burdensome compared to gateway providers and voice service providers that are already required to authenticate unauthenticated SIP calls as commenters have not provided detailed support for assertions that such a requirement will cost significant time and resources to implement. Further, many of the remaining intermediate providers are also gateway providers that will have already implemented STIR/SHAKEN in at least some portion of their networks, likely lowering their compliance costs to meet the requirement the Commission proposes. Does this fact undercut the argument that expanding the authentication requirement would impose an undue burden on those providers? In the accompanying
12.
13. Consistent with the Commission's existing intermediate provider authentication obligation where such a provider chose the authentication route, and the rule adopted for gateway providers in the accompanying
14.
15. The Commission also anticipates that the current token access policy will not present a material barrier to intermediate providers meeting their authentication obligation and that the Secure Telephone Identity Governance Authority (STI-GA) can address any concerns before these providers are required to authenticate calls. Do commenters agree? Additionally, to ensure that these providers are not unfairly penalized and are eligible for the same relief, in line with the Commission's current rules for voice service providers, and now gateway providers, the Commission proposes to provide a STIR/SHAKEN extension to intermediate providers that are unable to obtain a token due to the STI-GA token access policy. Does this extension alleviate implementation concerns?
16. The Commission also proposes, consistent with its requirement for voice service providers and gateway providers, that all intermediate providers have the flexibility to assign the level of attestation appropriate to the call based on the applicable version of the standards and the available call information. As discussed in the accompanying
17.
18. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should require all providers to adopt a non-IP caller ID authentication solution. A number of commenters filed specific proposals in the record for authentication on non-IP networks for gateway providers as well as voice service providers, and some of these solutions work on both IP and non-IP networks. Should the Commission adopt any of these proposals as set forth in the comments or in some modified form? What are the respective benefits and burdens of these specific proposals? Should the Commission adopt any of the time division multiplex (TDM) call authentication solutions developed by ATIS? Are there any other alternative proposals that the Commission should consider for all domestic providers in the call path? Should the Commission require compliance with the most recent version of a non-IP standard available at the time an order is released pursuant to this
19. The Commission seeks comment on broadening the classes of providers subject to certain mitigation obligations, including some of the obligations it adopts in the accompanying
20. In the accompanying
21. In the prior
22.
23. If the Commission extends this requirement to cover all U.S-based providers in the call path, how should it address situations where providers may not be able to respond within 24 hours? The Commission recognizes that providers that do not receive many requests may be less familiar with the process, and that smaller providers in particular may struggle to respond quickly. Are there alternative approaches to the Commission's standard waiver process that would better address the needs of providers that cannot reliably respond within 24 hours?
24. In particular, the Commission seeks comment on whether it should adopt an approach to traceback based on volume of requests received, rather than position in the call path or size of provider. For example, should the Commission adopt a tiered approach that: requires providers with fewer than 10 traceback requests a month to respond “fully and in a timely manner,” without the need to respond within 24 hours; requires providers that receive from 10 to 99 traceback requests a month to maintain an average 24-hour response time; and requires providers with 100 or more traceback requests a month to always respond within 24 hours, barring exceptional circumstances that warrant relief through a waiver under the “good cause” standard of § 1.3 of the Commission's rules? These circumstances could include sudden unforeseen circumstances that prevent compliance for a limited period or for a limited number of calls. The Commission cautions that any applicant for waiver “faces a high hurdle even at the starting gate.” Would different thresholds be more appropriate for the tiers? Should the thresholds be based on the prior six months' average number of traceback requests or some other metric?
25. The Commission believes that, at least with regard to smaller providers, the number of requests received is indicative of whether a particular provider contributes significantly to the illegal call problem. The Commission seeks comment on this belief. Are there instances where a smaller provider might receive a high volume of traceback requests despite that provider being a good actor in the calling ecosystem? The Commission acknowledges that adopting requests-per-month thresholds will likely mean that larger providers will be required to respond within 24 hours even when those providers are good actors. However, the Commission believes that larger providers are well positioned to meet a 24-hour response requirement and, in fact, already generally do so. The Commission seeks comment on this belief. Are there any substantial cost issues or other issues the Commission should consider in adopting such a requirement?
26.
27. If the Commission extends this requirement and require non-gateway providers to block, should it consider any modifications to the rule? The Commission's effective mitigation rule requires a different response if the provider is an originating provider than if the provider is an intermediate or terminating provider. Specifically, the originating provider
28.
29. The Commission seeks comment on requiring originating providers to ensure that customers originating non-conversational traffic only seek to originate lawful calls. For example, should the Commission require originating providers to investigate such customers prior to allowing them access to high-volume origination services? If so, should the Commission require originating providers to take certain, defined steps as part of this investigation, or allow flexibility? Should the Commission require originating providers to certify, either in the Robocall Mitigation Database or through some other means, that they have conducted these investigations and determined that their customers are originating illegal calls? If a customer nonetheless uses an originating provider's network to place illegal calls, should the Commission adopt a strict liability standard, or allow the provider to terminate or otherwise modify its relationship with the customer and prevent future illegal traffic?
30. ZipDX states that “non-conversational traffic” is “traffic that has an average call duration of less than two minutes.” The Commission seeks comment on this proposed definition. While some illegal calls are “conversational,” many are not; the Commission believes that stopping non-conversational illegal calls would significantly reduce the number of illegal calls consumers receive. The Commission seeks comment on this belief. Is a focus on non-conversational traffic appropriate, or should the Commission maintain its broader focus on illegal calls generally? Alternatively, could the Commission focus on both: maintaining its existing requirement as to illegal calls generally, but adding enhanced obligations for non-conversational traffic?
31. The Commission believes that originating providers, as the providers with a direct relationship to callers, are in the best position to know what traffic a caller seeks to originate. The Commission seeks comment on this belief. Is the Commission's focus on originating providers correct, or should it include other providers, such as intermediate providers, as ZipDX suggests? If the Commission includes intermediate or terminating providers, should the requirement be the same, or modified? The Commission notes that there is wanted, and even important, non-conversational traffic. The Commission does not want emergency alerts, post-release follow up calls by hospitals, credit card fraud alerts, or similar important communication to be prevented by an intermediate or terminating provider that is not comfortable with potential liability for carrying non-conversational traffic. How could the Commission tailor its rules to allow this traffic to continue while still preventing illegal non-conversational traffic? Finally, the Commission seeks comment on alternative approaches. Should the Commission adopt all or some of ZipDX's specific proposals, which would impose obligations across the network, including requiring providers that choose to accept non-conversational traffic to meet certain obligations such as requiring A-level attestation for such calls, limiting of transit routes for these calls, and Robocall Mitigation Database certification? Are there any other approaches the Commission should consider?
32. The Commission seeks comment on requiring intermediate and terminating providers to block traffic from bad-actor providers, regardless of whether or not the bad actor is a gateway provider, pursuant to the Commission notification process it adopt in the
33. In line with the rule for voice service providers that have not implemented STIR/SHAKEN due to an extension or exemption and the general mitigation standard the Commission adopts in the
34. The Commission anticipates that extending these requirements to all domestic providers would ease administration because U.S.-based providers would then be subject to the same obligations for all calls, regardless of the providers' respective roles in the call path. Regulatory symmetry would obviate the need for a carrier to engage in a call-by-call analysis to determine the role the provider plays for any given call—
35. For the same reasons the Commission describes in the accompanying
36.
37. Certain commenters assert that more prescriptive rules will ensure that providers take reasonable steps to stop illegal robocalls. For example, should the Commission require traffic monitoring for upstream service or any other specific type of traffic monitoring? Should any particular traffic monitoring metrics be used? Should providers be required to take any other specific actions to show compliance with their robocall mitigation plan to meet this standard? Should there be a higher burden for voice over internet protocol (VoIP) providers to meet the “reasonable steps” standard? If so, what would such a higher burden look like? Are other specific modifications to the “reasonable steps” standard appropriate?
38. The Commission believes it is important to close any existing loopholes and ensure that all domestic providers are subject to the same requirements regardless of their place in the call path, even though the Commission previously declined to follow a “one-size-fits-all” approach to mitigation. The Commission believes the benefits of such an approach would outweigh any burdens on providers. Are these expectations correct? What are the benefits of clarifying and expanding the Commission's requirements to all domestic providers? What are the costs or burdens associated with doing so?
39.
40.
41. The Commission proposes to conclude that certification, operating in conjunction with the previous rules and new robocall mitigation obligations it adopts in the
42. The Commission also proposes that all intermediate providers submit the same information that voice service providers, and now gateway providers, are required to submit under the Commission's rules. Specifically, the Commission proposes that all intermediate providers must certify to the status of STIR/SHAKEN implementation and robocall mitigation on their networks; submit contact information for a person responsible for addressing robocall mitigation-related issues; and describe in detail their robocall mitigation practices. The Commission proposes that voice service providers that were not previously required to submit a robocall mitigation plan describe in detail their robocall mitigation practices. Should these providers be subject to the additional obligation that the Commission adopts for gateway providers in the
43. In line with the new rules applicable to gateway providers, the Commission proposes to delegate to the Wireline Competition Bureau the authority to specify the form and format of any submissions. The Commission further proposes that this would include whether providers with more than one role in the call path may either submit a separate certification and plan or amend their current certification and any plan and that providers amending their current plan to cover different roles in the call path explain the mitigation steps they undertake as one type of provider and what mitigation steps they undertake as a different type of provider, to the extent they are different.
44. The Commission also proposes to extend to all domestic providers the duty to update their certification within 10 business days of “any change in the information” submitted, ensuring that the information is kept up to date, in line with the existing and new requirements for voice service providers and gateway providers, respectively. Is another time period appropriate for some or all of the information the Commission requires? Should the Commission establish a materiality threshold for circumstances in which an update is necessary for remaining providers, and, if so, what threshold should it set? In the
45.
46.
47. The Commission also seeks comment on any potential changes it should make to the Robocall Mitigation Database to make the filing process easier for providers and to facilitate searches by the Commission. For example, should the Commission allow providers who indicate they are “fully compliant with STIR/SHAKEN” to still submit additional information regarding their compliance (
48.
49.
50.
51. The Commission proposes that downstream providers be required to block traffic from non-gateway intermediate providers that have not submitted a certification in the Robocall Mitigation Database 90 days following the deadline for intermediate providers to file a certification. This proposed deadline is consistent with both the rule the Commission adopted in the accompanying
52. The Commission's rules are only as effective as its enforcement. To that end, the Commission proposes to: (1) impose forfeitures for failures to block calls on a per-call basis and establish a maximum forfeiture amount for such violations; (2) impose the highest available forfeiture for failures to appropriately certify in the Robocall Mitigation Database; (3) establish additional bases for removal from the Robocall Mitigation Database, including by establishing a “red light” feature to notify the Commission when a newly-filed certification lists a known bad actor as a principal, parent company, subsidiary, or affiliate; and (4) subject repeat offenders to proceedings to revoke their section 214 operating authority and to ban offending companies and/or their individual company owners, directors, officers, and principals from future significant association with entities regulated by the Commission.
53.
54. The Commission proposes to authorize that forfeitures for violations of its mandatory blocking rules be imposed on a per-call basis, with a maximum forfeiture amount for each violation of the proposed mandatory blocking requirements of $22,021 per violation. This is the maximum forfeiture amount the Commission's rules permit it to impose on non-common carriers. While common carriers may be assessed a maximum forfeiture of $220,213 for each violation, the Commission proposes to find that it should not impose a greater penalty on one class of providers than another for purposes of the mandatory blocking requirements. The Commission seeks comment on this proposal. Is there any reason to permit a higher maximum forfeiture for violation of the blocking requirements by providers that the Commission has determined to qualify as common carriers? Is one class of providers more likely than another to violate these rules? If so, is that a basis for imposing different forfeiture amounts? Are there particular aggravating or mitigating factors the Commission should take into consideration when determining the amount of a forfeiture penalty? Are the aggravating and mitigating factors set forth in the Commission's rules sufficient? Should failure to block calls to emergency services providers or public safety answering points (PSAPs) or to numbers on a reasonable DNO list constitute aggravating factors to be considered in calculating a forfeiture amount?
55.
56.
57. Many of the providers that would come within the purview of this proposed rule may not be classified as common carriers and thus may not operate subject to the blanket section 214 authority applicable to domestic interstate common carriers under § 63.01 of the Commission's rules. Interconnected VoIP providers are required to file applications to discontinue service under section 214 of the Act and § 63.71 of the Commission's rules. Providers not classified as common carriers may hold other Commission-issued authorizations or certifications. The Commission proposes to find that such carriers that have an international section 214 authorization, have applied for and received authorization for direct access to numbering resources, or are designated as eligible telecommunications carriers under section 214(e) of the Act in order to receive federal universal service support hold a Commission authorization sufficient to subject them to the Commission's jurisdiction for purposes of enforcing its rules pertaining to preventing illegal robocalls. Finally, The Commission proposes to find that providers not classified as common carriers registered in the Robocall Mitigation Database hold a Commission certification such that they are subject to the Commission's jurisdiction. The Commission seeks comment on these proposed findings and whether they serve as sufficient legal authority for the Commission to seek either revocation of an individual or entity's section 214 operating authority or to impose a ban on an individual or entity from operating in the telecommunications space as described above. Are there any other bases for jurisdiction or legal authority for the Commission to take such action?
58. The Commission seeks comment on whether additional clarity is needed regarding the Commission's rules applicable to certain providers lacking facilities necessary to implement STIR/SHAKEN. The Commission has previously clarified that the STIR/SHAKEN implementation requirement “do[es] not apply to providers that lack control of the network infrastructure necessary to implement STIR/SHAKEN.” The Commission notes that it accelerated the STIR/SHAKEN implementation deadline for another class of providers (
59. Given that providers must block traffic from originating providers not listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database, some providers, including resellers, have filed, irrespective of any obligation to do so. The Commission observes that the Robocall Mitigation Database portal does not prevent these providers from filing. To address this issue, should the Commission amend its rules to deem providers that lack control of the necessary infrastructure to implement STIR/SHAKEN as instead having a continuing extension? The Commission's rules require that voice service providers granted an extension perform robocall mitigation. Should the providers identified above be required to perform robocall mitigation, at least to the extent that they are able despite their lack of control over network infrastructure? If not, why not?
60. These providers may possess information about their customers that the underlying provider (in the case of resellers) may not be aware of or privy to. Should the Commission impose a know-your-customer obligation on these providers, even though they do not have an obligation to implement STIR/SHAKEN, or are its existing requirements outside of the STIR/SHAKEN context sufficient? Is the Commission's existing flexible approach sufficient, or should the Commission impose more specific requirements? Should such providers be required to communicate relevant information about their customers to underlying providers, and to what extent?
61. The Commission seeks comment on whether the TRACED Act applies to satellite providers, and, if so, whether it should grant such providers an extension for implementing STIR/SHAKEN. The Commission's rules, consistent with the TRACED Act, provide that a “voice service” is “any service that . . . furnishes voice communications to an end user using resources from the North American Numbering Plan.” The Satellite Industry Association (SIA) argues that the
62. In addition to satellite providers' apparently limited use of U.S. NANP resources that SIA argues is generally outside the scope of the TRACED Act, SIA contends that requiring implementation of STIR/SHAKEN would pose an undue hardship due to unique economic and technological challenges the industry faces. Would requiring satellite providers, irrespective of their use of U.S. NANP resources, to implement STIR/SHAKEN pose an undue hardship? Is it technically feasible for satellite providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN? To what extent are satellite providers the source of illegal robocalls? Do they account for enough of the $13.5 billion cost to American consumers to outweigh the burden on them posed by having to implement STIR/SHAKEN? The Commission has previously provided small voice services providers, including satellite providers, an extension from STIR/SHAKEN implementation until June 30, 2023. When the Wireline Competition Bureau reevaluated this extension in 2021, it declined to grant a request from SIA for an indefinite extension and stated that it would seek further comment on SIA's request before the June 30, 2023 extension expires. The TRACED Act requires that the Commission, 12 months after the date of the TRACED Act's enactment, and thereafter “as appropriate,” assess burdens or barriers to implementation of STIR/SHAKEN. The TRACED Act further provides the Commission discretion to extend compliance with the implementation mandate “upon a public finding of undue hardship.” Not less than annually thereafter, the Commission must consider revising or extending any delay of compliance previously granted and issue a public notice regarding whether such delay of compliance remains necessary. The Commission directed the Wireline Competition Bureau to make these annual assessments and to reevaluate the Commission's granted extensions and revise or extend them as necessary. The Commission seeks comment on whether it should grant SIA's request for an indefinite extension for satellite providers. In the alternative, should satellite providers be granted a continuing extension? If so, how long should such an extension be?
63. The Commission seeks comment on possible changes to its numbering rules to prevent the misuse of numbering resources to originate illegal robocalls, particularly calls originating abroad. In the
64.
65. Should the Commission only impose restrictions in those cases where the call is not authenticated? For example, France requires that operators block calls with a French number in the caller ID from an operator outside of France unless the operator assigning, depositing, or receiving the number is able to guarantee the authenticity of the caller ID or the call is an international mobile roaming call of a French operator's end user. Under a similar approach, any calls carrying a U.S. NANP number that arrive in the United States with a STIR/SHAKEN authentication would not be automatically blocked. The Commission seeks comment on such an approach.
66. The Commission seeks comment on the effect that any of these restrictions or limitations would have on foreign call centers of U.S. corporations that make foreign-originated calls to U.S. customers. In particular, how do call centers operate when calling into countries that bar the foreign origination of calls into the domestic market carrying domestic caller ID information? The Commission seeks comment on the burden that these restrictions may have on providers and other entities such as call centers as well as the benefit that would result from bright-line restrictions on the use of U.S. NANP numbers for foreign-originated calls.
67.
68. While the Commission does not prejudge the outcome of the
69. The Commission seeks comment on whether certain of its rules regarding caller ID authentication and attestation in the Robocall Mitigation Database require clarification. The Commission's rules require that a voice service provider “[a]uthenticate caller identification information for all SIP calls it originates and . . . transmit that call with authenticated caller identification information to the next voice service provider or intermediate provider in the call path.” TransNexus asserts that some originating providers have had underlying (in the case of resellers) or downstream providers authenticate calls on the originating provider's behalf. Should the Commission allow a third party to authenticate caller identification information to satisfy the originating provider's obligation? Conversely, should the Commission amend its rules regarding filing in the Robocall Mitigation Database to require attestation of STIR/SHAKEN implementation by the originating provider itself—
70. The Commission seeks comment on stakeholders' argument that certain traffic is unlikely to carry illegal robocalls and thus should be treated differently under its rules from other voice traffic. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on whether cellular roaming traffic (
71. The Commission proposes to adopt any of the foregoing obligations largely pursuant to the legal authority it relied upon in prior caller ID authentication and call blocking orders, including authority it relied upon in the accompanying
72.
73.
74. The Commission seeks specific comment on its ancillary authority. The Commission anticipates that the proposed regulations applicable to all domestic providers are “reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective performance of its . . . responsibilities.” Providers not classified as common carriers interconnect with the public switched telephone network and exchange IP traffic, which clearly constitutes “communication by wire and radio.” The Commission believes that requiring these providers to comply with its proposed rules is reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective performance of its statutory responsibilities under sections 201(b), 202(a), 251(e), and the Truth in Caller ID Act as described above. With respect to sections 201(b) and 202(a), absent application of the Commission's proposed rules to providers not classified as common carriers, originators of robocalls could circumvent the Commission's proposed regulatory scheme by sending calls only to providers not classified as common carriers to reach their destination. The Commission seeks comment on this analysis and any other basis of its ancillary authority here.
75.
76.
77. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to advance digital equity for all, including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality, invites comment on any equity-related considerations and benefits (if any) that may be associated with the proposals and issues discussed herein. The Commission defines the term “equity” consistent with Executive Order 13985 as the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Specifically, the Commission seeks comment on how its proposals may promote or inhibit advances in diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.
78. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), the Commission has prepared this Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) of the possible significant economic impact on small entities by the policies and rules proposed in this
79. In order to continue the Commission's work of protecting American consumers from illegal calls, regardless of their provenance, the
80. The
81. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the proposed rules and by the rule revisions on which the
82.
83. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
84. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate that there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. Accordingly, based on the 2017 U.S. Census of Governments data, the Commission estimates that at least 48,971 entities fall into the category of “small governmental jurisdictions.”
85.
86. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities
87.
88.
89.
90. The Commission has included small incumbent LECs in this present RFA analysis. As noted above, a “small business” under the RFA is one that, inter alia, meets the pertinent small-business size standard (
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
97.
98.
99.
100. The
101. With regard to the Commission's enforcement of these proposed rules, the
102. The
103. The
104. The
105. Lastly, the
106. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its proposed approach, which may include the following four alternatives (among others): (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance and reporting requirements under the rules for such small entities; (3) the use of performance rather than design standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for such small entities.
107. The
108. None.
109.
110.
111.
112. Accordingly,
113.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Communications, Communications common carriers, Classified information, Freedom of information, Government publications, Infants and children, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Postal Service, Privacy, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sunshine Act, Telecommunications.
Administrative practice and Procedure, Civil rights, Claims, Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Cuba, Drug abuse, Environmental impact statements, Equal access to justice, Equal employment opportunity, Federal buildings and facilities, Government employees, Historic preservation, Income taxes, Indemnity payments, Individuals with disabilities, internet, Investigations, Lawyers, Metric system, Penalties, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, Security measures, Telecommunications, Telephone, Television, Wages.
Carrier equipment, Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
The Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend parts 0, 1, and 64 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, and 409, unless otherwise noted.
(a) * * *
(28) Take enforcement action, including de-listing from the Robocall Mitigation Database, against any provider:
(i) Whose certification described in § 64.6305(c) through (e) of this chapter is deficient after giving that provider
(ii) Who accepts calls directly from a domestic voice service provider, domestic intermediate provider, gateway provider, or foreign provider not listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database in violation of § 64.6305(f) of this chapter.
47 U.S.C. chs. 2, 5, 9, 13; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note, unless otherwise noted.
The addition reads as follows:
(b) * * *
(9)
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
(b) Authenticate caller identification information for all calls it receives that use North American Numbering Plan resources that pertain to the United States in the caller ID field and for which the caller identification information has not been authenticated and which it will exchange with another provider as a SIP call.
(b)
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(c) * * *
(2) A voice service provider shall include a robocall mitigation program consistent with paragraph (a) of this section and shall include the following information in its certification in English or with a certified English translation:
(4) * * *
(iv) All known principals, affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companies of the intermediate provider;
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
(iv) All known principals, affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companies of the intermediate provider;
(e)
(i) It has fully implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework across its entire network and all calls it carries or processes are compliant with § 64.6302(b);
(ii) It has implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework on a portion of its network and calls it carries or processes on that portion of its network are compliant with § 64.6302(b); or
(iii) It has not implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework on any portion of its network for carrying or processing calls.
(2) An intermediate provider shall include the following information in its
(i) The specific reasonable steps the intermediate provider has taken to avoid carrying or processing illegal robocall traffic as part of its robocall mitigation program, including a description of how it has complied with the know-your-upstream provider requirement in § 64.1200(n)(4).
(ii) A statement of the intermediate provider's commitment to respond fully and in a timely manner to all traceback requests from the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium, and to cooperate with such entities in investigating and stopping any illegal robocallers that use its service to carry or process calls.
(3) All certifications made pursuant to paragraph (e)(1) of this section shall:
(i) Be filed in the appropriate portal on the Commission's website; and
(ii) Be signed by an officer in conformity with 47 CFR 1.16.
(4) An intermediate provider filing a certification shall submit the following information in the appropriate portal on the Commission's website:
(i) The intermediate provider's business name(s) and primary address;
(ii) Other business names in use by the intermediate provider;
(iii) All business names previously used by the intermediate provider;
(iv) All known principals, affiliates, subsidiaries, and parent companies of the intermediate provider;
(v) Whether the intermediate provider or any affiliate is also a foreign voice service provider; and
(vi) The name, title, department, business address, telephone number, and email address of one person within the company responsible for addressing robocall mitigation-related issues.
(5) An intermediate provider shall update its filings within 10 business days of any change to the information it must provide pursuant to paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section, subject to the conditions set forth in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(f)
(2)
(3)
(i) A gateway provider, only if that provider's filing appears in the Robocall Mitigation Database in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section, showing that the gateway provider has affirmatively submitted the filing, and that the filing has not been de-listed pursuant to an enforcement action.
(ii) Beginning 90 days after the deadline for filing certifications pursuant to paragraph (e) of this section, a domestic intermediate provider, only if that provider's filing appears in the Robocall Mitigation Database in accordance with paragraph (e) of this section, showing that the intermediate provider has affirmatively submitted the filing, and that the filing has not been de-listed pursuant to an enforcement action.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes regulations to implement management measures described in Amendment 32 to the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic (CMP) Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and Atlantic Region (CMP FMP), as prepared and submitted by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (Councils). This proposed rule and Amendment 32 would revise the Gulf of Mexico (Gulf) migratory group of cobia (Gulf group cobia) catch limits, possession limit and minimum size limits, establish a Gulf group cobia commercial trip limit and recreational vessel limit, and revise the CMP FMP framework procedures. The proposed rule would also clarify the Gulf group cobia sale and purchase restrictions. The purpose of this proposed rule and Amendment 32 is to end overfishing of Gulf group cobia, update catch limits to be consistent with the best scientific information available, and revise management measures to help constrain landings to the catch limits.
Written comments must be received on or before August 17, 2022.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule, identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2022-0030,” by either of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of Amendment 32, which includes a fishery impact statement and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at
Kelli O'Donnell, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
Gulf group cobia is managed under the CMP FMP in Federal waters from the Georgia/Florida border in the Atlantic to the Texas/Mexico border in the Gulf. The CMP FMP was prepared by the Councils and implemented through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act). All weights in this proposed rule are in round and eviscerated weight combined, unless otherwise specified.
Under the CMP FMP, the Councils jointly manage fishing for Gulf group cobia in Federal waters from Texas to the Florida/Georgia boundary. The Gulf group cobia acceptable biological catch (ABC) is apportioned between the Gulf zone, which spans from the Councils' jurisdictional boundary west of the Dry Tortugas, Florida, to the Texas/Mexico border, and the Florida east coast (FLEC) zone, which spans from the Florida/Georgia border to the Councils' jurisdictional boundary west of the Dry Tortugas, Florida. Under the current framework procedures in the CMP FMP, the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Gulf Council) is responsible for specifying management measures for Gulf group cobia, except that the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (South Atlantic Council) is responsible for specifying trip limits, closed seasons or areas, and gear restrictions in the FLEC zone.
The current overfishing limit (OFL) and acceptable biological catch are 2,660,000 lb (1,206,556 kg) and 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg), respectively. The current stock annual catch limit (ACL) is equal to the ABC. These catch limits were established in 2015 in Amendment 20B to the CMP FMP (80 FR 4216; January 27, 2015), and are based on the recommendations of the Councils' Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSCs) from the Southeast Data Assessment and Review (SEDAR) 28 stock assessment. The recreational landings estimates used in SEDAR 28 were generated using the Marine Recreational Information Program's (MRIP) Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS).
In Amendment 20B, the Councils apportioned the Gulf group cobia stock ABC between the Gulf zone (64 percent) and FLEC zone (36 percent), based on average landings from 1998-2012 across both zones, with the ACL for each zone being set equal to the apportioned ABC. Recreational landings estimates during 1998-2012 were generated using MRIP-CHTS. In 2018, MRIP replaced the fishing effort estimates from the CHTS with those from the Fishing Effort Survey (FES). Total recreational fishing effort estimates generated from MRIP-FES are generally higher than MRIP-CHTS estimates, and those higher effort estimates necessarily increase the recreational landings estimates. This difference in the estimates is because MRIP-FES is designed to more accurately measure fishing activity. Had MRIP-FES data been available when the current Gulf grouper cobia OFL and ABC were established, the OFL would have been 4,870,000 lb (2,208,995 kg) and the ABC would have been 4,500,000 (2,041,166 kg).
In 2020, the SEDAR 28 Update indicated that Gulf group cobia was undergoing overfishing with the biomass at reduced levels, which puts the stock at risk of becoming overfished. The SEDAR 28 Update included updated recreational landings estimates based on MRIP FES. In July 2020, the Councils' SSCs reviewed the SEDAR 28 Update and recommended new OFLs and ABCs that would end overfishing of Gulf group cobia and allow harvest to increase over time. The SSCs' recommendation for OFL is 3,210,000 lb (1,456,032 kg) for 2022, and 3,310,000 lb (1,501,391 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The SSCs' recommendation for ABC is 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) for 2022, and 2,760,000 lb (1,251,915 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. These recommendations represent a reduction in the allowable harvest when compared to the current OFL and ABC, as noted above.
The Gulf Council manages Gulf group cobia in the Gulf zone without sector allocations. The South Atlantic Council manages Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone with sector allocations, allocating 8 percent of the ACL to the commercial sector and 92 percent of the ACL to the recreational sector. This allocation was originally established in 2012 in Amendment 18 to the CMP FMP, when two migratory groups of cobia were managed under the CMP FMP: Gulf group cobia and Atlantic migratory group cobia (Atlantic group cobia) (76 FR 82058; December 29, 2011). The allocation was based on a formula that balanced historical catches (2000-2008) with more recent landings (2006-2008). The boundary between these two migratory groups was set at the Councils' jurisdictional boundary west of the Dry Tortugas. However, the SEDAR 28 (2013) assessment determined that the biological boundary between the Gulf and Atlantic migratory groups of cobia was the Florida/Georgia border. To account for this change, in Amendment 20B the Councils created the Gulf zone and the FLEC zone, allocating a portion of the Gulf group cobia ABC to each zone. In that Amendment, the Councils also chose to keep the same sector allocations for the FLEC zone that were established for Atlantic group cobia in Amendment 18 to the CMP FMP. Subsequently, the Councils removed Atlantic group cobia from the CMP FMP in 2018 through Amendment 31, and it is now managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (84 FR 4733; February 19, 2019).
In Amendment 18, the Councils established ACTs for both Gulf group cobia and the recreational harvest of Atlantic group cobia. The Councils kept the same formulas for establishing these ACTs in Amendment 20B when the Gulf group cobia ABC was split between the Gulf zone and the FLEC zone. The current stock ACT in the Gulf zone is 10 percent below the Gulf zone ACL. The ACT was selected to provide a buffer to the ACL, but result in a catch level that was no less than historic total catch from 2000-2009. The current recreational ACT in the FLEC zone is 17 percent below the FLEC zone ACL and was calculated using the following formula: the ACL multiplied by 1 minus the proportional standard error (PSE) of the recreational landings estimates, or 0.5, whichever was greater.
The Councils established the current commercial and recreational possession limit for Gulf group cobia of two fish per person per day through Amendment 5 to the CMP FMP (55 FR 29370; July 19, 1990). This possession limit was extended to the FLEC zone when the Gulf group cobia boundary was changed. There currently is no commercial or recreational trip limit for Gulf group cobia in either zone.
The Councils first established a minimum size limit for cobia of 33 inches (83.8 cm), fork length, in the original CMP FMP (48 FR 5270; February 4, 1983) and that minimum size limit applied to both the Gulf zone and the FLEC zone when they were created in Amendment 20B. In 2020, the Gulf Council revised the Gulf group cobia minimum size limit in the Gulf zone to 36 inches (91.4 cm) fork length, through Framework Amendment 7 to the CMP FMP (85 FR 10328; February 24, 2020). The Gulf Council took this action based on concerns from constituents that an observed decrease
For Gulf group cobia, this proposed rule would revise the stock and sector ACLs, the Gulf zone stock ACT (quota), the FLEC zone recreational ACT, and the possession limit and minimum size limits, and establish a commercial trip limit and a recreational vessel limits. This proposed rule would also clarify the CMP sale and purchase provisions for federally permitted dealers.
The current stock ACL for Gulf group cobia is equal to the ABC of 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) and is based on the results of SEDAR 28, which used data from MRIP-CHTS. Amendment 32 would retain the stock ACL for Gulf group cobia of 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) for 2022, and increase the stock ACL to 2,760,000 lb (1,251,915 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years, which is also equal to the ABCs recommended by the Councils' SSCs. The SSCs' recommendations and the Councils' determinations are based on the results of the SEDAR 28 Update, which used data from MRIP-FES. Thus, the proposed ACLs using MRIP-FES data actually represent a decrease in the allowable harvest of Gulf group cobia, as discussed above. For example, had the current stock ACL been derived using MRIP-FES data, the current stock ACL would have been 4,500,000 lb (2,041,166 kg).
The current zone apportionment of the ABC (equal to the stock ACL) is 64 percent to the Gulf zone and 36 percent to the FLEC zone, which results in a Gulf zone ACL of 1,660,000 lb (752,963 kg) and a FLEC zone ACL of 930,000 lb (421,841 kg). Amendment 32 and the proposed rule would revise the zone apportionment to 63 percent to the Gulf zone and 37 percent to the FLEC zone. This would result in a Gulf zone ACL of 1,638,000 lb (742,984 kg) for 2022, and 1,738,000 lb (788,343 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The proposed FLEC zone ACL would be 962,000 lb (436,356 kg) for 2022, and 1,021,200 lb (463,209 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.
Amendment 32 would maintain the current commercial and recreational allocation in the FLEC zone as 8 percent and 92 percent, respectively. The current ACLs for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone are 70,000 lb (31,751 kg) for the commercial sector (expressed as a commercial quota), and 860,000 lb (390,089 kg) for the recreational sector. The proposed commercial ACLs (quotas) are 76,960 lb (34,908 kg) for 2022, and 81,696 lb (37,057 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The proposed recreational ACLs are 885,040 lb (401,447 kg) for 2022, and 939,504 lb (426,152 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.
Amendment 32 and this proposed rule would update the calculation for determining the ACTs using the Gulf Council's ACL/ACT Control Rule. Under this control rule, the calculated ACTs for the Gulf zone and for the recreational sector in the FLEC zone would be 10 percent less than the respective zone ACLs. To calculate the ACT, the control rule uses the PSEs for 4 years of landings data (2016-2019), the number of times the catch limit has been exceeded, the precision of recreational landings based on the PSE, the precision of commercial landings, inseason accountability measures in place, and the stock status.
The current stock ACT (quota) for Gulf group cobia in the Gulf zone is 1,500,000 lb (680,389 kg). Consistent with the Gulf Council's ACL/ACT Control Rule, this proposed rule would revise the stock ACT in the Gulf zone to be 1,474,200 lb (668,686 kg) for 2022, and 1,564,920 lb (709,836 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.
The current recreational ACT for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone is 710,000 lb (322,051 kg). Consistent with Gulf Council's ACL/ACT Control Rule, this proposed rule would revise the recreational ACT in the FLEC zone to be 796,536 lb (361,303 kg) for 2022, and 845,554 lb (383,537 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.
There is no commercial ACT for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone and the Councils did not establish a commercial ACT in Amendment 32. The Councils determined that a commercial ACT was not necessary because the commercial sector had not exceeded its ACL in the past and the projections in Amendment 32 indicated that commercial harvest would not exceed the proposed ACLs.
The current possession limit for Gulf group cobia of two fish per person per day applies to commercial and recreational harvest in both zones. This possession limit is codified at 50 CFR 622.383(b), which addresses limited harvest species. In Amendment 32, the Councils decided to reduce the Gulf group cobia possession limit to one fish per person. The Councils also decided to establish a commercial trip limit of two fish and a recreational vessel limit of two fish per trip.
This proposed rule would implement these changes by establishing a recreational bag limit in 50 CFR 622.382(a) and a commercial trip limit in 50 CFR 622.385(c), and removing the regulations at 50 CFR 622.383. The recreational bag limit for Gulf group cobia would be one fish per person per day, not to exceed 2 fish per vessel per trip. The commercial trip limit for Gulf group cobia per day would be one fish per person and 2 fish per vessel, not to exceed 2 fish per vessel per trip. The commercial trip limit, and the recreational bag and vessel limits would apply to harvest from both the Gulf zone and FLEC zone.
Analysis in Amendment 32 indicates that the majority of the commercial and recreational trips already harvest one or less cobia per person and per trip. Therefore, reducing the possession limit from 2 fish to 1 fish per person and creating a commercial trip limit and recreational vessel limit would only reduce harvest in the Gulf zone by about 1.0 percent for the commercial sector and 10 percent for the recreational sector. The harvest reduction in the FLEC zone would be greater, with an approximate 23 percent for the commercial sector and 29 percent for the recreational sector. However, the Councils decided that these changes were appropriate because they would result in some reduction in fishing mortality and would also aid with compliance and enforcement because the harvest limits in Federal waters would be consistent with those established by the state of Florida for harvest of cobia in Gulf state waters, which is one fish per person or two per vessel, whichever is less. The possession and trip limits in Florida state waters adjacent to the FLEC zone are currently one per person or six fish per vessel, whichever is less, but effective July, 1, 2022, these state regulations will change and will be consistent with the changes proposed in this rule. See
The analysis in Amendment 32 indicates that commercial landings will not exceed the proposed commercial harvest limits in the FLEC zone, and
This proposed rule would increase the commercial and recreational minimum size limits for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone from 33 inches (83.8 cm) to 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length. The current Gulf zone commercial and recreational minimum size limit is 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length, and the Councils determined that having a consistent minimum size limit in both the FLEC and Gulf zones would reduce confusion about the regulations in Federal waters and decrease the burden on law enforcement, while also providing benefits to the stock.
Increasing the minimum size limit to 36 inches (91.4 cm), fork length, in the FLEC zone would reduce the harvest rate across both sectors and reduce the total harvest. The increase in the minimum size limit would also increase the likelihood that sexually mature cobia are able to spawn more than once before being harvested, resulting in additional recruitment to the spawning stock over time. As a result of this change to the minimum size limit, NMFS projects that harvest in the FLEC zone would be reduced by approximately 27 percent for the commercial sector, 23 percent for the recreational charter vessel/headboat component, and 34 percent for the recreational private angling component. An increase in the minimum size limit may increase regulatory discards in the FLEC zone in the near-term but the discard mortality rates were estimated in SEDAR 28 to be relatively low (5 percent) when using hook-and-line gear in the commercial sector and all gear types in the recreational sector. The analysis in Amendment 32 indicates that implementing both this increase in the minimum size limit and the changes to the possession limit would reduce landings in the FLEC zone enough to constrain landings to the recreational ACL.
This proposed rule would also clarify the sale and purchase regulations at 50 CFR 622.386(b) and (c). The Councils and NMFS do not require a specific Federal permit for the commercial harvest of Gulf group cobia. However, because this stock is included in the CMP FMP, the regulations at 50 CFR 622.386(b) and (c) restrict the sale and purchase of Gulf group cobia by federally permitted vessels and seafood dealers. The regulation at 50 CFR 622.386(b) requires that Gulf group cobia harvested on any vessel that has a valid Federal vessel permit (
As previously explained, the current OFL and ABC for Gulf group cobia of 2,660,000 lb (1,206,556 kg) and 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg), are based on the Councils' SSCs' recommendations from SEDAR 28, which used recreational landings estimates from MRIP-CHTS. Amendment 32 would adopt the new increasing OFLs and ABCs based on the SSCs' recommendations from the results of the SEDAR 28 Update, which used MRIP-FES recreational landings estimates. The new OFLs would be 3,210,000 lb (1,456,032 kg) for 2022, and 3,310,000 lb (1,501,391 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years. The new ABCs would be 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) for 2022, and 2,760,000 lb (1,251,915 kg) for 2023 and subsequent years.
The current ABC apportionment for Gulf group cobia is 64 percent for the Gulf zone and 36 percent for the FLEC zone, respectively. Amendment 32 would revise the Gulf group cobia ABC apportionment between the Gulf and FLEC zones by using the average landings from 1998-2012 across both zones using MRIP-FES landings for this time series. This results in a new apportionment of the Gulf group cobia stock ABC of 63 percent for the Gulf zone and 37 percent for the FLEC zone. Using the same time series to calculate the apportionment, but updating it by using MRIP-FES, addresses the higher recreational landings that have occurred in the FLEC zone compared to the Gulf zone.
Currently, Gulf group cobia in the Gulf zone is managed as a stock without separate ACLs for each sector, and the Councils did not reconsider this management approach in Amendment 32. The commercial and recreational allocation in the FLEC zone is 8 percent and 92 percent, respectively. Amendment 32 would maintain stock management in the Gulf zone and maintain the current commercial and recreational allocation in the FLEC zone. The current FLEC zone allocation would be applied to the proposed FLEC zone ACLs. The Councils wanted to recognize the harvest needs of the commercial sector in the FLEC zone by not decreasing the
Currently, the framework procedure limits the management measures that the South Atlantic Council may independently propose for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone to vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas, or fishing gear restrictions.
Amendment 32 would revise the framework procedures to allow the South Atlantic Council to independently change vessel trip limits, closed seasons or areas, fishing gear restrictions, per person bag and possession limits, size limits, in-season and post-season accountability measures, and specification of ACTs or sector ACTs for Gulf group cobia in the FLEC zone. The Councils decided that providing the South Atlantic Council the authority to make any of these changes through a framework process will allow the South Atlantic Council to respond quickly to new information. The Councils determined this change would result in beneficial biological, socio-economic, and administrative impacts.
Amendment 32 would also clarify language in the CMP FMP framework procedure by removing reference to Atlantic group cobia, which was removed from management by the Councils through Amendment 31 to the CMP FMP (84 FR 4733; February 19, 2019), and change the language referring to the ABC/ACL Control Rule because there is no ABC/ACL Control Rule. Instead, this language should refer to the ABC and ACL/ACT Control Rules.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 32, the CMP FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
An initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) was prepared, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 603). The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of the action, why it is being considered, and the legal basis for this action are contained at the beginning of this section in the preamble and in the
This proposed rule, if implemented, would apply to all commercial vessels, charter vessels and headboats (for-hire vessels), and recreational anglers that fish for or harvest cobia in either the FLEC zone or Gulf zone. Because no Federal permit is required for the commercial harvest or sale of Gulf cobia, the distinction between commercial and recreational fishing activity for the purposes of this proposed rule is whether the fish are sold. Individuals that harvest Gulf cobia under the recreational bag limit in Federal waters and who do not subsequently sell these fish are considered to be recreational anglers. Recreational anglers are not considered small entities under the RFA, so they are outside the scope of this analysis (5 U.S.C. 603). Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small governmental jurisdictions (5 U.S.C. 601(6) and 601(3)-(5)). Recreational anglers are not businesses, organizations, or governmental jurisdictions. A component of this proposed rule would also apply to Federally-permitted dealers that purchase Gulf cobia.
For-hire vessels sell fishing services to recreational anglers. The proposed changes to the CMP FMP would not directly alter the services sold by these for-hire vessels. Any change in anglers' demand for these fishing services (and associated economic effects) as a result of this proposed rule would be secondary to any direct effect on anglers and, therefore, would be an indirect effect of this proposed rule. Indirect effects fall outside the scope of the RFA; however, because for-hire captains and crew are allowed to harvest and sell Gulf cobia under the possession limit when the commercial season is open, for-hire businesses, or employees thereof, could be directly affected by this proposed rule as well.
In summary, businesses that engage in commercial fishing (
Although no Federal permit is required for the commercial harvest and sale of Gulf cobia, vessels with other Federal commercial permits are required to report their catches for all species harvested, including Gulf cobia. On average from 2015 through 2019, there were 261 federally-permitted commercial vessels with reported landings of cobia in the Gulf zone. Their average annual vessel-level gross revenue from all species for 2015 through 2019 was approximately $195,000 (2019 dollars) and cobia harvested from the Gulf zone accounted for less than one percent of this revenue. During the same time period, 248 federally-permitted commercial vessels reported landings of cobia in the FLEC zone. Their average annual vessel-level revenue from all species for 2015 through 2019 was approximately $46,000 (2019 dollars) and cobia harvested from the FLEC zone accounted for approximately one percent of this revenue. The maximum annual revenue from all species reported by a single one of the vessels that harvested Gulf cobia from 2015 through 2019 was approximately $2.27 million (2019 dollars).
For anglers to fish for or possess CMP species in or from the Gulf EEZ on for-hire vessels, those vessels are required to have a Federal limited access Gulf Charter Vessel/Headboat for Coastal Migratory Pelagics permit (Gulf CMP for-hire permit). On September 3, 2021, there were 1,301 valid (non-expired) or renewable Gulf CMP for-hire permits and 4 valid or renewable Gulf CMP historical captain for-hire permits. For anglers to fish for or possess CMP species in or from the Mid-Atlantic or South Atlantic EEZ on for-hire vessels, those vessels are required to have a Federal open access South Atlantic Charter Vessel/Headboat for Coastal Migratory Pelagics permit (SA CMP for-hire permit). On September 3, 2021, there were 1,825 valid SA CMP for-hire permits. Although the for-hire permit application collects information on the primary method of operation, the permit does not identify the permitted vessel as either a headboat or a charter vessel and vessels may operate in both capacities. However, only federally-permitted headboats are required to submit harvest and effort information to the NMFS Southeast Region Headboat Survey (SRHS). Participation in the SRHS is based on determination by the Southeast Fisheries Science Center that the vessel primarily operates as a headboat. As of March 9, 2021, 69 Gulf headboats were registered in the SRHS. There were 39 Atlantic headboats registered in the SRHS that may operate in the FLEC zone, as well. As a result, of the 1,305 vessels with Gulf CMP for-hire permits (including historical captain permits), up to 69 may primarily operate as headboats and the remainder as charter vessels. Of the 1,825 vessels with SA CMP for-hire permits, up to 39 may primarily operate as headboats.
The average charter vessel operating in the Gulf is estimated to receive approximately $90,000 (2019 dollars) in gross revenue and $27,000 in net income (gross revenue minus variable and fixed costs) annually. The average Gulf headboat is estimated to receive approximately $272,000 (2019 dollars) in gross revenue and $79,000 in net
As of July 12, 2021, there were 373 entities with a Federal Gulf and South Atlantic Dealer permit. The number of these seafood dealers that would be directly affected by this proposed rule is unknown; therefore, this number may be considered an upper bound estimate.
For RFA purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 11411) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the commercial fishing businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule are believed to be small entities based on the NMFS size standard.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size standards for all major industry sectors in the U.S. including for-hire businesses (NAICS code 487210) and seafood dealers/wholesalers (NAICS code 424460). A business primarily involved in the for-hire fishing industry is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $8 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. All of the for-hire vessels directly regulated by this proposed rule are believed to be small entities based on the SBA size criteria. A business that primarily operates as a seafood dealer/wholesaler is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual employment not in excess of 100 employees for all its affiliated operations worldwide. Employment data for the dealers directly regulated by this proposed rule are not available; however, NMFS conservatively assumes a substantial number of these dealers are small entities based on the SBA size criteria.
No other small entities that would be directly affected by this proposed rule have been identified.
This proposed rule would modify the Gulf cobia stock ACL based on the recommendations of the Councils' SSCs, as presented in July 2020. The stock ACL would be set equal to the stock ABC or 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg) in 2022 and then increase to 2,760,000 lb (1,251,915 kg) in 2023 and thereafter. These proposed ACLs are not directly comparable to the status quo ACL of 2,600,000 lb (1,179,340 kg), because the status quo ACL is based on MRIP-CHTS data for the recreational sector; whereas, the proposed ACLs are based on newer MRIP-FES data. When converted to an MRIP-FES equivalent value, however, the status quo ACL is estimated to be approximately 4,500,000 lb (2,041,166). Although this proposed rule is expected to result in a 42 percent to 39 percent reduction in the stock ACL relative to the MRIP-FES equivalent status quo ACL, these differences do not represent differences between status quo harvest opportunities and expected future harvests. That is because the stock ACL is sub-divided into zone and sector specific ACLs, and those sub-ACLs dictate fishing opportunities. Also, based on historical landings information, the stock ACL has been underutilized in the past, and therefore, a reduction in the ACL may not impact harvests in the short term. Additionally, because the Gulf zone ACL is shared by the commercial and recreational sectors, and given the change from MRIP-CHTS to MRIP-FES, the portion of the Gulf zone ACL that would be harvested by each sector is unclear. Therefore, economic effects that would result from these proposed ACL changes cannot be quantified.
This proposed rule would also modify the Gulf cobia stock ACL apportionment to be 63 percent for the Gulf zone and 37 percent for the FLEC zone, based on the MRIP-FES average landings for Gulf cobia for the years 1998 through 2012, and use this apportionment to update the zone ACLs based on the Gulf cobia stock ACL described above. This would translate into an ACL for the Gulf zone of 1,638,000 lb (742,984 kg) in 2022 and 1,738,800 lb (788,706 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. For the FLEC zone, the ACL would be 962,000 lb (436,356 kg) in 2022 and 1,021,200 lb (463,209 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. These proposed changes to the stock ACL apportionment would result in a benefit transfer from the Gulf zone to the FLEC zone, by allocating one percent more of the Gulf cobia stock ACL to the FLEC zone as compared to the status quo allocation. Because the new zone ACLs are not directly comparable to the status quo zone ACLs, due to the change from MRIP-CHTS to MRIP-FES, and because there is a single stock ACL for the Gulf zone, with no sector sub-ACLs, the economic effects of this reallocation to the commercial sector and the for-hire component of the recreational sector cannot be quantified.
Additionally, this proposed rule would retain the FLEC zone cobia ACL sector allocation of 8 percent to the commercial sector and 92 percent to the recreational sector and update the sector ACLs accordingly. This would result in a FLEC zone commercial ACL of 76,960 lb (34,908 kg) in 2022 and 81,696 lb (37,057 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. Relative to the status quo FLEC zone commercial ACL of 70,000 lb (31,751 kg), this would be an increase of 6,960 lb (3,157 kg) in 2022 and 11,696 lb (5,305 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. The commercial sector (including for-hire vessels that sell their catch) is not expected to harvest the proposed ACL in full in the short-term, based on the annual average commercial cobia landings for the FLEC zone from 2015 through 2019. However, harvest of the full FLEC zone ACL in the future would result in an increase in estimated ex-vessel value of $25,600 to $43,000 (2019 dollars) relative to the status quo. Divided by the number of commercial vessels from 2015 through 2019 with reported FLEC zone cobia landings, this would translate to an increase in ex-vessel revenue of $103 to $173 dollars per vessel (less than one percent of average annual per vessel revenue).
This proposed rule would use the Gulf Council's ACL/ACT Control Rule to calculate ACTs for the Gulf zone and the recreational sector in the FLEC zone, setting each ACT at 10 percent below their respective zone ACLs. The Gulf zone stock ACT, which is shared by the commercial and recreational sectors, would be 1,474,200 lb (668,686 kg) in 2022 and 1,564,920 lb (709,836 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. In the Gulf zone, the switch from a constant ACT to an ACT calculated using the Gulf's control rule would result in the same buffer between the ACL and the ACT of 10 percent. Therefore, this proposed change to the method used for setting the ACT would not affect Gulf commercial cobia fishing practices or harvests in the Gulf zone and would not result in economic effects. The FLEC zone currently has no commercial sector ACT and none is proposed.
This proposed rule would also reduce the daily possession limit for cobia in the Gulf zone, for both recreational and
Moreover, this proposed rule would reduce the daily possession limit for cobia in the FLEC zone, for both commercial and recreational sectors, to one fish per person. NMFS expects this to reduce total commercial FLEC zone cobia landings by 6,127 lb (2,779 kg). The associated loss in ex-vessel revenue is estimated at $25,857 (2019 dollars) or approximately $104 per vessel per year, on average. The proposed rule would also create a recreational vessel limit of two fish per trip and a commercial vessel trip limit of two fish per trip, noting that fishermen may not exceed the per person daily possession limit. NMFS expects this to reduce total commercial landings by 3,939 lb (1,787 kg). The associated loss in ex-vessel revenue is estimated at $16,622 (2019 dollars) or approximately $67 per vessel per year, on average. It is not possible to quantify the direct economic effects of these changes on for-hire fishing vessels due to data limitations described earlier; however, the proposed commercial daily possession limit and commercial trip limit may reduce their opportunity to sell cobia.
This proposed rule would retain the current minimum size limit of 36 inches, fork length, in the Gulf zone and increase the minimum size limit from 33 inches FL to 36 inches FL in the FLEC zone. NMFS expects this to reduce commercial landings in the FLEC zone by 11,904 lb (5,400 kg). The associated loss in ex-vessel revenue is estimated to be $50,237 (2019 dollars) or approximately $203 per vessel per year, on average (less than one percent of average annual per vessel revenue). It is not possible to quantify the direct economic effects of the change in the minimum size limit on for-hire fishing vessels due to data limitations described earlier; however, it may reduce their opportunity to sell cobia.
Finally, this proposed rule would modify the framework procedure to update the responsibilities of each Council for setting regulations for Gulf cobia. Specifically, it would expand the South Atlantic Council's responsibilities for Gulf cobia in the FLEC zone to include: per person bag and possession limits, size limits, in-season and post-season accountability measures, and specification of ACTs or sector ACTs. The South Atlantic Council would independently approve framework actions pertaining to these specific management measures for the FLEC zone for Gulf cobia. Two additional corrections are being included to the framework procedure via this proposed rule. Atlantic group cobia was removed from the CMP FMP through the final rule implementing Amendment 31. However, the CMP framework procedure was not updated at that time to remove reference to Atlantic group cobia. In addition, the CMP framework language referencing the ABC/ACL Control Rule is incorrect because it lacks an ABC/ACL control rule. Instead, the CMP framework language should refer to the ABC and ACL/ACT Control Rules. The Councils are making these corrections through this proposed rule. The proposed changes to the CMP framework are administrative in nature and would not have direct economic effects on any small entities.
The following discussion describes the alternatives that were not selected as preferred by the Councils.
Three alternatives were considered for the action to modify the Gulf cobia OFL, ABC, and ACL. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would maintain the current reference points (OFL and ABC) and the stock ACL for Gulf group cobia. The no-action alternative would not be expected to change fishing practices or commercial harvests of Gulf cobia, nor result in economic effects. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because it would be inconsistent with the SSCs' latest catch limit recommendations and the transition to MRIP-FES, and therefore, would not be based on the best scientific information available. The second alternative is the preferred alternative. The third alternative would modify the Gulf cobia stock OFL, ABC, and ACL as a constant catch value for 2021 and subsequent fishing years or until changed by a future management action. The stock ACL would be set equal to the stock ABC or 2,340,000 lb (1,061,406 kg) for 2021 and thereafter. This would be 260,000 lb (117,934 kg) less than the preferred alternative in 2022 and 420,000 lb (190,509 kg) less than the preferred alternative for 2023 and subsequent years. Therefore, this alternative would be expected to provide fewer commercial fishing opportunities and lower economic benefits in the long term as compared to the preferred alternative. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because they determined that it was unnecessary to prevent overfishing and would unnecessarily limit future harvest levels and associated economic benefits for the commercial and recreational sectors.
Four alternatives were considered for the action to modify the Gulf cobia stock apportionment between the Gulf zone and the FLEC zone. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain the current Gulf cobia stock ACL apportionment of 64 percent to the Gulf zone and 36 percent to the FLEC zone based on MRIP-CHTS average landings for Gulf cobia for the years 1998-2012. The first alternative was not selected by the Councils. It would not align with the SSCs' OFL and ABC recommendations based on the SEDAR 28 Update assessment to monitor recreational catch and effort in MRIP-FES data currency (SEDAR 28 Update 2020), nor would the calculation use FLEC zone cobia-specific landings. The second alternative would retain the Gulf cobia stock ACL apportionment between the zones at 64 percent to the Gulf zone and 36 percent to the FLEC zone, and use this apportionment to update both zone ACLs in MRIP-FES units. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because it fails to account for the effects of the change in recreational data reporting on historical landings during the time series used to set the current allocation (1998-2012). The third alternative is the preferred alternative. The fourth alternative would modify the Gulf cobia stock ACL apportionment to be 59 percent to the Gulf zone and 41 percent to the FLEC zone, based on the MRIP-FES average landings for Gulf cobia for the years 2003-2019, and use this apportionment to update the zone ACLs. This would result in a 4 percent lesser allocation percentage to the Gulf zone relative to the preferred alternative. The Councils did not select this alternative because the landings during the latter years in the time series may be biased by recent
Four alternatives were considered for the action to modify the FLEC zone cobia allocation between the commercial and recreational sectors. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain the FLEC zone cobia ACL allocation of 8 percent to the commercial sector and 92 percent to the recreational sector based on the South Atlantic Council's allocation formula for Atlantic group cobia based on MRIP-CHTS landings, which balanced historical catches (2000-2008) with more recent landings (2006-2008). The first alternative was not selected by the Councils. It would not align with the SSCs' OFL and ABC recommendations based on the SEDAR 28 Update assessment to monitor recreational catch and effort in MRIP-FES data currency (SEDAR 28 Update 2020). The second alternative would modify the FLEC zone cobia ACL allocation to be 5 percent to the commercial sector and 95 percent to the recreational sector based on the South Atlantic Council's allocation formula for Atlantic group cobia applied to historic MRIP-FES data for FLEC zone cobia specific landings. This formula balanced historical catches landings (2000-2008) with more recent landings (2006-2008). This alternative would result in a FLEC zone commercial ACL of 48,100 lb (21,818 kg) in 2022 and 51,060 lb (23,160 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years based on the preferred alternative in the first action for an increasing catch yield stream. Relative to the preferred alternative this would be a decrease in the FLEC zone commercial ACL of 28,860 lb (13,091 kg) in 2022 and 30,636 lb (13,896 kg) in 2023 and subsequent years. If the commercial ACL constrains harvest in the future, this would represent a potential loss in ex-vessel revenue of $121,789 to $129,284 (2019 dollars); or, approximately $491 to $521 per vessel per year, on average. The Councils did not select this alternative because they did not want to decrease the commercial sector ACL. The third alternative is the preferred alternative. The fourth alternative would modify the FLEC zone cobia ACL allocations to be calculated based on maintaining the current commercial ACL (
Three alternatives were considered for the action to update and/or establish ACTs for the Gulf group cobia zones. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would maintain the current formula for setting the Gulf cobia ACTs in the Gulf zone and FLEC zone. Under this alternative the Gulf zone ACT would be set at 90 percent of the Gulf zone ACL and the FLEC zone ACT would be set at the FLEC zone ACL multiplied by [(1-Proportional Standard Error [PSE] of the FLEC zone recreational landings) or 0.5, whichever is greater]. This alternative would result in the same ACT buffer for the Gulf zone of 10 percent relative to the preferred alternative. However, the FLEC zone recreational sector would retain a 17 percent ACT buffer. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because they wanted a consistent method for setting ACTs in each zone. The second alternative is the preferred alternative. The third alternative would establish an ACT for the commercial sector in the FLEC zone using the Gulf Council's ACL/ACT Control Rule. Relative to the preferred alternative, this alternative has the potential to reduce commercial fishing opportunities for FLEC zone cobia, as this sector has not historically had an ACT. Therefore, it would be expected to result in greater associated economic losses to commercial fishing businesses over the long term. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because the commercial quota monitoring system is effective and there is low risk of overages for the FLEC zone commercial sector.
Four alternatives were considered for the action to modify the possession, vessel, and trip limits for cobia in the Gulf zone. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain the current commercial and recreational daily possession limit of two fish per person and would not implement a vessel or trip limit. Therefore, this alternative would not be expected to result in economic effects to small entities. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because it would forgo biological benefits to the stock afforded by reduced fishing pressure. The second alternative is the preferred alternative and contains two preferred options that would apply to both the recreational sector and the commercial sector, respectively. The third alternative, which was also selected as preferred, would create a recreational vessel limit; however, fishermen would not be allowed to exceed the per person daily possession limit. The third alternative contained three options. The first option was selected as preferred, which would set the recreational vessel limit at two fish per vessel per trip. The second and third options would set the vessel limit per trip at four fish and six fish, respectively. Changes to the recreational vessel limit would not have a direct economic effect on any small entities. The fourth and final alternative for this action, also selected as preferred, would set a commercial trip limit; however, fishermen would not be allowed to exceed the per person daily possession limit. The fourth alternative also contained three options. The first option was selected as preferred, which would set the commercial trip limit at two fish per trip. The second and third options would set the trip limit at four fish and six fish, respectively. Relative to the preferred option, these would be expected to result in commercial cobia landings that are 926 to 1,296 lb (420 to 588 kg) greater. These additional landings would be worth an estimated $3,426 to $4,795 (2019 dollars) or less than $19 in ex-vessel revenue per vessel per year, on average. The Councils did not select the second and third options because they would be inconsistent with harvest limits in Florida state waters in the Gulf and, therefore, would not aid with compliance and enforcement.
Four alternatives were considered for the action to modify the possession, vessel, and trip limits for cobia in the FLEC zone. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain the current recreational and commercial daily possession limit of two fish per person in the FLEC zone, and would not implement a vessel or trip limit. Therefore, this alternative would not be expected to result in economic effects to small entities. This alternative was not selected by the Councils because it
Four alternatives were considered for the action to modify the Gulf cobia minimum size limit. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would retain the current commercial and recreational minimum size limit of 36 inches (94.1 cm), fork length, in the Gulf zone and 33 inches (83.8 cm), fork length, in the FLEC zone. This would not be expected to result in economic effects on any small entities. The first alternative was not selected by the Councils, because they believed an increased minimum size limit in the FLEC zone would benefit the stock by allowing for a greater proportion of the stock to become sexually mature prior to being harvested. They also wanted consistent cobia size limits in Federal waters. The second alternative is the preferred alternative. The third alternative would increase the commercial and recreational minimum size limit to 39 inches (99.1 cm), fork length. The third alternative contained two options that would apply the 39 inch (99.1 cm) minimum size limit to the Gulf zone and the FLEC zone, respectively. Increasing the minimum size limit to 39 inches (99.1 cm), fork length, from 36 inches (94.1 cm), fork length, in the Gulf zone would be expected to result in a loss of 9,618 lb (4,363 kg) and $35,586 (2019 dollars) in ex-vessel revenue ($136 per vessel per year, on average). In the FLEC zone, a minimum size limit of 39 inches (99.1 cm), fork length, would lead to a loss in landings that is 9,498 lb (4,308 kg) greater than what is expected under the preferred alternative. This would translate into an additional $40,078 (2019 dollars) reduction in ex-vessel revenue or $162 per vessel per year, on average, relative to the preferred alternative. The fourth and final alternative for this action would increase the commercial and recreational minimum size limit to 42 inches (106.7 cm), fork length. The fourth alternative contained two options that would apply the 42 inch (106.7 cm) minimum size limit to the Gulf zone and the FLEC zone, respectively. Increasing the minimum size limit to 42 inches (106.7 cm), fork length, would be expected to result in a loss of 19,287 lb (8,748 kg) and $71,361 (2019 dollars) in ex-vessel revenue ($273 per vessel per year, on average) in the Gulf zone. In the FLEC zone, a minimum size limit of 42 inches (106.7 cm), fork length, would lead to a loss in landings that is 14,487 lb (6,571 kg) greater than what is expected under the preferred alternative. This would translate into an additional $61,133 reduction in ex-vessel revenue or $247 per vessel per year, on average, relative to the preferred alternative. The Councils did not select the third or fourth alternative and two options for each of those two alternatives because they would indirectly drive fishing efforts to target more fecund female cobia, which may have a negative effect on the spawning stock biomass and could result in shorter fishing seasons due to heavier fish being landed.
Finally, two alternatives were considered for the action to modify the framework procedure. The first alternative, the no action alternative, would not make any changes to the framework procedure and thus would not have any economic effects on any small entities. It was not selected by the Councils because it would forgo the biological, social, and economic benefits of allowing the South Atlantic Council to react quicker and be more responsive to updated scientific information or changes in fishing harvest for FLEC zone cobia. The second alternative is the preferred alternative.
An additional item is contained in the proposed rule that is not included in Amendment 32, namely a revision to the language in 50 CFR 622.386(c). This revision would allow federally-permitted dealers to purchase cobia harvested in or from the Gulf or South Atlantic EEZ from any vessel, regardless of whether the vessel has been issued a Federal commercial vessel permit or a Federal charter vessel/headboat permit. It is unclear how many vessels and dealers would be impacted by this change; however, NMFS expects the direct economic effects to be positive because this change would expand the opportunity for federally and non-federally permitted vessels, and federally-permitted dealers to sell or buy Gulf cobia, respectively.
No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting, record-keeping, or other compliance requirements are introduced by this proposed rule. This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Annual catch limits, Bag and possession limits, Cobia, Fisheries, Fishing, Gulf of Mexico, Trip limits.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is proposed to be amended as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii)
(b)
(i) 1 fish per person per day, not to exceed 2 fish per vessel per trip.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) [Reserved]
(d) * * *
(1)
(ii)
(e) * * *
(2) The sale or purchase of king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, or cobia of the closed species, migratory group, zone, or gear type is prohibited, including any king or Spanish mackerel taken under the bag and possession limits specified in § 622.382(a), or cobia taken under the bag and possession limits specified in § 622.382(b). The prohibition on the sale or purchase during a closure for coastal migratory pelagic fish does not apply to coastal migratory pelagic fish that were harvested, landed ashore, and sold prior to the effective date of the closure and were held in cold storage by a dealer or processor.
(c)
(2)
(i)
(ii) [Reserved]
(c)
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) The stock ACLs for Gulf migratory group cobia in the Gulf zone are 1,638,000 lb (742,984 kg) for 2022, and 1,738,800 lb (788,706 kg) for 2023 and subsequent fishing years.
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) If the sum of cobia landings that are sold and not sold, as estimated by the SRD, exceeds the stock ACL, as specified in paragraph (e)(2)(iii) of this section, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year to reduce the length of the following fishing season by the amount necessary to ensure landings may achieve the applicable ACT, but do not exceed the applicable ACL in the following fishing year. Further, during that following year, if necessary, the AA may file additional notification with the Office of the Federal Register to readjust the reduced fishing season to ensure harvest achieves the ACT but does not exceed the ACL. The applicable ACTs for the Florida east coast zone of cobia are 796,536 lb (361,303 kg) for 2022, and 845,554 lb (383,537 kg) for 2023 and subsequent fishing years. The applicable ACLs for the Florida east coast zone of cobia are 885,040 lb (401,447 kg) for 2022, and 939,504 lb (426,152 kg) for 2023 and subsequent fishing years.
(iii)
Bureau of Industry and Security, Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites 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. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before September 16, 2022.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments by email to Mark Crace, IC Liaison, Bureau of Industry and Security, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Mark Crace, IC Liaison, Bureau of Industry and Security, phone 202-482-8093 or by email at
Foreign governments, on occasions, require U.S. importers of strategic commodities to furnish their foreign supplier with a U.S. Delivery Verification Certificate validating that the commodities shipped to the U.S. were in fact received. This procedure increases the effectiveness of controls on the international trade of strategic commodities.
Paper or Electronic.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may 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.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is initiating, and issuing preliminary results for, a changed circumstances review (CCR) of the antidumping duty (AD) order on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from the People's Republic of China (China) based upon a request from Home Products International (the petitioner). We preliminarily determine that the AD order on floor-standing, metal-top ironing tables and certain parts thereof from China should be revoked, in its entirety. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable July 18, 2022.
Michael J. Heaney, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4475.
On August 6, 2004, Commerce published the
For purposes of this
Furthermore, this
Ironing tables without legs (such as models that mount on walls or over doors) are not floor-standing and are specifically excluded. Additionally, tabletop or countertop models with short legs that do not exceed 12 inches in length (and which may or may not collapse or retract) are specifically excluded.
The subject ironing tables were previously classified under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheading 9403.20.0010. Effective July 1, 2003, the subject ironing tables are classified under new HTSUS subheading 9403.20.0011. The subject metal top and leg components are classified under HTSUS subheading 9403.90.8040. Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) purposes, Commerce's written description of the scope remains dispositive.
Section 751(b)(1) of the Act states that Commerce shall conduct a CCR upon receipt of a request which shows changed circumstances sufficient to warrant a review. Section 751(d)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.222(g)(1)(i) provide that Commerce may revoke an order (in whole or in part) if it determines that producers accounting for substantially all of the production of the domestic like product have expressed a lack of interest in the order, in whole or in part.
In the event that Commerce determines that “substantially all” domestic producers have expressed a lack of interest in an order, both the Act and Commerce's regulations grant Commerce the authority to revoke the order.
If Commerce concludes that expedited action is warranted, it may concurrently publish the notices of initiation and preliminary results of a CCR.
In this instance, we determine that there is sufficient information on the record to support a preliminary finding of changed circumstances.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.222(g), Commerce preliminarily determines that there is a reasonable basis to believe that changed circumstances exist sufficient to warrant revocation of the
If we make a final determination to revoke the
Any interested party may request a hearing within 14 days of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.310(c). Interested parties may submit case briefs not later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice.
All submissions, with limited exceptions, must be filed electronically using Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Unless extended, consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to 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 our preliminary findings.
We are issuing and publishing this initiation and preliminary results notice in accordance with sections 751(b) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216, 19 CFR 351.221(b)(1), (b)(4), and (c)(3), and 19 CFR 351.222(f)(2)(iv).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Based on available information, the Department of Commerce (Commerce) is self-initiating country-wide circumvention inquiries to determine whether imports of certain aluminum foil (aluminum foil), completed in the Republic of Korea (Korea) and the Kingdom of Thailand (Thailand) (collectively, the third countries) using inputs (
Applicable July 18, 2022.
Erin Kearney at (202) 482-0167, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI or Shawn Gregor at (202) 482-3226, Office of Policy, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On March 9, 2017, The Aluminum Association Trade Enforcement Working Group filed petitions seeking the imposition of AD and CVD duties on imports of aluminum foil from China.
The merchandise covered by the
The circumvention inquiries cover aluminum foil assembled and completed in Korea and Thailand, using Chinese-origin aluminum foil and/or sheet, that is subsequently exported from Korea and Thailand to the United States. Specifically, Commerce placed information on the administrative record, as attachments to its Initiation Memorandum, that indicates aluminum foil inputs produced in China undergo further processing in Korea and Thailand before being exported to the United States.
Section 351.226(b) of Commerce's regulations states that if Commerce “determines from available information that an inquiry is warranted into the question of whether the elements necessary for a circumvention determination under section 781 of the Act exist,” Commerce “may initiate a circumvention inquiry and publish a notice of initiation in the
In determining whether or not the process of assembly or completion in a third country is minor or insignificant under section 781(b)(1)(C) of the Act, section 781(b)(2) of the Act directs Commerce to consider: (A) the level of investment in the foreign country, (B) the level of research and development in the foreign country, (C) the nature of the production process in the foreign country, (D) the extent of production facilities in the foreign country, and (E) whether or not the value of processing performed in the foreign country represents a small proportion of the value of the merchandise imported into the United States. However, no single factor, by itself, controls Commerce's determination of whether the process of assembly or completion in a third country is minor or insignificant.
In addition, section 781(b)(3) of the Act sets forth additional factors to consider in determining whether to include merchandise assembled or completed in a third country within the scope of an antidumping and/or countervailing duty order. Specifically, Commerce shall take into account such factors as: (A) the pattern of trade, including sourcing patterns; (B) whether the manufacturer or exporter of the merchandise is affiliated with the person who, in the third country, uses the merchandise to complete or assemble the merchandise which is subsequently imported into the United States; and (C) whether imports of the merchandise into the third country have increased after the initiation of the investigation that resulted in the issuance of such order or finding.
Based on available information, we determine initiation of these circumvention inquiries are warranted to determine whether certain imports of aluminum foil, completed in the third countries using inputs manufactured in China, are circumventing the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.226(f)(7), Commerce may “alter or extend” time limits under the circumvention inquiry as necessary to make certain all parties to each or both segments of the proceeding are able to file comments and factual information as necessary.
Consistent with the approach taken in prior circumvention inquiries that Commerce initiated on a country-wide basis, we intend to solicit information from certain companies in Korea and Thailand concerning their production of aluminum foil and their shipments thereof to the United States. A company's failure to completely respond to Commerce's requests for information may result in the application of partial or total facts available, pursuant to section 776(a) of the Act, which may include adverse inferences, pursuant to section 776(b) of the Act.
Commerce intends to base respondent selection on responses to quantity and value questionnaires. Commerce intends to identify the companies to which it will issue the quantity and value questionnaire, in part, based on CBP data. Parties to which Commerce does not issue the quantity and value questionnaire may also respond to the quantity and value questionnaire, which will be available in ACCESS, by the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.226(l)(1), when Commerce self-initiates a circumvention inquiry under 19 CFR 351.226(b), Commerce will notify U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) of the initiation and direct CBP to continue the suspension of liquidation of entries of products subject to the circumvention inquiry that were already subject to the suspension of liquidation, and to apply the cash deposit rate that would be applicable if the product were determined to be circumventing the order. Accordingly, Commerce will notify CBP of the initiation of the circumvention inquiry and direct CBP to continue to suspend (unliquidated) entries of the products subject to the circumvention inquiry that were already subject to the suspension of liquidation. In addition, Commerce will direct CBP to apply the cash deposit rate that would be applicable if the products were determined to be circumventing the
Should Commerce issue preliminary or final circumvention determinations, Commerce will follow the suspension of liquidation rules under 19 CFR 351.226(l)(2)-(4). In the event Commerce issues affirmative preliminary or final circumvention determinations that the products are circumventing the
In accordance with section 19 CFR 351.226(b) and 781(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that available information supports initiating circumvention inquiries to determine whether certain imports of aluminum foil, assembled and completed in, and exported from, Korea and Thailand using inputs manufactured in China, are circumventing the
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(l)(2), if Commerce issues preliminary affirmative determinations, we will then instruct CBP to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated antidumping and countervailing duties, at the applicable rate, for each unliquidated entry of the merchandise at issue, entered or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption on or after the date of initiation of the inquiries. Commerce intends to issue its final determinations within 300 days from the date of publication of the notice of initiation of a circumvention inquiry in the
This notice is published in accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(b) and section 781(b) of the Act.
The merchandise covered by the orders is aluminum foil having a thickness of 0.2 mm or less, in reels exceeding 25 pounds, regardless of width. Aluminum foil is made from an aluminum alloy that contains more than 92 percent aluminum. Aluminum foil may be made to ASTM specification ASTM B479, but can also be made to other specifications. Regardless of specification, however, all aluminum foil meeting the scope description is included in the scope, including aluminum foil to which lubricant has been applied to one or both sides of the foil.
Excluded from the scope of the orders is aluminum foil that is backed with paper, paperboard, plastics, or similar backing materials on one side or both sides of the aluminum foil, as well as etched capacitor foil and aluminum foil that is cut to shape.
Where the nominal and actual measurements vary, a product is within the scope if application of either the nominal or actual measurement would place it within the scope based on the definitions set forth above. The products under the orders are currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings 7607.11.3000, 7607.11.6000, 7607.11.9030, 7607.11.9060, 7607.11.9090, and 7607.19.6000. Further, merchandise that falls within the scope of these proceedings may also be entered into the United States under HTSUS subheadings 7606.11.3060, 7606.11.6000, 7606.12.3045, 7606.12.3055, 7606.12.3090, 7606.12.6000, 7606.91.3090, 7606.91.6080, 7606.92.3090, and 7606.92.6080.
Although the HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and customs purposes, the written description of the scope of the orders is dispositive.
On behalf of the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (CITA), 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 list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers may be changed pursuant to the commercial availability provision in Chapter 3, Article 3.25, Paragraphs 4-6 of the Agreement. Under this provision, interested entities from Panama or the United States have the right to request that a specific fabric, yarn, or fiber be added to, or removed from, the list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement.
Pursuant to Chapter 3, Article 3.25, paragraph 6 of the Agreement, which requires that the President publish procedures for parties to exercise the right to make these requests, Section 203(o)(4) of the Act authorizes the President to establish procedures to modify the list of fabrics, yarns, or fibers not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in either the United States or Panama as set out in Annex 3.25 of the Agreement. The President delegated the responsibility for publishing the procedures and administering commercial availability requests to the Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements (“CITA”), which issues procedures and acts on requests through the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (“OTEXA”) (See Proclamation No. 8894, 77 FR 66507, November 5, 2012).
The intent of the Commercial Availability Procedures is to foster the use of U.S. and regional products by implementing procedures that allow products to be placed on or removed from a product list, in a timely manner, and in a manner that is consistent with normal business practice. The procedures are intended to facilitate the transmission of requests; allow the market to indicate the availability of the supply of products that are the subject of requests; make available promptly, to interested entities and the public, information regarding the requests for products and offers received for those products; ensure wide participation by interested entities and parties; allow for careful review and consideration of information provided to substantiate requests and responses; and provide timely public dissemination of information used by CITA in making commercial availability determinations.
CITA must collect certain information about fabric, yarn, or fiber technical specifications and the production capabilities of Panamanian and U.S. textile producers to determine whether certain fabrics, yarns, or fibers are available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States or Panama, subject to Section 203(o) of the Act.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of dumping at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable July 18, 2022.
Rachel Jennings, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1110.
On May 18, 2017, Commerce published in the
On May 2, 2022, Commerce received an adequate substantive response to the
The merchandise covered by the
The merchandise subject to the
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum.
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(c)(1) and (3) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice serves as the only reminder to interested parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a). Timely notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results and notice in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(c), and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) finds that revocation of the countervailing duty (CVD) order on 1-Hydroxyethylidene-1, 1-Diphosphonic Acid (HEDP) from the People's Republic of China (China) would be likely to lead to the continuation or recurrence of countervailable subsidies at the levels indicated in the “Final Results of Sunset Review” section of this notice.
Applicable July 18, 2022.
Benito Ballesteros, AD/CVD Operations, Office V, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-7425.
On May 18, 2017, Commerce published in the
On May 2, 2022, Commerce received a timely and adequate substantive response from Compass.
The merchandise covered by the
The merchandise subject to the
All issues raised in this sunset review are addressed in the accompanying Issues and Decision Memorandum, which is dated concurrently with, and hereby adopted by, this notice.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Pursuant to sections 751(c)(1) and 752(b) of the Act, Commerce determines that revocation of the
This notice also serves as the only reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(c), 752(b), and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218.
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The U.S. Department of Commerce Trade Finance Advisory Council (TFAC or the Council) will hold a virtual meeting on Thursday, August 4, 2022. The meeting is open to the public with registration instructions provided below.
Thursday, August 4, 2022, from approximately 1:00 to 2:45 p.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST). The deadline for members of the public to register, including requests to make comments during the meeting and for auxiliary aids, or to submit written comments for dissemination prior to the meeting, is 5:00 p.m. EST on Friday July 29, 2022.
The meeting will be held virtually via Microsoft Teams video conferencing.
Patrick Zimet, Designated Federal Officer, Office of Finance and Insurance Industries (OFII), International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 306-9474; email:
The TFAC was originally chartered on August 11, 2016, pursuant to discretionary authority and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. App., and was most recently re-chartered on August 7, 2020. The TFAC serves as the principal advisory body to the Secretary of Commerce on policy matters relating to access to trade finance for U.S. exporters, including small- and medium-sized enterprises, and their foreign buyers. The TFAC is the sole mechanism by which the Department of Commerce convenes private sector stakeholders to identify and develop consensus-based solutions to trade finance challenges. The Council is comprised of a diverse group of stakeholders from the trade finance industry and the U.S. exporting community, as well as experts from academia and public policy organizations.
On Thursday, August 4, 2022, the TFAC will hold the fourth meeting of its 2020-2022 charter term. During the meeting, the TFAC will receive an update on the implementation status of previously adopted recommendations, the subcommittees will put forth recommendations for a vote by the full TFAC, and the TFAC will close out its charter term.
Meeting minutes will be available within 90 days of the meeting upon request or on the TFAC's website at
The meeting will be open to the public and there will be limited time permitted for public comments. Members of the public seeking to attend the meeting, make comments during the meeting, request auxiliary aids, or submit written comments for consideration prior to the meeting, are required to submit their requests electronically to
Members of the public may submit written comments concerning TFAC affairs at any time before or after a meeting. Comments may be submitted to Patrick Zimet. All comments and statements received, including attachments and other supporting materials, are part of the public record and subject to public disclosure.
International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of opportunity for appointment to serve as a District Export Council member.
Due to an unexpectedly high rate of vacancies, the Department of Commerce is conducting a special appointment cycle to fill vacancies on certain District Export Council (DECs) and is seeking nominations of individuals for consideration for appointment by the Secretary of Commerce to those DECs. The DECs are closely affiliated with the U.S. Export Assistance Centers (USEACs) of the U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (US&FCS), which is part of the Global Markets unit within the Department's International Trade Administration, and play a key role in the planning and coordination of export activities in their communities.
Nominations for individuals will be accepted from July 13, 2022, through July 27, 2022.
Please contact the Director of your local USEAC for more information on DECs and the nomination process. You may identify your local USEAC by entering your zip code online at
District Export Councils support the mission of US&FCS by facilitating the development of an effective local export assistance network, supporting the expansion of export opportunities for local U.S. companies, serving as a communication link between the business community and US&FCS, and assisting in coordinating the activities of trade assistance partners to leverage available resources. Individuals appointed to a DEC become part of a select corps of trade professionals dedicated to providing international trade leadership and guidance to the local business community and assistance to the Department of Commerce on export development issues. DEC members are volunteers. DEC members are not special government employees. DEC members receive no compensation for their participation in DEC activities or reimbursement for travel and other personal expenses.
Nomination Process: Each DEC has a maximum membership of 35.
The list of DECs eligible for the appointment of new members in this special cycle and the nomination form will be available on July 13, 2022 at
If selected, new DEC members appointed under this special appointment cycle would serve the remainder of a four-year term that began on January 1, 2022, and runs through December 31, 2025, or the remainder of a four-year term that began on January 1, 2020 and ends on December 31, 2023. Appointments are staggered so that approximately half of the appointments for each DEC expire every two years, and the need for a balance and fair representation requires that terms be determined at the time of appointment. All potential nominees must complete the online nomination form linked above and consent to sharing of the information on that form with the DEC Executive Committee for its consideration, and consent, if appointed, to sharing of their contact information with other DEC members and relevant government agencies and private sector organizations with a focus on trade. Interested individuals are highly encouraged to reach out to the local USEAC Director to learn more about the DECs and to begin the application process as soon as possible.
Eligibility and Appointment Criteria: Appointment is based upon an individual's international trade leadership in the local community, ability to influence the local environment for exporting, knowledge of day-to-day international operations, interest in export development, and willingness and ability to devote time to DEC activities. Members must be employed as exporters or export service providers or in a profession which supports U.S. export promotion efforts. Members include exporters, export service providers and others whose profession supports U.S. export promotion efforts. DEC member appointments are made without regard to political affiliation. DEC membership is open to U.S. citizens and permanent residents of the United States. As representatives of the local exporting community, DEC Members must reside in, or conduct the majority of their work in, the territory that the DEC covers. DEC membership is not open to federal government employees. Individuals representing foreign governments, including individuals registered with the Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act, must disclose such representation and may be disqualified if the Department determines that such representation is likely to impact the ability to carry out the duties of a DEC member or raise an appearance issue for the Department.
For past DEC members seeking reappointment, the local USEAC Director, in consultation with the DEC Executive Committee, also carefully considers the nominee's activity level during the previous term and demonstrated ability to work cooperatively and effectively with other DEC members and US&FCS staff. As appointees of the Secretary of Commerce in high-profile positions, though volunteers, DEC Members are expected to actively participate in the DEC and support the work of local US&FCS offices. Those that do not support the work of the office or do not actively participate in DEC activities will not be considered for re-nomination.
The local USEAC Director, in consultation with the local DEC Executive Committee, determines which nominees to forward to the US&FCS Office of U.S. Field for further consideration for recommendation to the Secretary of Commerce. A candidate's background and character are pertinent to determining suitability and eligibility for DEC membership. Since DEC appointments are made by the Secretary, the Department must make a suitability determination for all DEC nominees. After completion of a vetting process, the Secretary selects nominees for appointment to local DECs. DEC members are appointed by and serve at the pleasure of the Secretary of Commerce.
On behalf of the Committee of the Implementation for Textile Agreements (CITA), 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 United States and Peru negotiated the U.S.-Peru Trade Promotion Agreement (“the Agreement”), which entered into force on February 1, 2009. Subject to the rules of origin in Annex 4.1 of the Agreement, pursuant to the textile provisions of the Agreement, a fabric, yarn, or fiber produced in Peru or the United States and traded between the two countries is entitled to duty-free tariff treatment. Annex 3-B of the Agreement also lists specific fabrics, yarns, and fibers that the two countries agreed are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner from producers in Peru or the United States. The items listed in Annex 3-B are commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers. Articles containing these items are entitled to duty-free or preferential treatment despite containing inputs not produced in Peru or the United States.
The list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers may be changed pursuant to the commercial availability provision in Chapter 3, Article 3.3, Paragraphs 5-7 of the Agreement. Section 203(o) of the Act implements the commercial availability provision of the Agreement. Under this provision, interested entities from Peru or the United States have the right to request that a specific fabric, yarn, or fiber be added to, or removed from, the list of commercially unavailable fabrics, yarns, and fibers in Annex 3-B.
Section 203(o) of the Act provides that the President may modify the list of fabrics, yarns, and fibers in Annex 3-B by determining whether additional fabrics, yarns, or fibers are not available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States or Peru, and that the President will issue procedures governing the submission of requests and providing an opportunity for interested entities to submit comments. The President delegated the responsibility for publishing the procedures and administering commercial availability requests to CITA, which issues procedures and acts on requests through the U.S. Department of Commerce, Office of Textiles and Apparel (OTEXA) (
The intent of the Commercial Availability Procedures is to foster the use of U.S. and regional products by implementing procedures that allow products to be placed on or removed from a product list, on a timely basis, and in a manner that is consistent with normal business practice. The procedures are intended to facilitate the transmission of requests; allow the market to indicate the availability of the supply of products that are the subject of requests; make available promptly, to interested entities and the public, information regarding the requests for products and offers received for those products; ensure wide participation by interested entities and parties; allow for careful review and consideration of information provided to substantiate requests and responses; and provide timely public dissemination of information used by CITA in making commercial availability determinations.
CITA must collect certain information about fabric, yarn, or fiber technical specifications and the production capabilities of Peruvian and U.S. textile producers to determine whether certain fabrics, yarns, or fibers are available in commercial quantities in a timely manner in the United States or Peru, subject to Section 203(o) of the Act.
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
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for Letter of Authorization; request for comments and information.
NMFS has received a request from the United States (U.S.) Department of the Air Force (USAF) for authorization to take marine mammals incidental to testing and training military operations proposed to be conducted in the Eglin Gulf Test and Training Range (EGTTR) from 2023-2030 in the Gulf of Mexico. Pursuant to regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is announcing receipt of the Eglin Air Force Base (AFB) request for the development and implementation of regulations governing the incidental taking of marine mammals. NMFS invites the public to provide information, suggestions, and comments on the Navy's application and request.
Comments and information must be received no later than August 17, 2022.
Comments on the application should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service and should be sent to
Rob Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Electronic copies of the Navy's application and separate monitoring plan may be obtained online at:
In case of problems accessing these documents, please call the contact listed above.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as “. . . an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.”
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as: any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2004 (Pub. L. 108-136) removed the “small numbers” and “specified geographical region” limitations indicated above and amended the definition of “harassment” as it applies to a “military readiness activity” to read as follows (Section 3(18)(B) of the MMPA): (i) Any act that injures or has the significant potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A Harassment); or (ii) Any act that disturbs or is likely to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of natural behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, surfacing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering, to a point where such behavioral patterns are abandoned or significantly altered (Level B Harassment). On August 13, 2018, the 2019 NDAA (Pub. L. 115-232) amended the MMPA to allow incidental take regulations for military readiness activities to be issued for up to seven years. The proposed action may incidentally expose marine mammals occurring in the vicinity of testing and training operations to elevated levels of underwater sounds in the form of airborne, surface and subsurface detonations of various military munitions, thereby resulting in incidental take, by Level A and Level B harassment. Therefore, the DAF requests authorization to incidentally take marine mammals.
On June 17, 2022 NMFS received an adequate and complete application from the Eglin AFB requesting authorization for the take of marine mammals, by Level A and B harassment, incidental to testing and training operations (all categorized as military readiness activities). Proposed missions would include be air-to-surface operations that involve firing live or inert munitions, including missiles, bombs, and gun ammunition, from aircraft at targets on the water surface. The types of targets used vary by mission and primarily include stationary, remotely controlled, and towed boats, inflatable targets, and marker flares. Live munitions used in the EGTTR are set to detonate either in the air a few feet above the water surface (airburst detonation), instantaneously upon contact with the water or target (surface detonation), or approximately 5 to 10 feet (1.5 to 3 meters) below the water surface (subsurface detonation). Therefore, Eglin AFB requests authorization to take three species of marine mammals that may occur in this
Eglin AFB is also proposing to create and use a new, separate area within the EGTTR that would be used for live missions in addition to the existing live impact area (LIA). Referred to as the East LIA, it is located approximately 40 nautical miles southeast of the existing LIA. The requested regulations will be valid for seven years, from 2023 through 2030.
NMFS issued incidental take regulations and a subsequent Letter of Authorization (LOA) to Eglin AFB for similar specified activities on February 8, 2018 (83 FR 5545). Prior to issuing the 5-year LOA in 2018, NMFS had issued multiple LOAs and 1 year incidental harassment authorizations (IHA) to Eglin AFB for take of marine mammals incidental to similar specified activities. Monitoring reports submitted to NMFS as a condition of the previously-issued LOAs and incidental take authorizations are available online at:
Eglin AFB proposes the following actions in the EGTTR which would be conducted in the existing LIA and potentially in the proposed East LIA, depending on the mission type and objectives: (1) 52rd Weapons Evaluation Group missions that involves air-to-ground Weapons System Evaluation Program (WSEP) known as Combat Hammer which tests various types of munitions against small target boats and air-to-air missile testing known as Combat Archer; (2) The Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) proposes to continue training missions in the EGTTR primarily involving air-to-surface gunnery, bomb, and missile exercises including AC-130 gunnery training, CV-22 training, and bomb and missile training; (3) 96th Operations Group missions including AC-130 gunnery testing against floating marker targets on the water surface and MQ-9 air-to-surface testing; (3) 780th Test Squadron Precision Strike Weapons testing including air-launched cruise missile tests, Air-to-air missile tests, Longbow and Joint Air-to-Ground Missile (JAGM) testing; Spike Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) air-to-surface missile testing, Patriot missile testing, Hypersonic Weapon Testing, sink at-sea live-fire training exercises (SINKEX), and testing using live and inert munitions against targets on the water surface; and (4) Naval School Explosive Ordnance Disposal (NAVSCOLEOD) training missions that involve students diving and placing small explosive charges adjacent to inert mines.
During these activities, ordnances may be delivered by multiple types of aircraft, including bombers and fighter aircraft. Net explosive weights (NEW) of the live munitions range from 0.1 to 945 pounds (lb). A summary of munitions proposed for missions in the EGTTR is shown in Table 1.
Interested persons may submit information, suggestions, and comments concerning the USAF's request (see
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS will convene the Research Track Assessment Peer Review Meeting for the purpose of reviewing American plaice. The Research Track Assessment Peer Review is a formal scientific peer-review process for evaluating and presenting stock assessment results to managers for fish stocks in the offshore U.S. waters of the northwest Atlantic. Assessments are prepared by the research track working group and reviewed by an independent panel of stock assessment experts from the Center of Independent Experts (CIE). The public is invited to attend the presentations and discussions between the review panel and the scientists who have participated in the stock assessment process.
The public portion of the Research Track Assessment Peer Review Meeting will be held from July 18, 2022-July 21, 2022. The meeting will conclude on July 21, 2022 at 12 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Please see
The meeting will be held via WebEx.
Michele Traver, phone: 508-257-1642; email:
For further information, please visit the Northeast Fisheries Science Center (NEFSC) website at
The agenda is subject to change; all times are approximate and may be changed at the discretion of the Peer Review Chair.
The meeting is open to the public; however, during the `Report Writing' session on Thursday, July 21st, the public should not engage in discussion with the Peer Review Panel.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Special requests should be directed to Michele Traver, via email.
Wednesday, July 20, 2022; 10:00 a.m.
The meeting will be held remotely.
Commission Meeting—Closed to the Public.
Alberta E. Mills, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, 301-504-7479 (Office) or 240-863-8938 (Cell).
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal Advisory Committee meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Advisory Committee for the Prevention of Sexual Misconduct (DAC-PSM) will take place.
DAC-PSM will hold an open to the public meeting—Monday, August 22, 2022 from 12:30 p.m. to 4:15 p.m. (EST).
The meeting will be held by videoconference. Participant access information will be provided after registering. (Pre-meeting registration is required. See guidance in
Dr. Suzanne Holroyd, (571) 372-2652 (voice),
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (5 U.S.C., Appendix, as amended), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j. This application is not ready for environmental analysis at this time.
k.
The project is operated as a storage-release facility and does not propose any changes to operation. Project operations are dictated by the current license, as well as a 1922 water rights ruling (Chandler Decree) and a 1933 Sales Agreement with the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power. The
After entering Birch Creek, the water flows approximately 0.5 mile before being diverted again by the Birch-McGee diversion, where enters a pipe and descends over 1,100 feet in elevation before intercepting the penstock to Plant No. 2. A portion of the water flows down Bishop Creek while another portion is conveyed through a series of pipes and penstocks connecting Plants No. 2, through No. 6. Each powerhouse and intake controls the portion of water entering Bishop Creek and the portion directed into the pipe and penstock conveyances. After Plant No. 6, Bishop Creek flows to the community of Bishop and the Owens Valley. When Plant No. 6 is offline, there is an alternative take-off below Plant No. 5. The regulated reaches between Lake Sabrina and Intake No. 2 and those between South Lake and South Fork diversion experience similar flow fluctuations. The current license requires minimum flow releases into diverted reaches.
SCE proposes to modify resource plans and measures it has implemented under the current license, including: (1) water management; (2) the Stocking Plan; (3) the Wildlife Resource Management Plans; (4) the Botanical Resource Management Plan; and (5) the Historic Properties Management Plan. In addition, SCE proposes to develop and implement the following new plans: (1) a sediment management plan; (2) an invasive species management plan; and (3) a recreation resources management plan.
l. In addition to publishing the full text of this notice in the
m. You may also register online at
n.
o. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of the notice of ready for environmental analysis.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system by
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
Take notice that on July 5, 2022, pursuant to Rule 207(a)(2) of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) Rules of Practice and Procedure, ETC Texas Pipeline, Ltd. (ETC Texas) filed a petition for declaratory order requesting the Commission issue an order stating that upon ETC Texas's acquisition of certain pipeline facilities in Bienville and Webster Parishes, Louisiana, from Enable Gas Transmission, LLC, the facilities will perform a gathering function and are not subject to the Commission's jurisdiction under section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, 15 U.S.C. 717b, as more fully explained in the petition.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene, or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Petitioner.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Take notice that on July 7, 2022, pursuant to sections 211 and 212 of the Federal Power Act,
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant. On or before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filings of comments, protests and interventions in lieu of paper using the “eFiling” link at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed settlement agreement and request for public comments.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is giving notice of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Crest Rubber Superfund Site in Alliance, Ohio with Chemionics Corporation. The EPA invites written public comments on the Settlement for thirty (30) days following publication of this notice. The settlement requires the settling party to pay $355,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund.
Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2022.
The proposed settlement and related documents can be viewed at the Superfund Records Center (SRC-7J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 W Jackson Blvd., Chicago, IL 60604, (312) 886-4465 and on-line at
You may send comments, referencing the Crest Rubber Superfund Site in Alliance, Ohio and identified by Docket ID No. V-W-22-C-006, to the following address: Milagros Bensing, Superfund & Emergency Management Division (SE-5J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.
Naeha Dixit, Office of Regional Counsel (C-14J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Naeha Dixit may be reached by telephone at (312) 353-5524 or via electronic mail at
In accordance with Section 122(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed administrative settlement for recovery of past response costs concerning the Crest Rubber Site in Alliance, Ohio with Chemionics Corporation. EPA completed a removal action at the Site that began on May 15, 2017. The Site is located in an industrial/commercial area and is approximately 3.6 acres in size. The settlement requires the settling party to pay $355,000 to the Hazardous Substance Superfund. The settlement includes a covenant not to sue the settling party pursuant to Section 107(a) of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9607(a).
For thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to the Settlement. The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or withdraw its consent to the Settlement if comments received disclose facts or considerations which indicate that the Settlement is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Your comments should be mailed to Cheryl McIntyre, Superfund & Emergency Management Division (SE-5J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590. Be sure to label the comments with the Docket Number at the top of this notice and/or the property name. The Agency's response to any comments received will be available for public inspection at the Superfund Records Center.
1.
2.
• Identify the subject of your comments by the docket number and the site name in the title of this notice or the
• Follow directions—the agency may ask you to respond to specific questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
• Explain why you agree or disagree with the terms of the Settlement; suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes.
• Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used.
• If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced.
• Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns and suggest alternatives.
• Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats.
• Make sure to submit your comments by the identified comment period deadline.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice and request for comments.
This notice announces EPA's addition of certain water quality limited waters to the 2018 New York list of impaired waters, pursuant to the Clean Water Act (CWA), and requests public comment. The CWA and EPA's implementing regulations require States to submit, and EPA to approve or disapprove, lists of waters for which technology-based and other controls are not stringent enough to attain or maintain State water quality standards and for which total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) must be established. States are required to establish a priority ranking for waters on the list and to identify waters targeted for TMDL development over the next two years.
Comments must be submitted to EPA on or before September 16, 2022.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R02-
The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (
Dr. Daniel Gurdak at telephone (212) 637-3634 or by mail at Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866.
New York submitted the 2018 New York CWA Section 303(d) list (New York 2018 303(d) list) to EPA in correspondence dated November 13th, 2020 (followed up by a correction on December 7th, 2020, and a supplement on February 10th, 2022). On March 10, 2022, EPA partially approved and partially disapproved the New York 2018 303(d) list. Specifically, EPA approved the New York 2018 303(d) list with respect to the 835 waterbody/pollutant combinations requiring TMDLs that New York included on the list and the State's priority ranking for these waterbody/pollutant combinations.
However, EPA disapproved the New York 2018 303(d) list because EPA determined that it does not include twenty-two (22) waterbody/pollutant combinations that meet CWA Section 303(d) listing requirements.
For a detailed explanation of EPA's partial approval/partial disapproval, please refer to EPA's Support Document (
EPA is disapproving the New York 2018 303(d) list because EPA has determined that New York did not include twenty-two (22) waterbody/pollutant combinations on the 2018 303(d) list that meet 303(d) listing requirements, including:
• 17 waterbody/pollutant combinations that New York improperly delisted because data and information indicate that an applicable water quality standard is not met, including:
○ 4 waterbody/pollutant combinations where the applicable water quality criterion for odors is not met
○ 9 waterbody/pollutant combinations where data and/or information indicate that the applicable water quality criterion/criteria for floatables is/are not met.
○ 2 waterbody/pollutant combinations where the applicable water quality criterion for dissolved oxygen is not met
○ 1 waterbody/pollutant combination where data and/or information indicate the presence of harmful algal blooms (HABs), which in turn, indicates that an applicable water quality standard is not met.
○ 1 waterbody/pollutant combination for an assessment unit under 6.4 acres where data and/or information indicate that the applicable water quality criterion for dissolved oxygen is not met.
• 5 waterbody/pollutant combinations that New York did not include on the State's 2016 and/or 2018 303(d) lists, including:
○ 1 waterbody/pollutant combination that EPA listed on the New York 2014 303(d) list where data and/or information indicate that the applicable narrative water quality criterion for nutrients is not met.
○ 3 waterbody/pollutant combinations where data and information indicate the presence of HABs, which in turn, indicates that an applicable water quality standard is not met. New York did not demonstrate that no pollutant is causing the impairment of this water, did not include this waterbody/pollutant combination on the 2018 303(d) list and inappropriately categorized this waterbody/pollutant combination.
○ 1 waterbody/pollutant combination where data and/or information indicate the presence of HABs, which in turn, indicates that an applicable water quality standard is not met. New York did not include this waterbody/pollutant combination on the 303(d) list or in any other category.
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, the FCC seeks specific comment on how it can further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before August 17, 2022.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4), the FCC seeks specific comment on how it might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.”
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC).
Agency information collection activities: submission for OMB Review; comment request.
The FDIC, as part of its obligations under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the request to renew the existing information collections described below (OMB Control No. 3064-0001 and -0178). The notice of the proposed renewal for these information collections was previously published in the
Comments must be submitted on or before August 17, 2022.
Interested parties are invited to submit written comments to the FDIC by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Manny Cabeza, Regulatory Counsel, 202-898-3767,
1.
There is no change in the method or substance of the collection. The decrease in burden hours is the result of economic fluctuation. In particular, the number of respondents has decreased while the hours per response and frequency of responses have remained the same.
2.
Relative to the 2019 information collection request (ICR), the set of information collections (ICs) included in the above burden estimates has been revised. A detailed review of the 18 ICs included in the 2019 ICR showed that seven of the ICs appear inconsistent with the requirements in subpart F or potentially repeat other identified PRA requirements in subpart F. Those seven ICs have been deleted from the set of ICs retained in this renewal.
Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the FDIC's functions, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the estimates of the burden of the information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. All comments will become a matter of public record.
July 27, 2022; 10:00 a.m.
This meeting will be held at the Federal Maritime Commission at the address below and also streamed live at
Part of the meeting will be open to the public: held in-person with a limited capacity for public attendants and also available to view streamed live, accessible from
Requests to register to attend the meeting in-person should be submitted to
William Cody, Secretary, (202) 523-5725.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
Notice.
Beginning on January 3, 3022, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (the “Commission” or “FMSHRC”) resumed in-person hearings in the manner described in an order dated December 3, 2021, appearing in the
Sarah Stewart, Deputy General Counsel, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, at (202) 434-9935.
Commission Administrative Law Judges are committed to a high standard to protect the health and safety of all persons who may appear before them, during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, while continuing the agency's mission. By order dated December 3, 2021, which was published in the
Commission Judges may, at their sole discretion, hold remote hearings (
In determining the type of hearing, Judges will consider current guidance and safety factors on a case-by-case basis. Judges will ensure all parties appearing pro se who are required to participate in a remote hearing have access to equipment, an internet connection, and other appropriate technology. Prior to conducting an in-person hearing, Judges will schedule a conference call with the attorneys and representatives of each of the parties to discuss, among other things, safety considerations for the in-person hearing. Persons who are not comfortable with travel or appearing in person, may request to attend the hearing via remote access (
The Judge will set a hearing location after considering CDC Community Levels using the CDC COVID Data Tracker and the safety and health rules currently in place by the state and local public health entities. Where community levels are HIGH, Judges are discouraged from setting in-person hearings. If in-person participants are traveling to attend a hearing, the community levels of where they are traveling from need to be taken into account as well. In choosing a courtroom, the Judge will take into consideration the rules and requirements of the court or hearing facility, as well as all applicable federal, state, and local regulations and guidelines. If the hearing is to be a hybrid hearing, the Judge will also consider the availability of internet and technology needs in the courtroom.
During the prehearing conference, the Judge will consider federal, state, local and courtroom requirements and inform the parties of such requirements. The requirements apply to all persons attending the in-person hearing. The discussion will also address who may enter the courtroom, when, and what safety measures, such as masks and physical distancing, must be implemented. No person may enter the courtroom, or the witness room without the permission of the Judge.
In addition to any federal, state, local and facility safety and health rules, all persons attending in-person hearings are also subject to the below requirements:
•
○ All FMSHRC employees must adhere to the workplace safety plan and CDC guidance on physical distancing, mask wearing, vaccination attestation, and testing as well as quarantine, isolation, and official travel requirements. The employee vaccination requirement in Executive Order 14043 and the contractor vaccination requirement in Executive Order 14042 are the subject of an injunction issued by a Federal court. In accordance with OMB Guidance, and pending further notice, FMSHRC will take no action to enforce the vaccination requirements in those executive orders. The Office of the Chief Administrative Law Judge will continue to monitor developments on this issue and will comply with current vaccination policies.
•
○ Visitors are defined as federal employees from other agencies such as the Department of Labor, spectators, and press. Contractors, for purposes of this order, are defined as individuals who have been contracted by FMSHRC to attend an in-person hearing for a specific purpose (
○ Visitors and contractors must attest to their vaccination status using the Certificate of Vaccination Form when Community Levels are MEDIUM or HIGH. The vaccination attestation form can be found on the Safer Federal Workforce website at
•
○ Persons who are not visitors or contractors as defined above, and who are parties, representatives of parties, or witnesses do not need to attest to their vaccination status to attend an in-person FMSHRC hearing, and Judges shall not inquire into their vaccination status. However, they must adhere to the agency's workplace safety plan and CDC guidance on physical distancing and mask wearing.
Furthermore, in the event an in-person hearing is held in a location where the CDC Community Level is MEDIUM or HIGH, all persons attending the hearing, including visitors and contractors, as well as non-government parties, representatives, and witnesses, must present a completed FMSHRC COVID-19 Screening Tool form for review. The FMSHRC COVID-19 Screening Tool form is available in Appendix C of the agency's workplace safety plan. Individuals who plan to attend a hearing can also obtain a copy of the form by contacting a Judge's office.
The Judge may consider all factors, in totality, in determining if a remote hearing will be held and who may be present for the hearing. No single factor is dispositive.
These procedures shall remain in place until the July 11 order is vacated or otherwise modified by subsequent order.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than August 2, 2022.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Office of Refugee Resettlement, Administration for Children and Families, HHS.
Request for Public Comment.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) is requesting a renewal of the ORR-6 Performance Report (OMB #0970-0036, expiration 03/31/2023). ORR published a notice in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 1,920.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry (GFI) #100 (VICH GL 18(R2)) entitled “Impurities: Residual Solvents in New Veterinary Medicinal Products, Active Substances and Excipients (Revision 2).” This draft guidance has been developed for veterinary use by the International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Veterinary Medicinal Products (VICH). The objective of this draft guidance is to recommend acceptable amounts for residual solvents in pharmaceuticals for the safety of the target animal as well as for the safety of residues in products derived from treated food-producing animals. This revision updates the listings and classification of solvents.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by September 16, 2022 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
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
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this draft guidance to the Policy and Regulations Staff (HFV-6), Center for Veterinary Medicine, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your request or include a fax number to which the draft guidance may be sent. See the
Mai Huynh, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-140), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-402-0669,
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft GFI #100 (VICH GL18(R2)) entitled “Impurities: Residual Solvents in New Veterinary Medicinal Products, Active Substances and Excipients (Revision 2).” Residual solvents in pharmaceuticals are defined in the guidance as organic volatile chemicals that are used or produced in the manufacture of active substances or
FDA has participated in efforts to enhance harmonization and is committed to seeking scientifically based harmonized technical procedures for pharmaceutical development. One of the goals of harmonization is to identify, and then reduce, differences in technical requirements for drug development among regulatory agencies in different countries.
FDA has actively participated in the International Conference on Harmonization of Technical Requirements for Approval of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use to develop harmonized technical requirements for the approval of human pharmaceutical and biological products among the European Union, Japan, and the United States. The VICH is a parallel initiative for veterinary medicinal products. The VICH is concerned with developing harmonized technical requirements for the approval of veterinary medicinal products in the European Union, Japan, and the United States, and includes input from both regulatory and industry representatives.
The VICH Steering Committee is composed of member representatives from the European Commission and European Medicines Agency; International Federation for Animal Health—Europe; FDA—Center for Veterinary Medicine and U.S. Department of Agriculture—Center for Veterinary Biologics; the U.S. Animal Health Institute; the Japanese Veterinary Products Association, and the Japanese Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries.
There are eight observers to the VICH Steering Committee: One representative from government and one representative from industry of Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and South Africa. The World Organisation for Animal Health is an associate member of the VICH. The VICH Secretariat, which coordinates the preparation of documentation, is provided by the International Federation of Animal Health.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Impurities: Residual Solvents in New Veterinary Medicinal Products, Active Substances and Excipients (Revision 2).” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
While this draft guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) is not required for this guidance. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by OMB under the PRA. The collections of information in section 512(n)(1) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360b(n)(1)) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0669; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 514 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0032.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain an electronic version of the draft guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency) Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) and Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) are announcing the date that support begins for versions 1.2 and 1.3 of the Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) Analysis Data Model Implementation Guide (ADaMIG) and the date that this version update is required in certain submissions. The Agency will update the FDA Data Standards Catalog (Catalog) to reflect these changes.
Support for versions 1.2 and 1.3 of the CDISC ADaMIG begins July 18, 2022. The requirement for electronic submissions to be submitted using versions 1.2 and 1.3 of the CDISC ADaMIG begins March 15, 2024, for new drug applications (NDAs), abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs), certain biologics license applications (BLAs), and certain investigational new drug applications (INDs).
You may submit comments as follows.
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
FDA's CBER and CDER are issuing this
Support for versions 1.2 and 1.3 of the CDISC ADaMIG begins July 18, 2022. The transition date for this version update is March 15, 2023. The requirement for electronic submissions to be submitted using versions 1.2 and 1.3 of the CDISC ADaMIG is March 15, 2024, for NDAs, ANDAs, certain BLAs, and certain INDs.
Office of the Secretary, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the Secretary (OS), Department of Health and Human Services, is publishing the following summary of a proposed collection for public comment. This
Comments on the ICR must be received on or before August 17, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted
Sherrette Funn,
Interested persons are invited to send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including any of the following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed information
OMB No. 0990-0476—Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA) within Office of the Secretary.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs (ASPA), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is requesting a revision on a currently approved collection including three components: 1. Current Events Tracker (CET), 2. Qualitative data collection in the form of focus groups, interviews, and dyads, and 3. Copy testing surveys. This revision supports continuation of the approved data collection by adding burden and iterations to support the program during the ongoing COVID-19 public health emergency and through the expiration of the package 0990-0476 in early 2024. Together, these efforts support the development and execution of the COVID-19 Public Education Campaign. The broad purpose of each effort is as follows:
The primary purpose of the COVID-19 Current Events Tracker (CET) survey is to continuously track key metrics of importance to the Campaign, including vaccine confidence and uptake, familiarity with and trust in HHS and other trusted messengers, and the impact of external events on key attitudes and behaviors. This information will inform Campaign development and execution including changes in messaging strategies necessary to effectively reach the entire U.S. population or specific subgroups.
ASPA is collecting information qualitatively to inform the Campaign about audience risk knowledge, perceptions, current behaviors, and barriers and motivators to healthy behaviors (including COVID-19 vaccination). Ultimately these focus groups, interviews, and/or dyads will provide in-depth insights regarding information needed by Campaign audiences as well as their attitudes and behaviors related to COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccines. These will be used to inform the development of Campaign messages and strategy.
Prior to placing Campaign advertisements in market, ASPA will conduct copy testing surveys to ensure the final Campaign messages have the intended effect on target attitudes and behaviors. Copy testing surveys will be conducted with sample members who comprise the target audiences; these surveys will assess perceived effectiveness of the advertisements as well as the effect of exposure to an ad on key attitudes and behavioral intentions. The results from these surveys will be used internally by ASPA to inform decisions on Campaign messages and materials; for example, to identify revisions to the materials or determine which advertisement to move to market.
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 meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reductions Act (PRA) of 1995 the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) will submit the following Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance. This information collection was previously published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until August 17, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of the publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact or email Sharon Snyder, Unit Chief, Policy and Response Unit, Student and Exchange Visitor Program, email:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of the priority lists of wildlife and sport fish conservation projects from the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (Association) for Federal fiscal years (FYs) 2019, 2020, 2021, and 2022. The Association is required by law to annually submit a list of priority projects to the Service for funding consideration under the Service's Multistate Conservation Grant Program (MSCGP), which funds projects that address regional or national priorities of State fish and wildlife agencies. The Assistant Director for the Service's Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration program recommends projects on the list to the Service Director for approval. Once projects are awarded, we must publish each priority list in the
Lori Bennett, Multistate Conservation Grants Program, Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; 5275 Leesburg Pike; MS: WSFR; Falls Church, VA 22041-3808.
Lori Bennett, via phone at 703-358-2033, or via email at
The Fish and Wildlife Programs Improvement and National Wildlife Refuge System Centennial Act of 2000 (Improvement Act; Pub. L. 106-408, Nov. 1, 2020) amended the Wildlife Restoration Act (16 U.S.C. 669
In addition to the Traditional MSCGP found in the Acts, the President signed the Modernizing the Pittman-Robertson Fund for Tomorrow's Needs Act (Pub. L. 116-94) into law on December 20, 2019. This law, among other measures, created a new Modern Multistate Conservation Grant Program, which makes available up to an additional $5 million for projects designed to support recruitment, retention, and reactivation (“R3”) activities. The Service will cite this as the “Modern Multistate Conservation Grant Program” (R3-MSCGP).
The Association and the Service work cooperatively to manage the T-MSCGP and the R3-MSCGP. The Association sets project criteria, reviews grant applications, and provides project oversight, coordination, and guidance. Applicants must provide certification that no activities conducted under either a T-MSCGP or an R3-MSCGP award will promote or encourage opposition to regulated hunting or trapping of wildlife, or to regulated angling or taking of fish. Eligible project proposals are reviewed and ranked by the Association's committees, who consult with interested nongovernmental organizations that represent conservation organizations, sportsmen and sportswomen organizations, and industries that support or promote fishing, hunting, trapping, recreational shooting, bowhunting, or archery. Their selections become the priority list that is submitted to the Service.
The Association's National Grants Committee recommends the final list of priority projects for both programs to the directors of the State fish and wildlife agencies for their approval by majority vote. By statute, the Association then transmits the final approved list to the Service for funding under the Multistate Conservation Grant Program by October 1 of each FY. The Service then provides an additional review process in accordance with grant regulations within 2 CFR part 200 and awards and administers the financial assistance grants.
Recipients awarded under the T-MSCGP may use funds for sport fish or wildlife management and research projects, boating access development, hunter safety and education, aquatic education, fish and wildlife habitat improvements, and other purposes consistent with the enabling legislation.
To be eligible for funding, a project must benefit fish and/or wildlife conservation for at least 26 States, for a majority of the States in any one Service Region, or for one of the regional associations of State fish and wildlife agencies. Grants are awarded to one or more States, a group of States, or one or more nongovernmental organizations. For the purpose of carrying out the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, we may award grants to the Service, if requested by the Association, or to a State or a group of States. The Association also requires that all project proposals address the Association's selected national strategic priorities for both MSCGPs, which are announced annually at the same time requests for proposals are sent out.
The Modern Multistate Conservation Grant Program (R3-MSCGP) is a new program, which began awarding grants in FY 2020. The program specifically targets projects that address hunter recruitment and recreational shooter recruitment and that promote a national hunting and shooting sport recruitment program, including related communication and outreach activities.
The following sections of this notice set forth the award funding and project priorities by fiscal year for the years FY 2019 through FY 2022. The list below provides abbreviations used in the tables:
The Service's Wildlife and Sport Fish Restoration Program (WSFR) had a total of $6,406,590.66 for awards in FY19 from funds carried over from FY 2018, as well as funding that had previously been sequestered; the total request for projects was $5,817,835.55, leaving a balance of $588,755.11. The Association provided the Service with a priority list of 39 projects, which included the 3 approved components of the 2016-2021 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation project. The FY 2019 priority list is in table 1. The projects in this list have been awarded.
The Service's WSFR program had $6,939,510.06 available for T-MSCGP awards in FY 2020, after adjusting for sequestered, recovery, and carryover amounts from FY 2019. The total request for projects was $6,928,632.57, leaving a balance of $10,877.49. The Association provided the Service with a priority list of 40 projects, which included the 2 approved components of the 2022 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation project. Please note that the Association's Management Assistance Team proposal requesting $598,799.12 of Multistate funds (Project #25) was provided an additional $150,000 in Federal funds from the Service's National Conservation Training Center. This funding addition was the result of a signed memorandum of agreement between the Service and the Association. The list is in table 2. The projects in this list have been awarded.
FY 2020 was the first year that Modern Multistate Conservation Grant Program (R3-MSCGP) funds became available for award. The Service's WSFR program had $4,705,000 available for R3-MSCGP awards after sequestering $295,000; the total request for projects was the full available amount, leaving a balance of $0. The Service worked with the Association to make these funds available quickly for eligible projects. The Association provided the Service a priority list of 25 projects; the Service was able to award all projects by early December 2020. The list is in table 3.
After adjusting for sequestered, recovery, and carryover amounts from FY 2020, the T-MSCGP had $6,515,283 available for award, and the R3-MSCGP had $5,010,000 available. The total request for T-MSCGP projects was $6,488,271.53, leaving a balance of $27,011.47. The total request for R3-MSCGP projects was $3,066,603.90, leaving a balance of $1,943,396.10. Please note that the Association's Management Assistance Team proposal requesting $555,277.37 of Multistate funds (Project #10) also was provided an additional $150,000 in Federal funds from the National Conservation Training Center. This funding addition was the result of a signed Memorandum of Agreement between the Service and the Association. The Association provided the Service with a single Priority List of 39 proposals, consisting of 22 T-MSCGP projects (including 2 approved components of the 2022-2027 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation project) and 17 R3-MSCGP projects. The list is in table 4. The projects in this list have been awarded.
After adjusting for sequestered, recovery, and carryover amounts from FY 2021, the T-MSCGP had $6,598,154.68 available for award. The total request for T-MSCGP projects was $6,571,005.97, leaving a balance of $27,148.71. After adjusting for sequestered, recovery, and carryover amounts from FY 2021, the R3-MSCGP had $7,045,896.10 available. The total request for R3-MSCGP projects was $5,318,864.91, leaving a balance of $1,727,031.19. Please note that the Association's Management Assistance Team proposal requesting $560,000 of Multistate funds (Project #18) was provided an additional $150,000 in Federal funds from the National Conservation Training Center. This funding addition is the result of a signed memorandum of agreement between the Service and the Association. The Association provided the Service with a Priority List of 44 proposals, consisting of 20 T-MSCGP projects (including 2 approved components of the 2022-2027 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation project) and 24 R3-MSCGP projects. The list is in table 5. The projects in this list have been awarded.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of call for nominations.
The purpose of this notice is to request public nominations for the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM) Southeast Oregon and John Day-Snake Resource Advisory Councils (RACs) and the Steens Mountain Advisory Council to fill existing vacancies, as well as member terms that are scheduled to expire. The Councils provide advice and recommendations to the BLM on land use planning and management of the National System of Public Lands within their geographic areas.
All nominations must be received no later than August 17, 2022.
Nominations and completed applications should be sent to the BLM Oregon District Offices listed in the
Morgan Rubanow, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Oregon State Office, telephone: (503) 545-9717, email:
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) directs the Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in planning and issues related to management of lands administered by the BLM. Section 309 of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1739) directs the Secretary to establish 10- to 15-member citizen-based advisory councils that are consistent with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As required by FACA, council membership must be balanced and representative of the various interests concerned with the management of the public lands. The rules governing the advisory councils are found at 43 CFR subpart 1784.
Individuals may nominate themselves or others for appointment by the Secretary. The BLM will evaluate nominees based on their education, training, experience, and knowledge of the geographic area of the advisory committee. Nominees should demonstrate a commitment to collaborative resource decision-making. Simultaneous with this notice, the BLM Oregon State Office will issue a press release providing additional information for submitting nominations.
The Southeast Oregon and John Day-Snake RACs include the following three membership categories:
The Steens Mountain Advisory Council consists of 13 members that include a private landowner in the Steens Mountain Cooperative Management and Protection Area (CMPA); two representatives who are grazing permittees on Federal lands in the CMPA; a representative interested in fish and recreational fishing in the CMPA; a representative of the Burns Paiute Tribe; two representatives who are recognized environmental representatives, one of whom shall represent the State as a whole, and one of whom is from the local area; a representative who participates in dispersed recreation, such as hiking, camping, nature viewing, nature photography, bird watching, horseback riding, or trail walking; a representative who is a recreational permit holder or is a representative of a commercial recreation operation in the CMPA; a representative who participates in mechanized or consumptive recreation, such as hunting, fishing, off-road driving, hang gliding, or parasailing; a representative with expertise and interest in wild horse management on Steens Mountain; a representative who has no financial interest in the CMPA to represent statewide interests; and one non-voting representative to serve as the State government liaison to the Council. As appropriate, certain Council members may be appointed as special Government employees (SGEs). Please be aware that applicants selected to serve as SGEs will be required, prior to appointment, to file a Confidential Financial Disclosure Report in order to avoid involvement in real or apparent conflicts of interest. You may find a copy of the Confidential Financial Disclosure Report at the following Web site:
Individuals may nominate themselves or others. Nominees must be residents of the State of Oregon. The BLM will evaluate nominees based on their education, training, experience, and knowledge of the geographic area of the RAC. Nominees should demonstrate a commitment to collaborative resource decision-making.
The following must accompany all nominations:
Nominations and completed applications should be sent to the office listed as follows:
Larisa Bogardus, Public Affairs Officer, BLM Vale District Office, 3100 H St., Baker City, OR 97814; phone: (541) 523-1407; email:
Kaitlyn Webb, Public Affairs Officer, BLM Prineville District Office, 3050 NE 3rd Street, Prineville, OR 97754; phone: (541) 460-8781; email:
Tara Thissell, Public Affairs Specialist, BLM Burns District Office, 28910 Hwy. 20 West, Hines, OR 97738; phone: (541) 573-4519; email:
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of temporary closure.
Notice is hereby given that a closure to all public use and entry is in effect on certain public lands administered by the Lower Sonoran Field Office, to provide for public health and safety during the construction of the Estrella-Wayside Recreation Area.
The temporary closure will be in effect for two years from 12:01 a.m., August 17, 2022, or until the completion of construction, whichever is sooner.
The BLM will post closure signs at main entry points to this area. This closure order will be posted in the Lower Sonoran Field Office. Maps of the affected area and other documents associated with this closure are available at the Lower Sonoran Field Office, 21605 North 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85027 and online at
Katie White Bull, Sonoran Desert National Monument Manager, Lower Sonoran Field Office, 21605 North 7th Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85027, by phone at (623) 580-5500, or by email at
This closure affects public lands in the Estrella-Wayside Recreation Area, within the Juan Bautista de Anza Recreation Management Zone of the Sonoran Desert National Monument in Maricopa County, Arizona. The legal description of the affected public lands is:
The area described contains 1,655.09 acres.
The closure is necessary to protect public health and address safety risks during the construction of Estrella-Wayside Recreation Area facilities and infrastructure. The construction of the Estrella-Wayside Recreation Area is in conformance with the Sonoran Desert National Monument Record of Decision and Approved Resource Management Plan (2012) and implements components of the Juan Bautista de Anza Recreation Management Zone, Recreation Plan Final Environmental Assessment (DOI-BLM-AZ-P040-2015-0002-EA;
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before July 9, 2022, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted electronically by August 2, 2022.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to
Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program, 1849 C Street NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240,
The properties listed in this notice are being
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.
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers:
In the interest of preservation, a SHORTENED comment period has been requested for the following resource:
A request for removal has been made for the following resources:
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource:
On March 2, 2022, the Administrator, Drug Enforcement Administration (hereinafter, DEA), issued an Order to Show Cause and Immediate Suspension of Registration (hereinafter, OSC/ISO) to Faris Abusharif, M.D. (hereinafter, Respondent) of Orland Park, Illinois. OSC/ISO, at 1 and 6. The OSC/ISO notified Respondent of the immediate suspension of his Certificate of Registration No. BA8201775 because “[his] continued registration constitutes `an imminent danger to the public health or safety.' ”
The OSC/ISO alleged that from at least February 10, 2017, through at least January 5, 2022, Respondent “issued numerous prescriptions for controlled substances to five individuals outside of the usual course of professional practice and not for a legitimate medical purpose.”
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(d) and 21 CFR 1301.36(e), the OSC/ISO immediately suspended Respondent's Certificate of Registration No. BA8201775 after a preliminary finding that Respondent's continued registration was inconsistent with the public interest and that Respondent's continued registration during the pendency of the proceedings would
The OSC/ISO notified Respondent of the right to request a hearing on the allegations or to submit a written statement while waiving the right to a hearing, the procedures for electing each option, and the consequences for failing to elect either option.
By letter dated March 21, 2022, Respondent requested a hearing
The Government is not required to issue an amended OSC to notice an allegation of a registrant's lack of state authority that arises during the pendency of a proceeding regarding a DEA registration.
On March 24, 2022, the Chief ALJ issued an Order Granting Leave to File a Motion With an Oversized Attachment, Setting a Briefing Schedule, and Modifying the Order for Prehearing Statements (hereinafter, Briefing Schedule). In the Briefing Schedule, Respondent was given the opportunity to file a reply to the Government's allegation that he currently lacks state authority to handle controlled substances. Briefing Schedule, at 1. On April 1, 2022, Respondent filed his Response to Drug Enforcement Administration's Opposed Motion for Summary Disposition (hereinafter, Response). In his Response, Respondent argued that the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition should be denied because the suspension of Respondent's state medical license was based on “unproven allegations—not facts”, and a hearing on the merits had not yet occurred. Response, at 2-3. Further, Respondent argued that he had had no truly meaningful opportunity to refute the Government's claims because the Government had based its Motion for Summary Disposition on “unproven and unsubstantiated allegations.”
On April 5, 2022, the Chief ALJ issued an Order Granting the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition and Recommended Rulings, Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Decision of the Administrative Law Judge (hereinafter, Recommended Decision or RD). In the RD, the Chief ALJ granted the Government's Motion for Summary Disposition, finding that there was no dispute of fact necessitating a hearing. RD, at 6-7. In concluding the RD, the Chief ALJ recommended that Respondent's DEA registration be revoked based on his lack of state authority.
The Agency agrees with the Chief ALJ and issues this Decision and Order based on the entire record before the Agency. 21 CFR 1301.43(e). The Agency makes the following findings of fact.
Respondent is the holder of DEA Certificate of Registration No. BA8201775 at the registered address of 16604 107th St, Orland Park, Illinois 60467. GX 1 (Certificate of Registration). Pursuant to this registration, Respondent is authorized to dispense controlled substances in schedules II through V as a practitioner.
On March 18, 2022, the Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation (hereinafter, the Department) issued an Order suspending both Respondent's Illinois medical license and Illinois controlled substance license after finding that “Respondent's actions constitute[d] an immediate danger to the public.” GX 5, at 4-5;
According to Illinois online records, of which the Agency takes official notice, Respondent's Illinois medical license is still suspended.
Accordingly, the Agency finds that Respondent is not currently licensed to engage in the practice of medicine nor registered to dispense controlled substances in Illinois, the state in which he is registered with the DEA.
Pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 824(a)(3), the Attorney General is authorized to suspend or revoke a registration issued under section 823 of the Controlled Substances Act (hereinafter, CSA) “upon a finding that the registrant . . . has had his State license or registration suspended . . . [or] revoked . . . by competent State authority and is no longer authorized by State law to engage in the . . . dispensing of controlled substances.” With respect to a practitioner, the DEA has also long held that the possession of authority to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which a practitioner engages in professional practice is a fundamental condition for obtaining and maintaining a practitioner's registration.
This rule derives from the text of two provisions of the CSA. First, Congress defined the term “practitioner” to mean “a physician . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise permitted, by . . . the jurisdiction in which he practices . . . , to distribute, dispense, . . . [or] administer . . . a controlled substance in the course of professional practice.” 21 U.S.C. 802(21). Second, in setting the requirements for obtaining a practitioner's registration, Congress directed that “[t]he Attorney General shall register practitioners . . . if the applicant is authorized to dispense . . . controlled substances under the laws of the State in which he practices.” 21 U.S.C. 823(f). Because Congress has clearly mandated that a practitioner possess state authority in order to be deemed a practitioner under the CSA, the DEA has held repeatedly that revocation of a practitioner's registration is the appropriate sanction whenever he is no longer authorized to dispense controlled substances under the laws of the state in which he practices.
Pursuant to the Illinois Controlled Substances Act, a “practitioner” means “a physician licensed to practice medicine in all its branches . . . or other person licensed, registered, or otherwise lawfully permitted by the United States or this State to distribute, dispense, conduct research with respect to, administer or use in teaching or chemical analysis, a controlled substance in the course of professional practice or research.” 720 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 570/102(kk) (West 2022). Further, the Illinois Controlled Substances Act requires that “[e]very person who manufactures, distributes, or dispenses any controlled substances . . . must obtain a registration issued by the Department of Financial and Professional Regulation in accordance with its rules.”
Here, the undisputed evidence in the record is that Respondent currently lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Illinois because both his Illinois medical license and his Illinois controlled substance license are suspended. As already discussed, a practitioner must hold a valid controlled substance license to dispense a controlled substance in Illinois. Thus, because Respondent lacks authority to handle controlled substances in Illinois, Respondent is not eligible to maintain a DEA registration. Accordingly, the Agency will order that Respondent's DEA registration be revoked.
Pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in the Administrator by 21 U.S.C. 824(a), I hereby revoke DEA Certificate of Registration No. BA8201775 issued to Faris Abusharif, M.D. Further, pursuant to 28 CFR 0.100(b) and the authority vested in me by 21 U.S.C. 823(f), I hereby deny any pending application of Faris Abusharif, M.D. to renew or modify this registration, as well as any other pending application of Faris Abusharif, M.D. for additional registration in Illinois. This Order is effective August 17, 2022.
This document of the Drug Enforcement Administration was signed on July 13, 2022, by Administrator Anne Milgram. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DEA. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DEA Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of DEA. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
In accordance with Sections 223 and 284 (19 U.S.C. 2273 and 2395) of the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271,
This notice includes summaries of initial determinations such as Affirmative Determinations of Eligibility, Negative Determinations of Eligibility, and Determinations Terminating Investigations of Eligibility within the period. If issued in the period, this notice also includes summaries of post-initial determinations that modify or amend initial determinations such as Affirmative Determinations Regarding Applications for Reconsideration, Negative Determinations Regarding Applications for Reconsideration, Revised Certifications of Eligibility, Revised Determinations on Reconsideration, Negative Determinations on Reconsideration, Revised Determinations on remand from the Court of International Trade, and Negative Determinations on remand from the Court of International Trade.
The following certifications have been issued.
The following investigations revealed that the eligibility criteria for TAA have not been met for the reason(s) specified.
The following investigations were terminated for the reason(s) specified.
The following revised determinations on reconsideration, certifying eligibility to apply for TAA, have been issued.
The following negative determinations on reconsideration have been issued because the eligibility criteria for TAA have not been met for the reason(s) specified.
I hereby certify that the aforementioned determinations were issued during the period of June 1, 2022, through June 30, 2022. These determinations are available on the Department's website
In accordance with the Trade Act of 1974 (19 U.S.C. 2271,
This notice includes instituted initial investigations following the receipt of validly filed petitions. Furthermore, if applicable, this notice includes investigations to reconsider negative initial determinations or terminated initial investigations following the receipt of a valid application for reconsideration.
The purpose of each of the investigations is to determine whether the workers are eligible to apply for adjustment assistance under Title II, Chapter 2, of the Act. Any persons showing a substantial interest in the subject matter of the investigations may request a public hearing provided such request is filed in writing with the Administrator, Office of Trade Adjustment Assistance, at the address shown below, no later than ten days after publication in
The following are initial investigations commenced following the receipt of a properly filed petition.
A record of these investigations and petitions filed are available, subject to redaction, on the Department's website
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Termination of construction permit.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is terminating the Northwest Medical Isotopes, LLC (NWMI) Medical Radioisotope Production Facility (RPF) construction permit (permit) designated as CPMIF-002. The permit authorized NWMI to construct the RPF in Columbia, Missouri. Construction was not initiated for the RPF, and nuclear materials were never procured or possessed under this permit. Consequently, the RPF site is approved for unrestricted use.
The letter terminating Construction Permit No. CPMIF-002 was issued on July 11, 2022.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2013-0235 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:
•
•
•
Michael Balazik, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear
On May 9, 2018, the NRC issued Construction Permit No. CPMIF-002 to NWMI to authorize the construction of the RPF. Since the issuance of the permit, NWMI has not begun construction of the RPF or procured nuclear materials for use under the permit. By letter dated February 7, 2022, NWMI stated that the RPF will not be constructed and requested that the NRC terminate Construction Permit No. CPMIF-002. NWMI also stated that no physical or principal activities authorized by the permit, other than a geotechnical survey, were performed at the permitted site at Lot 15 of Discovery Ridge in Columbia, Missouri. The geotechnical survey was required by condition 3.G of the permit and consisted of borings used to determine the local soil stratigraphy. NWMI further stated that no other work was conducted at the site and that the University of Missouri continues to own the land, which remains undeveloped.
Termination of licenses and permits issued under part 50 of title 10 of the
NWMI seeks to terminate the RPF permit for which construction never commenced and nuclear materials were never procured or brought on site. Terminating a construction permit is a licensing action that would ordinarily require an environmental assessment under 10 CFR 51.21, “Criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments,” unless a categorical exclusion in 10 CFR 51.22, “Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review,” paragraph (c) applies and no special circumstances under 10 CFR 51.22(b) exist. Actions listed in 10 CFR 51.22(c) were previously found by the Commission to be part of a category of actions that “does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment.”
The categorical exclusion identified in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) is:
Decommissioning of sites where licensed operations have been limited to the use of—
(i) Small quantities of short-lived radioactive materials;
(ii) Radioactive materials in sealed sources, provided there is no evidence of leakage of radioactive material from these sealed sources; or
(iii) Radioactive materials in such a manner that a decommissioning plan is not required by 10 CFR 30.36(g)(1), 40.42(g)(1), or 70.38(g)(1) and the NRC has determined that the facility meets the radiological criteria for unrestricted use in 10 CFR 20.1402 without further remediation or analysis.
This categorical exclusion encompasses decommissioning of sites where contamination from radioactive materials is determined to be nominal.
In the case of the NWMI RPF, no associated radiological contamination exists because construction never commenced and nuclear material was never procured or brought on site. As a result, a decommissioning plan for this site is not required by subparagraph (g)(1) of 10 CFR 30.36, “Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas,” subparagraph (g)(1) of 10 CFR 40.42, “Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas,” or subparagraph (g)(1) of 10 CFR 70.38, “Expiration and termination of licenses and decommissioning of sites and separate buildings or outdoor areas,” and the site meets the radiological criteria for unrestricted use in 10 CFR 20.1402 without further remediation or analysis. Further, no special circumstances under 10 CFR 51.22(b) exist. The factors listed in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) are consistent with the circumstances here because there is no environmental impact associated with terminating the NWMI RPF permit, which is even less than the nominal impacts anticipated by the categorical exclusion. Therefore, application of the categorical exclusion to the termination of the NWMI RPF permit is warranted. Consequently, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the termination of Construction Permit No. CPMIF-002.
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS, as indicated.
As previously discussed, the Commission has determined that the NWMI RPF permit termination request meets the categorical exclusion criteria set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(20) and that the unrestricted use criteria pursuant to 10 CFR 20.1402 are met.
The Commission grants NWMI's request to terminate Construction Permit No. CPMIF-002. This license termination was effective upon NWMI's
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, July 21, 2022.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or his designee, has certified that, in his opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) is soliciting comments on the collection of information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget for extension and approval.
In Canada, as in the United States, individuals can invest a portion of their earnings in tax-deferred retirement savings accounts (“Canadian retirement accounts”). These accounts, which operate in a manner similar to individual retirement accounts in the United States, encourage retirement savings by permitting savings on a tax-deferred basis. Individuals who establish Canadian retirement accounts while living and working in Canada and who later move to the United States (“Canadian-U.S. Participants” or “participants”) often continue to hold their retirement assets in their Canadian retirement accounts rather than prematurely withdrawing (or “cashing out”) those assets, which would result in immediate taxation in Canada.
Once in the United States, however, these participants historically have been unable to manage their Canadian retirement account investments. Most investment companies (“funds”) that are “qualified companies” for Canadian retirement accounts are not registered under the U.S. securities laws. Securities of those unregistered funds, therefore, generally cannot be publicly offered and sold in the United States without violating the registration requirement of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (“Investment Company Act”).
The Commission issued a rulemaking in 2000 that enabled Canadian-U.S. Participants to manage the assets in their Canadian retirement accounts by providing relief from the U.S. registration requirements for offers of securities of foreign issuers to Canadian-U.S. Participants and sales to Canadian retirement accounts.
Rule 7d-2 contains a “collection of information” requirement within the meaning of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Rule 7d-2 requires written offering documents for securities offered or sold in reliance on the rule to disclose prominently that the securities are not registered with the Commission and may not be offered or sold in the United States unless registered or exempt from registration under the U.S. securities laws, and also to disclose prominently that the fund that issued the securities is not registered with the Commission. The burden under the rule associated with adding this disclosure to written offering documents is minimal and is non-recurring. The foreign issuer,
The staff estimates that there are 4,312 publicly offered Canadian funds that potentially would rely on the rule to offer securities to participants and sell securities to their Canadian retirement accounts without registering under the Investment Company Act.
These burden hour estimates are based upon the Commission staff's experience and discussions with the fund industry. The estimates of average burden hours are made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. These estimates are not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules.
Compliance with the collection of information requirements of the rule is mandatory and is necessary to comply with the requirements of the rule in general. An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
Written comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's estimate of the burden of the collection of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions submitted by September 16, 2022.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Please direct your written comments to: David Bottom, Acting Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o John Pezzullo, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549 or send an email to:
Pursuant to 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 Options Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to: (1) extend the waiver period for certain non-transaction fees applicable to Market Makers
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
The Exchange proposes to amend the Fee Schedule to: (1) extend the waiver period for certain non-transaction fees applicable to Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products until September 30, 2022; and (2) extend the Incentive Program until September 30, 2022.
On October 12, 2018, the Exchange received approval from the Commission to list and trade on the Exchange options on the SPIKES® Index, a new index that measures expected 30-day volatility of the SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (commonly known and referred to by its ticker symbol, “SPY”).
On May 31, 2019, the Exchange filed its first proposal in a series of proposals with the Commission to amend the Fee Schedule to waive certain non-transaction fees applicable to Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on the SPIKES Index) beginning September 30, 2019, through June 30, 2022.
The Exchange currently assesses a one-time Membership Application fee for applications of potential Members. The Exchange assesses a one-time Membership Application fee on the earlier of (i) the date the applicant is certified in the membership system, or (ii) once an application for MIAX membership is finally denied. The one-time application fee is based upon the applicant's status as either a Market Maker or an Electronic Exchange Member (“EEM”).
The Exchange proposes that the waiver for the one-time Membership Application fee of $3,000 for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) will be extended from June 30, 2022 until September 30, 2022, which the Exchange proposes to state in the Fee Schedule. The purpose of this proposed change is to continue to provide an incentive for potential Market Makers to submit membership applications, which should result in an increase of potential liquidity in Proprietary Products, including options on SPIKES. Even though the Exchange proposes to extend the waiver of this particular fee, the overall structure of the fee is outlined in the Fee Schedule so that there is general awareness that the Exchange intends to assess such a fee after September 30, 2022.
The Exchange issues Trading Permits that confer the ability to transact on the Exchange. MIAX Trading Permits are issued to Market Makers and EEMs. Members receiving Trading Permits during a particular calendar month are assessed monthly Trading Permit fees as set forth in the Fee Schedule. As it relates to Market Makers, MIAX currently assesses a monthly Trading Permit fee in any month the Market Maker is certified in the membership system, is credentialed to use one or more MIAX MEI Ports in the production environment and is assigned to quote in one or more classes. MIAX assesses the monthly Market Maker Trading Permit fee for its Market Makers based on the greatest number of classes listed on MIAX that the MIAX Market Maker was assigned to quote in on any given day within a calendar month and the applicable fee rate is the lesser of either the per class basis or percentage of total national average daily volume measurements. A MIAX Market Maker is assessed a monthly Trading Permit Fee according to the following table:
MIAX proposes that the waiver for the monthly Trading Permit fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) will be extended from June 30, 2022, to September 30, 2022, which the Exchange proposes to state in the Fee Schedule. The purpose of this proposed change is to continue to provide an incentive for Market Makers to provide liquidity in Proprietary Products on the Exchange, which should result in increasing potential order flow and volume in Proprietary Products, including options on SPIKES. Even though the Exchange proposes to extend the waiver of this particular fee, the overall structure of the fee is outlined in the Fee Schedule so that there is general awareness to potential Members seeking a Trading Permit that the Exchange intends to assess such a fee after September 30, 2022.
The Exchange also proposes that Market Makers who trade Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) along with multi-listed classes will continue to not have Proprietary Products (including SPIKES) counted toward those Market Makers' class assignment count or percentage of total national average daily volume. This exclusion is noted with the symbol “Ω” following the table that shows the monthly Trading Permit fees currently assessed to Market Makers in Section (3)(b) of the Fee Schedule.
The Exchange assesses an API Testing and Certification fee to all Members depending upon Membership type. An API makes it possible for Members' software to communicate with MIAX software applications, and is subject to Members testing with, and certification by, MIAX. The Exchange offers four types of interfaces: (i) the Financial Information Exchange Port (“FIX Port”),
API Testing and Certification fees for Market Makers are assessed (i) initially per API for CTD and MEI ports in the month the Market Maker has been credentialed to use one or more ports in the production environment for the tested API and the Market Maker has been assigned to quote in one or more classes, and (ii) each time a Market Maker initiates a change to its system that requires testing and certification. API Testing and Certification fees will not be assessed in situations where the Exchange initiates a mandatory change to the Exchange's system that requires testing and certification. The Exchange currently assesses a Market Maker an API Testing and Certification fee of $2,500. The API Testing and Certification fees represent costs incurred by the Exchange as it works with each Member for testing and certifying that the Member's software systems communicate properly with MIAX's interfaces.
MIAX proposes to extend the waiver of the API Testing and Certification fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) from June 30, 2022 until September 30, 2022, which the Exchange proposes to state in the Fee Schedule. The purpose of this proposed change is to continue to provide an incentive for potential Market Makers to develop software applications to trade in Proprietary Products, including options on SPIKES. Even though the Exchange proposes to extend the waiver of this particular fee, the overall structure of the fee is outlined in the Fee Schedule so that there is general awareness that the Exchange intends to assess such a fee after September 30, 2022.
MIAX assesses monthly MEI Port fees to Market Makers in each month the Member has been credentialed to use the MEI Port in the production environment and has been assigned to quote in at least one class. The amount of the monthly MEI Port fee is based upon the number of classes in which the Market Maker was assigned to quote on any given day within the calendar month, and upon the class volume percentages set forth in the table below. The class volume percentage is based on the total national average daily volume
MIAX proposes to extend the waiver of the monthly MEI Port fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) from June 30, 2022 until September 30, 2022, which the Exchange proposes to state in the Fee Schedule. The purpose of this proposal is to continue to provide an incentive to Market Makers to connect to MIAX through the MEI Port such that they will be able to trade in MIAX Proprietary Products. Even though the Exchange proposes to extend the waiver of this particular fee, the overall structure of the fee is outlined in the Fee Schedule so that there is general awareness that the Exchange intends to assess such a fee after September 30, 2022.
The Exchange notes that for the purposes of this proposed change, other Market Makers who trade MIAX Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) along with multi-listed classes will continue to not have Proprietary Products (including SPIKES) counted toward those Market Makers' class assignment count or percentage of total national average daily volume. This exclusion is noted by the symbol “Ω” following the table that shows the monthly MEI Port Fees currently assessed for Market Makers in Section (5)(d)(ii) of the Fee Schedule.
The proposed extension of the fee waivers are targeted at market participants, particularly market makers, who are not currently members of MIAX, who may be interested in being a Market Maker in Proprietary Products on the Exchange. The Exchange estimates that there are fewer than ten (10) such market participants that could benefit from the extension of these fee waivers. The proposed extension of the fee waivers does not apply differently to different sizes of market participants, however the fee waivers do only apply to Market Makers (and not EEMs).
Market Makers, unlike other market participants, take on a number of obligations, including quoting obligations that other market participants do not have. Further, Market Makers have added market making and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants. For example, Market Makers have obligations to maintain continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and to not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course of dealing. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to offer the fee waivers to Market Makers because the Exchange is seeking additional liquidity providers for Proprietary Products, in order to enhance liquidity and spreads in Proprietary Products, which is traditionally provided by Market Makers, as opposed to EEMs.
On September 30, 2021, the Exchange filed its initial proposal to implement a SPIKES Options Market Maker Incentive Program for SPIKES options to incentivize Market Makers to improve liquidity, available volume, and the quote spread width of SPIKES options beginning October 1, 2021, and ending December 31, 2021.
On December 23, 2021, the Exchange filed its proposal to extend the Incentive Program until March 31, 2022.
The Exchange proposes to extend the Incentive Program for SPIKES options to continue to incentivize Market Makers to improve liquidity, available volume, and the quote spread width of SPIKES options. Currently, to be eligible to participate in the Incentive Program, a Market Maker must meet certain minimum requirements related to quote spread width in certain in-the-money (ITM) and out-of-the-money (OTM) options as determined by the Exchange and communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular.
The first pool (Incentive 1) has a total amount of $40,000 per month, which is allocated to Market Makers that meet the minimum requirements of the Incentive Program. Market Makers are required to meet minimum spread width requirements in a select number of ITM and OTM SPIKES option contracts as determined by the Exchange and communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular.
The second pool (Incentive 2 Pool) is capped at a total amount of $100,000 per month which is used during the Incentive Program to further incentivize Market Makers who meet or exceed the requirements of Incentive 1 (“qualifying Market Makers”) to provide tighter quote width spreads. The Exchange ranks each qualifying Market Maker's quote width spread relative to each other qualifying Market Maker's quote width spread. Market Makers with tighter spreads in certain strikes, as determined by the Exchange and communicated to Members via Regulatory Circular,
The Exchange now proposes to extend the Incentive Program until September 30, 2022. The Exchange does not propose to make any amendments to how it calculates any of the incentives provided for in Incentive Pools 1 or 2. The details of the Incentive Program can continue to be found in the Regulatory Circular that was published on September 30, 2021 to all Exchange Members.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposal to extend the fee waiver period for certain non-transaction fees for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products is an equitable allocation of reasonable fees because the proposal continues to waive non-transaction fees for a limited period of time in order to enable the Exchange to improve its overall competitiveness and strengthen its market quality for all market participants in MIAX's Proprietary Products, including options on SPIKES. The Exchange believe the proposed extension of the fee waivers is fair and equitable and not unreasonably discriminatory because it applies to all market participants not currently registered as Market Makers at the Exchange. Any market participant may choose to satisfy the additional requirements and obligations of being a Market Maker and trade solely in Proprietary Products in order to qualify for the fee waivers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the fee waivers is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for Market Makers as compared to EEMs because Market Makers, unlike other market participants, take on a number of obligations, including quoting obligations that other market participants do not have. Further, Market Makers have added market making and regulatory requirements, which normally do not apply to other market participants. For example, Market Makers have obligations to maintain continuous markets, engage in a course of dealings reasonably calculated to contribute to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market, and to not make bids or offers or enter into transactions that are inconsistent with a course of dealing.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to continue to waive the one-time Membership Application Fee, monthly Trading Permit Fee, API Testing and Certification Fee, and monthly MEI Port Fee for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) until September 30, 2022, since the waiver of such fees provides incentives to interested market participants to
The Exchange believes it is reasonable and equitable to continue to waive the API Testing and Certification fee assessable to Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES) until September 30, 2022, since the waiver of such fees provides incentives to interested Members to develop and test their APIs sooner. Determining system operability with the Exchange's system will in turn provide MIAX with potential order flow and liquidity providers in Proprietary Products.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory that Market Makers who trade in Proprietary Products along with multi-listed classes will continue to not have Proprietary Products counted toward those Market Makers' class assignment count or percentage of total national average daily volume for monthly Trading Permit Fees and monthly MEI Port Fees in order to incentivize existing Market Makers who currently trade in multi-listed classes to also trade in Proprietary Products, without incurring certain additional fees.
The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the fee waivers constitutes an equitable allocation of reasonable fees and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The proposed extension of the fee waivers means that all prospective market makers that wish to become Market Maker Members of the Exchange and quote solely in Proprietary Products may do so and have the above-mentioned fees waived until September 30, 2022. The proposed extension of the fee waivers will continue to not apply to potential EEMs because the Exchange is seeking to enhance the quality of its markets in Proprietary Products through introducing more competition among Market Makers in Proprietary Products. In order to increase the competition, the Exchange believes that it must continue to waive entry type fees for such Market Makers. EEMs do not provide the benefit of enhanced liquidity which is provided by Market Makers, therefore the Exchange believes it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to only offer the proposed fee waivers to Market Makers (and not EEMs). Further, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to exclude Proprietary Products from an existing Market Maker's permit fees and port fees, in order to incentive such Market Makers to quote in Proprietary Products. The amount of a Market Maker's permit and port fee is determined by the number of classes quoted and volume of the Market Maker. By excluding Proprietary Products from such fees, the Exchange is able to incentivize Market Makers to quote in Proprietary Products. EEMs do not pay permit and port fees based on the classes traded or volume, so the Exchange believes it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to only offer the exclusion to Market Makers (and not EEMs).
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory to extend the Incentive Program for Market Makers in SPIKES options. The Incentive Program is reasonably designed because it will continue to incentivize Market Makers to provide quotes and increased liquidity in select SPIKES options contracts. The Incentive Program is reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory because all Market Makers in SPIKES options may continue to qualify for Incentive 1 and Incentive 2, dependent upon each Market Maker's quoting in SPIKES options in a particular month. Additionally, if a SPIKES Market Maker does not satisfy the requirements of Incentive Pool 1 or 2, then it simply will not receive the rebate offered by the Incentive Program for that month.
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to continue to offer this financial incentive to SPIKES Market Makers because it will continue to benefit all market participants trading in SPIKES. SPIKES options is a Proprietary Product on the Exchange and the continuation of the Incentive Program encourages SPIKES Market Makers to satisfy a heightened quoting standard, average quote size, and time in market. A continued increase in quoting activity and tighter quotes may yield a corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants, which benefits all investors by deepening the Exchange's liquidity pool, potentially providing greater execution incentives and opportunities, while promoting market transparency and improving investor protection.
The Exchange believes that the Incentive Program is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will continue to promote an increase in SPIKES options liquidity, which may facilitate tighter spreads and an increase in trading opportunities to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to operate the Incentive Program for a continued limited period of time to strengthen market quality for all market participants. The resulting increased volume and liquidity will benefit those Members who are eligible to participate in the Incentive Program and will also continue to benefit those Members who are not eligible to participate in the Incentive Program by providing more trading opportunities and tighter spreads.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to extend certain of the non-transaction fee waivers until September 30, 2022 for Market Makers that trade solely in Proprietary Products would increase intra-market competition by incentivizing new potential Market Makers to quote in Proprietary Products, which will enhance the quality of quoting and increase the volume of contracts in Proprietary Products traded on MIAX, including options on SPIKES. To the extent that this purpose is achieved, all the Exchange's market participants should benefit from the improved market liquidity for the Exchange's Proprietary Products. Enhanced market quality and increased transaction volume in Proprietary Products that results from the anticipated increase in Market Maker activity on the Exchange will benefit all market participants and improve competition on the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed changes for each separate type of market participant (new Market Makers and existing Market Makers) will be assessed equally to all such market participants. While different fees are assessed to different market participants in some circumstances, these different market participants have different obligations and different circumstances as discussed above. For example, Market Makers have quoting obligations that other market participants (such as EEMs) do not have.
The Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Incentive Program would continue to increase
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes will impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed extension of the fee waivers and the extension of the Incentive Program apply only to the Exchange's Proprietary Products (including options on SPIKES), which are traded exclusively on the Exchange.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On May 2, 2022, Nasdaq MRX, LLC (“MRX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
On June 29, 2022, MRX withdrew the proposed rule change (SR-MRX-2022-04).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend BZX Rule 11.17, Clearly Erroneous Executions. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend BZX Rule 11.17, Clearly Erroneous Executions. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to: (1) make the current clearly erroneous pilot program permanent; and (2) limit the circumstances where clearly erroneous review would continue to be available during Regular Trading Hours,
On September 10, 2010, the Commission approved, on a pilot basis, changes to BZX Rule 11.17 that, among other things: (i) provided for uniform treatment of clearly erroneous execution reviews in multi-stock events involving twenty or more securities; and (ii) reduced the ability of the Exchange to deviate from the objective standards set forth in the rule.
When it originally approved the clearly erroneous pilot, the Commission explained that the changes were “being implemented on a pilot basis so that the Commission and the Exchanges can monitor the effects of the pilot on the markets and investors, and consider appropriate adjustments, as necessary.”
The clearly erroneous pilot was implemented following a severe disruption in the U.S. equities markets on May 6, 2010 (“Flash Crash”) to “provide greater transparency and certainty to the process of breaking trades.”
When the Participants to the LULD Plan filed to introduce the Limit Up-Limit Down (“LULD”) mechanism, itself a response to the Flash Crash, a handful of commenters noted the potential discordance between the clearly erroneous rules and the Price Bands used to limit the price at which trades would be permitted to be executed pursuant to the LULD Plan. For example, two commenters requested that the clearly erroneous rules be amended so the presumption would be that trades executed within the Price Bands would not be not subject to review.
The Exchange believes that it is important for there to be some mechanism to ensure that investors' orders are either not executed at clearly erroneous prices or are subsequently busted as needed to maintain a fair and orderly market. At the same time, the Exchange believes that the LULD Plan, as amended, would provide sufficient protection for trades executed during Regular Trading Hours. Indeed, the LULD mechanism could be considered to offer superior protection as it prevents potentially erroneous trades from being executed in the first instance. After gaining experience with the LULD Plan, the Exchange now believes that it is appropriate to largely eliminate clearly erroneous review during Regular Trading Hours when Price Bands are in effect. Thus, as proposed, trades executed within the Price Bands would stand, barring one of a handful of identified scenarios where such review may still be necessary for the protection of investors. The Exchange believes that this change would be beneficial for the U.S. equities markets as it would ensure that trades executed within the Price Bands are subject to clearly erroneous review in only rare circumstances, resulting in greater certainty for Members and investors.
The current LULD mechanism for addressing extraordinary market volatility is available solely during Regular Trading Hours. Thus, trades during the Exchange's Early Trading,
On the other hand, there would be much more limited potential to request that a transaction be reviewed as potentially erroneous during Regular Trading Hours. With the introduction of the LULD mechanism in 2013, clearly erroneous trades are largely prevented by the requirement that trades be executed within the Price Bands. In addition, in 2019, Amendment Eighteen to the LULD Plan eliminated double-wide Price Bands: (1) at the Open, and (2) at the Close for Tier 2 NMS Stocks 2 with a Reference Price above $3.00.
At the same time, the Exchange is cognizant that there may be limited circumstances where clearly erroneous review may continue to be appropriate, even during Regular Trading Hours. Thus, the Exchange proposes to amend its clearly erroneous rules to enumerate the specific circumstances where such review would remain available during the course of Regular Trading Hours, as follows. All transactions that fall outside of these specific enumerated exceptions would be ineligible for clearly erroneous review.
First, pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(1)(A), a transaction executed during Regular Trading Hours would continue to be eligible for clearly erroneous review if the transaction is not subject to the LULD Plan. In such case, the Numerical Guidelines set forth in paragraph (c)(2) of Rule 11.17 will be applicable to such NMS Stock. While the majority of securities traded on the Exchange would be subject to the LULD Plan, certain equity securities, such as rights and warrants, are explicitly excluded from the provisions of the LULD Plan and would therefore be eligible for clearly erroneous review instead.
Second, investors would also continue to be able to request review of transactions that resulted from certain systems issues pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(1)(B). This limited exception would help to ensure that
Third, the Exchange proposes to narrowly allow for the review of transactions during Regular Trading Hours when the Reference Price, described in proposed paragraph (d), is determined to be erroneous by an Officer of the Exchange. Specifically, a transaction executed during Regular Trading Hours would be eligible for clearly erroneous review pursuant to proposed paragraph (c)(1)(C) if the transaction involved, in the case of (1) a corporate action or new issue or (2) a security that enters a Trading Pause pursuant to the LULD Plan and resumes trading without an auction,
In the context of a corporate action or a new issue, there may be instances where the security's Reference Price is later determined by the Exchange to be erroneous (
The following illustrate the proposed application of the rule in the context of a corporate action or new issue:
In the context of the rare situation in which a security that enters a LULD Trading Pause and resumes trading without an auction (
The following example illustrates the proposed application of the rule in the context of a security that reopens without an auction:
In all of the foregoing situations, investors would be left with no remedy to request clearly erroneous review without the proposed carveouts in paragraph (c)(1)(C) because the trades occurred within the LULD Price Bands (albeit LULD Price Bands that were calculated from an erroneous Reference Price). The Exchange believes that removing the current ability for the Exchange to review in these narrow circumstances would lessen investor protections.
Today, paragraph (c)(1) defines the Numerical Guidelines that are used to determine if a transaction is deemed clearly erroneous during Regular Trading Hours, or during the Early Trading, Pre-Opening and After Hours Sessions. With respect to Regular Trading Hours, trades are generally deemed clearly erroneous if the execution price differs from the Reference Price (
Given the changes described in this proposed rule change, the Exchange proposes to amend the way that the Numerical Guidelines are calculated during Regular Trading Hours in the handful of instances where clearly erroneous review would continue to be available. Specifically, the Exchange would base these Numerical Guidelines, as applied to the circumstances described in paragraph (c)(1)(A), on the Percentage Parameters used to calculate Price Bands, as set forth in Appendix A to the LULD Plan. Without this change, a transaction that would otherwise stand if Price Bands were properly applied to the transaction may end up being subject to review and deemed clearly erroneous solely due to the fact that the Price Bands were not available due to a systems or other issue. The Exchange believes that it makes more sense to instead base the Price Bands on the same parameters as would otherwise determine whether the trade would have been allowed to execute within the Price Bands. The Exchange also proposes to modify the Numerical Guidelines applicable to leveraged ETF/ETN securities during Regular Trading Hours. As noted above, the Numerical Guidelines will only be applicable to transactions eligible for review pursuant paragraph (c)(1)(A) (
The Exchange also proposes to move existing paragraphs (c)(2), (c)(3), and (d) to proposed paragraph (c)(2)(B), (c)(2)(C), and (C)(2)(D), respectively, as Multi-Stock Events, Additional Factors, and Outlier Transactions will only be subject to review if those NMS Stocks are not subject to the LULD Plan or occur during the Early Trading, Pre-Opening and After Hours Sessions. Proposed paragraph (c)(2)(B) is substantially similar to existing paragraph (c)(2) except for a change in rule reference to paragraph (c)(1) has been updated to paragraph (c)(1)(A). Further, given the proposal to move existing paragraph (c)(2) to paragraph (c)(2)(B), the Exchange also proposes to amend applicable rule references throughout paragraph (c)(2)(A). Finally, the Exchange proposes to update applicable rule references in paragraph (c)(2)(D) based on the above-described structural changes to the Rule.
As proposed, the Reference Price used would continue to be based on last sale and would be memorialized in proposed paragraph (d). Continuing to use the last sale as the Reference Price is necessary for operational efficiency as it may not be possible to perform a timely clearly erroneous review if doing so required computing the arithmetic mean price of eligible reported transactions over the past five minutes, as contemplated by the LULD Plan. While this means that there would still be some differences between the Price Bands and the clearly erroneous parameters, the Exchange believes that this difference is reasonable in light of the need to ensure timely review if clearly erroneous rules are invoked. The Exchange also proposes to allow for an alternate Reference Price to be used as prescribed in proposed paragraphs (d)(1), (2), and (3). Specifically, the Reference Price may be a value other than the consolidated last sale immediately prior to the execution(s) under review (1) in the case of Multi-Stock Events involving twenty or more securities, as described in paragraph (c)(2)(B) above, (2) in the case of an erroneous Reference Price, as described in paragraph (c)(1)(C) above,
As described more fully below, the Exchange proposes to eliminate paragraph (f), System Disruption or Malfunction. Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to remove from paragraph (e)(2), Appeals, each reference to
To conform with the structural changes descried above, the Exchange proposes to remove paragraph 11.17(f), System Disruption or Malfunction, combine paragraph (c)(1)(C) with paragraph (c)(1)(B), and remove the reference to a trading halt in paragraph (c)(1)(C) to make clear that Trading Halts are subject to proposed paragraph (j). Specifically, as described in proposed paragraph (c)(1)(B) above, transactions occurring during Regular Trading Hours that are executed outside of the LULD Price Bands due to an Exchange technology or system issue, may be subject to clearly erroneous review pursuant to proposed paragraphs 11.17(g). Proposed paragraph 11.17 (c)(1)(B) further provides that a transaction subject to review pursuant to this paragraph shall be found to be clearly erroneous if the price of the transaction to buy (sell) that is the subject of the complaint is greater than (less than) the Reference Price, described in paragraph (d), by an amount that equals or exceeds the applicable Percentage Parameter defined in Appendix A to the LULD Plan.
Current paragraph (h) of BZX Rule 11.17 provides different procedures for conducting clearly erroneous review in initial public offering (“IPO”) securities that are traded pursuant to unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) after the initial opening of such IPO securities on the listing market. Specifically, this paragraph provides that a clearly erroneous error may be deemed to have occurred in the opening transaction of the subject security if the execution price of the opening transaction on the Exchange is the lesser of $1.00 or 10% away from the opening price on the listing exchange or association. The Exchange no longer believes that this provision is necessary as opening transactions on the Exchange following an IPO are subject to Price Bands pursuant to the LULD Plan. The Exchange therefore proposes to eliminate this provision in connection with the broader changes to clearly erroneous review during Regular Trading Hours.
The Exchange proposes to renumber paragraph (i) to paragraph (h) based on the proposal to eliminate existing paragraph (h), and to rename the paragraph to provide for transactions occurring outside of LULD Price Bands. Given that proposed paragraph (c)(1) defines the LULD Plan, the Exchange also proposes to eliminate redundant language from proposed paragraph (h). Finally, the Exchange also proposes to update references to the LULD Plan and Price Bands so that they are uniform throughout the Rule and to update rule references throughout the paragraph to conform to the structural changes to the Rule described above.
The Exchange proposes to renumber paragraphs (j) and (k) to paragraphs (h) and (i), respectively, based on the proposal to eliminate existing paragraph (h). Additionally, the Exchange proposes to modify the text of both paragraphs to reference the Percentage Parameters as well as the Numerical Guidelines. Specifically, the existing text of proposed paragraphs (h) and (i) provides that any action taken in connection with this paragraph will be taken without regard to the Numerical Guidelines set forth in this Rule. The Exchange proposes to amend the rule text to provide that any action taken in connection with this paragraph will be taken without regard to the Percentage Parameters or Numerical Guidelines set forth in this Rule, with the Percentage Parameters being applicable to an NMS Stock subject to the LULD Plan and the Numerical Guidelines being applicable to an NMS Stock not subject to the LULD Plan.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act,
As explained in the purpose section of this proposed rule change, the current pilot was implemented following the Flash Crash to bring greater transparency to the process for conducting clearly erroneous reviews, and to help assure that the review process is based on clear, objective, and consistent rules across the U.S. equities markets. The Exchange believes that the amended clearly erroneous rules have been successful in that regard and have thus furthered fair and orderly markets. Specifically, the Exchange believes that the pilot has successfully ensured that such reviews are conducted based on objective and consistent standards across SROs and has therefore afforded greater certainty to Members and investors. The Exchange therefore believes that making the current pilot a permanent program is appropriate so that equities market participants can continue to reap the benefits of a clear, objective, and transparent process for conducting clearly erroneous reviews. In addition, the Exchange understands that the other U.S. equities exchanges and FINRA will also file largely identical proposals to make their respective clearly erroneous pilots permanent. The Exchange therefore believes that the proposed rule change would promote transparency and uniformity across markets concerning review of transactions as clearly erroneous and would also help assure consistent results in handling erroneous trades across the U.S. equities markets, thus furthering fair and orderly markets, the protection of investors, and the public interest.
Similarly, the Exchange believes that it is consistent with just and equitable principles of trade to limit the availability of clearly erroneous review during Regular Trading Hours. The Plan was approved by the Commission to operate on a permanent rather than pilot basis. As a number of market participants have noted, the LULD Plan provides protections that ensure that investors' orders are not executed at prices that may be considered clearly erroneous. Further, amendments to the LULD Plan approved in Amendment Eighteen serve to ensure that the Price Bands established by the LULD Plan are “appropriately tailored to prevent trades that are so far from current market prices that they would be viewed as having been executed in error.”
Given the fact that clearly erroneous review would largely be limited to transactions that were not subject to the LULD Plan, the Exchange also believes that it is necessary to change the parameters used to determine whether a trade is clearly erroneous. Specifically, due to the different parameters currently used for clearly erroneous review and for determining Price Bands, it is possible that a trade that would have been permitted to execute within the Price Bands would later be deemed clearly erroneous, if, for example, a systems issue prevented the dissemination of the Price Bands. The Exchange believes that this result is contrary to the principle that trades within the Price Bands should stand, and has the potential to cause investor confusion if trades that are properly executed within the applicable parameters described in the LULD Plan are later deemed erroneous. By using consistent parameters for clearly erroneous reviews conducted during Regular Trading Hours and the calculation of the Price Bands, the Exchange believes that this change would also serve to promote greater certainty with regards to when trades may be deemed erroneous.
The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to remove the current provision of the clearly erroneous rule dealing with UTP securities that are the subject of IPOs. This provision applies specifically to opening transactions on a non-listing market following an IPO on the listing market. As such, review under this paragraph is limited to trades conducted during Regular Trading Hours. As previously addressed, trades executed during Regular Trading Hours would generally not be subject to clearly erroneous review but would instead be protected by the Price Bands. The Exchange therefore no longer believes that this paragraph is necessary, as all trades subject to this provision today would either be subject to the LULD Plan, or, in the event of some systems or other issue, would be subject to the provisions that apply to transactions that are not adequately protected by the LULD Plan.
Finally, the proposed rule changes make organizational updates to the Exchange's Clearly Erroneous Execution Rule as well as minor updates and corrections to the Rule to improve readability and clarity.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposal would ensure the continued, uninterrupted operation of harmonized clearly erroneous execution rules across the U.S. equities markets while also amending those rules to provide greater certainty to Members and investors that trades will stand if executed during Regular Trading Hours where the LULD Plan provides adequate protection against trading at erroneous prices. The Exchange understands that the other national securities exchanges and FINRA will also file similar proposals, the substance of which are identical to this proposal. Thus, the proposed rule change will help to ensure consistency across SROs without implicating any competitive issues.
No comments were solicited or received on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
You should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. All submissions should refer to File Number SR-CboeBZX-2022-037 and should be submitted on or before August 8, 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 proposes to amend MRX's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 5, Other Options Fees and Rebates, to assess membership fees.
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.
MRX proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 5, Other Options Fees and Rebates, to assess membership fees, which are not assessed today, and which have not been assessed since MRX's inception in 2016.
This proposal reflects MRX's assessment that it has gained sufficient market share to compete effectively against the other 15 options exchanges without waiving fees for membership. These types of fees are assessed by options exchanges that compete with MRX in the sale of exchange services—indeed, MRX is the only options exchange (out of the 16 current options exchanges) not assessing membership fees today. New exchanges commonly waive membership fees to attract market participants, facilitating their entry into the market and, once there is sufficient depth and breadth of liquidity, “graduate” to compete against established exchanges and charge fees that reflect the value of their services.
As noted above, MRX Members are not assessed fees for membership today. Under the proposed fee change, MRX Members will be required to pay a monthly Access Fee, which entitles MRX Members to trade on the Exchange based on their membership type. Specifically, MRX proposes to assess Electronic Access Members
In order to receive market making appointments to quote in any options class, CMMs will also be assessed a CMM Trading Right Fee identical to GEMX.
The Exchange is now proposing to adopt a monthly CMM Trading Rights Fee. Under the proposed fee structure, CMMs will be assessed a Trading Rights Fee of $850 per month for the first trading right, which will entitle the CMM to quote in 20 percent of industry volume.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed changes to the Pricing Schedule are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for order flow, which constrains its pricing determinations. The fact that the market for order flow is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention to determine prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Congress directed the Commission to “rely on `competition, whenever possible, in meeting its regulatory responsibilities for overseeing the SROs and the national market system.”
Over the years, MRX has amended its transactional pricing to remain competitive and attract order flow to the Exchange.
In June 2019, MRX commenced offering complex orders.
An exchange can show that a product is “subject to significant substitution-based competitive forces” by introducing evidence that customers can substitute the product for products offered by other exchanges.
Chart 1 below shows the January 2022 market share for multiply-listed options by exchange. Of the 16 operating options exchanges, none currently has more than a 13.1% market share, and MRX has the smallest market share at 1.8%. Customers widely distribute their transactions across exchanges according to their business needs and the ability of each exchange to meet those needs through technology, liquidity and functionality. Average market share for the 16 options exchanges is 6.26 percent, with the median at 5.8, and a range between 1.8 and 13.1 percent.
Market share is the percentage of volume on a particular exchange relative to the total volume across all exchanges, and indicates the amount of order flow directed to that exchange. High levels of market share enhance the value of trading and membership.
Chart 2 below compares the number of firms purchasing memberships from MRX to the number of firms purchasing such services from the four MRX-affiliated options exchanges, GEMX, ISE, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“NOM”) and Nasdaq PHLX, LLC (“Phlx”).
Chart 2 also shows that MRX has the smallest number of Members relative to its GEMX, ISE, NOM and Phlx affiliates, with approximately 40 members. This demonstrates that customers can and will choose where to become members, need not become members of all exchanges, and do not need to become Members of MRX and instead may utilize a third party.
Further, BOX Exchange LLC (“BOX”) recently filed to establish a new monthly Participant Fee.
MRX filed its membership fees on May 2, 2022 and has not received a comment with respect to the proposed membership fee changes. MRX Members may elect to cancel their membership on MRX. No MRX Member is required by rule, regulation, or competitive forces to be a Member on the Exchange.
Further, BOX noted in its rule change that one Market Maker modified their access to BOX since the implementation of the proposed fee change.
The Exchange believes this further demonstrates competition within the market for exchange access, which as a result constrains fees the Exchange may charge for that access. The Exchange believes the fact that this Participant chose to terminate its Market Maker status on BOX but retained its status as an Order Flow Provider on BOX demonstrates that market participants can and do alter their membership statuses at exchanges if the market participant deems any fees as too high for its relevant marketplace. In BOX's case, the Participant determined that the Exchange's proposed fees for electronic Market Makers did not make business sense for itself, however it retained its membership as a BOX Participant in a different capacity.
Yet another example of an exchange being subject to significant competitive forces with respect to membership fees was noted in a recent NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca”) rule change.
The Exchange has also observed that another options exchange group experienced decreases in market share following its proposed modifications of its access fees (including Market Maker trading permit fees), suggesting that market participants (including Market Makers) are sensitive to changes in exchanges' access fees and may respond by shifting their order flow elsewhere if they deem the fees to be unreasonable or excessive.
. . .exchanges in the MIAX Group introduced multiple access fee increases in July and August 2021. In June 2021, prior to these fee increases, the aggregate MIAX Group share of multi-list options volume was 15.45%. In the months after the introduction of higher access fees, MIAX Group's market share declined: by September 2021, the aggregate MIAX Group market share was 14.50%, and as of March 2022, market share was 13.75%.
Similar to MIAX, Chart 3 below demonstrates that since the inception of its membership, port and market data fees, MRX volumes declined.
Specifically, since May 2, 2022, MRX saw a larger drop in its average daily volume (−11%) than all other options exchanges (−5%) since MRX's fees were added on May 2, 2022 when compared to their respective year-to-date volumes through April 29, 2022. This pattern indicates that the adoption of MRX membership, port, and market data fees impacted MRX's volume negatively.
In summary, MRX membership fees are subject to significant substitution-based competitive forces due to its consistently low percentage of market share, the relatively small number of purchasers for each product, and the purchasers that are reviewing their subscriptions. Implementation of the proposed fees is therefore consistent with the Act.
The proposed membership fees described below are in line with those of other markets. Setting a fee above competitors is likely to drive away customers, so the most efficient price-setting strategy is to set prices at the same level as other firms.
The Exchange's proposal to adopt membership fees is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory. As a self-regulatory organization, MRX's membership department reviews applicants to ensure that each application complies with the rules specified within MRX General 3
The Exchange believes that there are many factors that may cause a market participant to decide to become a member of a particular exchange. Among various factors, the Exchange believes market participants consider: (i) an exchange's available liquidity in options series; (ii) trading functionality offered on a particular market; (iii) product offerings; (iv) customer service on an exchange; and (v) transactional pricing. The Exchange believes that the decision to become a member of an exchange, particularly as a registered market maker, is a complex one that is not solely based on non-transactional costs assessed by an exchange. Market participants weigh the tradeoff between where they choose to deploy liquidity versus where trading opportunities exist. Of course, the cost of membership may factor into a decision to become a member of a certain exchange, but the Exchange believes it is by no means the only factor when comparing exchanges.
Market makers play an important role on options exchanges as they provide liquidity. In options markets, registered market makers are assigned options series
An exchange's trading functionality attracts market participants who may elect, for example, to submit an order into a price improving auction,
Introducing new and innovative products to the marketplace designed to meet customer demands may attract market participants to a particular
The pricing available on a particular exchange may impact a market participant's decision to submit order flow to a particular options venue. The options industry is competitive. Clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for options security transaction services; the Exchange is only one of sixteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely, and often do, shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules.
With respect to the CMM Trading Rights Fee, the proposed fees compare favorably with those of other options exchanges. For example, a market maker on MIAX is assessed a $3,000 one-time fee and then a tiered monthly fee from $7,000 for up to 10 classes to $22,000 for over 100 classes.
The Exchange does not believe that it is unfairly discriminatory to assess different fees for PMMs, CMMs, and EAMs. For PMMs on MRX, the fees required to access the Exchange are substantially lower than those of competing exchanges. For example, a PMM could quote on the Exchange for only $200 (
Membership fees are charged by nearly all exchanges, and all established exchanges with sufficient order flow. In 2022, MEMX LLC (“MEMX”) established a monthly membership fee of $200.
Most firms that actively trade on options markets are not currently Members of MRX. Using options markets that Nasdaq operates as points of comparison, less than a third of the firms that are members of at least one of the options markets that Nasdaq operates are also Members of MRX (approximately 29%). The Exchange notes that no firm is a Member of MRX only. Few, if any, firms have become Members at MRX, notwithstanding the fact that MRX membership is currently free, because MRX currently has less liquidity than other options markets. As explained above, MRX has the smallest market share of the 16 options exchanges, representing only approximately 1.8% of the market, and, for certain market participants, the current levels of liquidity may be insufficient to justify the costs associated with becoming a Member and connecting to the Exchange, notwithstanding the fact that membership is free.
The decision to become a member of an exchange, particularly for registered market makers, is complex, and not solely based on the non-transactional costs assessed by an exchange. As noted herein, specific factors include, but are not limited to: (i) an exchange's available liquidity in options series; (ii) trading functionality offered on a particular market; (iii) product offerings; (iv) customer service on an exchange; and (v) transactional pricing. Becoming a member of an exchange does not “lock” a potential member into a market or diminish the overall competition for exchange services. The decision to become a member of an exchange is made at the beginning of the relationship, and is no less subject to competition than trading fees.
In lieu of becoming a member at each options exchange, a market participant may join one exchange and elect to have their orders routed in the event that a better price is available on an away market. Nothing in the Order Protection Rule requires a firm to become a Member at MRX.
In lieu of joining an exchange, a third-party may be utilized to execute an order on an exchange. For example, a third-party broker-dealer Member of MRX may be utilized by a retail investor to submit orders into an Exchange. An institutional investor may utilize a broker-dealer, a service bureau,
After 6 years, MRX proposes to commence assessing membership fees, just as all other options exchanges.
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 its proposal remains competitive with other options markets, and will offer market participants with another choice of venue to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
The proposed membership fees are identical to membership fees assessed by GEMX.
With respect to the CMM Trading Rights Fee, the proposed fees compare favorably with those of other options exchanges.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes amend MRX's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 7.
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.
MRX proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 7, to assess market data fees, which are not assessed today, and which have not been assessed since MRX's inception in 2016.
This Proposal reflects MRX's assessment that it has gained sufficient market share to compete effectively against other 15 options exchanges without waiving market data fees. Such fees are assessed by options exchanges that compete with MRX—indeed, MRX is the only options exchange (out of the 16 current options exchanges) not to assess them today. New exchanges commonly waive data fees to attract market participants, facilitating their entry into the market and, once there is sufficient depth and breadth of liquidity, “graduate” to compete against established exchanges and charge fees that reflect the value of their services. If MRX is incorrect in its assessment, that error will be reflected in MRX's ability to compete with other options exchanges.
The Exchange proposes to amend fees for the following market data feeds within Options 7, Section 7: (1) Nasdaq MRX Depth of Market Data;
In addition to the proposed fees for each data feed, the Exchange is introducing an Internal Distributor Fee
The Exchange also proposes to assess an External Distributor Fee of $2,000 per month for the Nasdaq MRX Depth of Market Feed, Order Feed, and Top Quote Feed, an External Distributor Fee of $1,000 per month for the Trades Feed, and an External Distributor Fee of $1,500 per month for the Spread Feed.
MRX will also assess Professional
MRX also proposes a Non-Display Enterprise License for $7,500 per month. This license would lower costs for internal professional subscribers and lower administrative costs overall by permitting the distribution of all MRX proprietary direct data feed products to an unlimited number of internal non-display Subscribers without incurring additional fees for each internal Subscriber, or requiring the customer to count internal subscribers.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed changes to the pricing schedule are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for order flow, which constrains its pricing determinations. The fact that the market for order flow is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention to determine prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Congress directed the Commission to “rely on `competition, whenever possible, in meeting its regulatory responsibilities for overseeing the SROs and the national market system.' ”
Over the years, MRX has amended its transactional pricing to attract order flow to the Exchange.
An Exchange can show that a product is “subject to significant substitution-based competitive forces” by introducing evidence that customers can substitute that product with products offered by other exchanges.
NYSE National was able to prove exactly this when it sought approval for the “NYSE National Integrated Feed”
MRX today is in essentially the same position as NYSE National in 2020, and all three of the factors cited in the Commission's approval order for NYSE National are present in MRX today. First, MRX has a consistently low percentage of market share, starting at approximately 0.2 percent when it opened as an Exchange and ending in approximately 1.8 percent today. Second, only a small number of firms purchase market data from MRX relative to its affiliated options exchanges. Third, a sizeable portion of subscribers—approximately 15 percent—have terminated their subscriptions following the implementation of the proposed fees, demonstrating that customers can and do exercise choice in deciding whether to purchase the Exchange's market data feeds.
As of May 2, 2022, the date that MRX initially proposed these market data fees, MRX reported that two customers had terminated their market data subscriptions.
Detailed information supporting the first step in this analysis—low market share—is set forth in Chart 1, which shows the January 2022 market share for multiply-listed options by exchange. Of the 16 operating options exchanges, none currently has more than a 13.1% market share, and MRX has the smallest market share at 1.8%. Customers widely distribute their transactions across exchanges according to their business needs and the ability of each exchange to meet those needs through technology, liquidity and functionality. Average market share for the 16 options exchanges is 6.26 percent, with the median at 5.8, and a range between 1.8 and 13.1 percent.
Market share is the percentage of volume on a particular exchange relative to the total volume across all exchanges, and indicates the amount of order flow directed to that exchange. High levels of market share enhance the value of market data.
The second step in this analysis—demonstrating that only a small number of firms purchase market data relative to affiliated options exchanges—is shown in Chart 2, which compares the number of firms with access to market data from MRX to the number of firms purchasing market data from the four MRX-affiliated options exchanges, GEMX, ISE, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“NOM”) and Nasdaq PHLX, LLC (“Phlx”).
Chart 2 shows that 34 firms subscribed to at least one market data product from MRX in the first quarter of 2022. This is the second lowest number of firms purchasing market data from the Nasdaq-affiliated options exchanges.
The third step in this analysis—showing that a sizable number of customers terminated subscriptions following the proposal of the fees—is confirmed by the five customer cancellations. As explained above, all five customers terminated all feeds available to them. Although not all customers took all of the MRX feeds, each one of these feeds was cancelled by at least one customer, demonstrating that customers can and do exercise choice with respect to each feed. These cancellations reduced the number of firms with access to at least one MRX market data feed from 34 to 29, an approximately 15 percent reduction in usage, demonstrating that firms can and do exercise choice in determining whether to purchase market data from the Exchange.
MRX lists no proprietary options products that are entirely unique to MRX. Firms can substitute MRX market data with feeds from exchanges that provide a high degree of functionality, including complex orders. Full market data options are available, for example, from Cboe,
This analysis must be viewed in the context of a field with relatively low barriers to entry. MRX, like many new entrants to the field, offered market data for free to establish itself and gain market share. As new entrants enter the field, MRX can also expect competition from these new entrants. Those new entrants, like MRX, are likely to set market data fees to zero, increasing marketplace competition.
The Proposal is not unfairly discriminatory. The five market data feeds at issue here—the Depth of Market Feed, Order Feed, Top Quote Feed, Trades Feed, and Spreads Feed—are used by a variety of market participants for a variety of purposes. Users include regulators, market makers, competing exchanges, media, retail, academics, portfolio managers. Market data feeds will be available to members of all of these groups on a non-discriminatory basis.
With respect to the proposed Non-Display Enterprise License, enterprise licenses in general have been widely recognized as an effective and not unfairly discriminatory method of distributing market data. Enterprise licenses are widely employed by options exchanges, and the proposal here is typical of such licenses.
After 6 years, MRX proposes to commence assessing market data fees, just as all other options exchanges do now.
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. For all of the reasons set forth above, the Exchange is subject to “significant substitution-based competitive forces”: (i) it has a consistently low percentage of market share, starting at approximately 0.2 percent when it opened as an Exchange and ending in approximately 1.8 percent today; (ii) only a small number of firms purchase market data from
Nothing in the Proposal burdens inter-market competition (the competition among self-regulatory organizations) because approval of the Proposal does not impose any burden on the ability of other options exchanges to compete. Each of the remaining 15 options exchanges currently sells its market data, and is capable of modifying its fees in response to the proposed changes by MRX. Moreover, allowing MRX, or any new market entrant, to waive fees for a period of time to allow it to become established encourages market entry and thereby ultimately promotes competition.
Nothing in the Proposal burdens intra-market competition (the competition among consumers of exchange data) because each customer will be able to decide whether or not to purchase the Exchange's market data, as demonstrated by the fact that a significant number of the Exchange's customers have already elected to terminate their access to such feeds.
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. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. If the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend MRX's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 6.
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.
MRX proposes to amend its Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 6, Ports and Other Services, to assess port fees, which are not assessed today, and which have not been assessed since MRX's inception in 2016.
This proposal reflects MRX's assessment that it has gained sufficient market share to compete effectively against the other 15 options exchanges without waiving fees for ports. These types of fees are assessed by options exchanges that compete with MRX in the sale of exchange services. New exchanges commonly waive connectivity fees to attract market participants, facilitating their entry into the market and, once there is sufficient depth and breadth of liquidity, “graduate” to compete against established exchanges and charge fees that reflect the value of their services.
The Exchange proposes to amend fees for the following ports within Options 7, Section 6: (1) FIX,
The Exchange proposes to assess no fee for the first FIX Port obtained by an Electronic Access Member
The Exchange proposes to assess no fee for the first FIX Disaster Recovery Port obtained by an Electronic Access Member
The OTTO Port, CTI Port, FIX Port, FIX Drop Port and all Disaster Recovery Ports
The SQF Port and the SQF Purge Port are available to all Market Makers, and will be subject to a monthly cap of $17,500.
The Exchange is not amending the TradeInfo MRX Interface
Only one order protocol is required for an MRX Member to submit orders into MRX. The Exchange will provide each Electronic Access Member one FIX Port at no cost to submit orders into MRX. Only one quote protocol is required for an MRX Market Maker to submit quotes into MRX. The Exchange will provide each Market Maker one SQF Port at no cost to submit quotes into MRX. A quoting protocol, such as SQF, is only required to the extent an MRX Member has been appointed as a Market Maker in an options series pursuant to Options 2, Section 1.
Only MRX Members may utilize ports on MRX. Any market participant that sends orders to a Member would not need to utilize a port. The Member can send all orders, proprietary and agency, through one port to MRX. Members may elect to obtain multiple account numbers to organize their business, however only one account number and one port for orders and one port for quotes is necessary for a Member to trade on MRX.
MRX also offers an OTTO protocol. Unlike FIX, which offers routing capability, OTTO does not permit routing. Depending on a Member's business model, Members may elect to purchase an OTTO Port in addition to the one FIX Port offered at no cost. Members may prefer one protocol as compared to another protocol, for example, the ability to route may cause a Member to utilize FIX and a Member that desires to execute an order locally may utilize OTTO. Also, the OTTO Port offers lower latency as compared to the FIX Port, which may be attractive to Members depending on their trading behavior. MRX Members utilizing the one FIX Port offered at no cost do not need to purchase an OTTO Port. However, Members may elect to utilize both order entry protocols, depending on how they organize their business. Because the Exchange is providing one FIX Port at no cost, the use of an OTTO Port is optional. OTTO provides MRX Members with an additional choice as to the type of protocol that they may use to submit orders to the Exchange. Today, Nasdaq Phlx LLC (“Phlx”) and Nasdaq BX, Inc. (“BX”) offer only a FIX Port to submit orders on those options markets.
Further, while only one protocol is necessary to submit orders into MRX, Members may choose to purchase a greater number of order entry ports, depending on that Member's business model.
The Exchange's proposal to offer an SQF Purge Port for $1,250 per port, per month is optional. The SQF Purge Port
CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports are optional as Members have various ways of receiving information concerning open orders and executed transactions. First, FIX and OTTO provide Members with real-time order executions similar to the Clearing Trade Interface and FIX DROP. Second, TradeInfo provides Members with the ability to query open orders and order executions real-time, at no cost, similar to the Clearing Trade Interface and FIX DROP. Third, Members receive free daily reports listing open orders and trade executions from the Exchange. While not real-time, the Open Orders Report and Trade Detail Report provides Members with information similar to the Clearing Trade Interface and FIX DROP.
With respect to Disaster Recovery Ports, the Exchange proposes to assess no fee for the first FIX Disaster Recovery Port obtained by an Electronic Access Member or the first SQF Disaster Recovery Port obtained by a Market Maker. The Exchange proposes to assess no fees for these ports to provide Members with continuous access to MRX in the event of a failover at no cost. Electronic Access Members only require one FIX Disaster Recovery Port to submit orders in the event of a failover. Market Makers only require one SQF Disaster Recovery Port to submit quotes in the event of a failover. Electronic Access Members may elect to purchase additional optional FIX Disaster Recovery Ports for $50 per port, per month, per account number. Market Makers may elect to purchase additional optional SQF Disaster Recovery Ports for $50 per port, per month, per account number. The additional FIX and SQF Disaster Recovery Ports are not necessary to connect to the Exchange in the event of a failover because the Exchange has provided Members with a FIX Disaster Recovery Port and an SQF Disaster Recovery Port at no cost.
Further, the Exchange's proposal to offer Disaster Recovery Ports for SQF Purge Ports and OTTO Ports for $50 per port, per month, per account number and Disaster Recovery Ports for CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports for $50 per port, per month is optional. As noted herein, today, there are other alternatives for these ports. The purchase of an SQF Purge Port, OTTO Port, CTI Port, and FIX DROP Port in production is optional and, therefore, so is the purchase of Disaster Recovery Ports for these ports. The proposed Disaster Recovery Port fees are intended to encourage Members to be efficient when purchasing Disaster Recovery Ports. Similar to all other ports, Disaster Recovery Ports need to be maintained by the Exchange.
Finally, in the event that an MRX Member elects to subscribe to multiple ports, the Exchange offers a monthly cap beyond which a Member would be assessed no additional fees in a given month. As noted above, the SQF Port and the SQF Purge Port are subject to a monthly cap of $17,500 and the OTTO Port, CTI Port, FIX Port, FIX Drop Port and all Disaster Recovery Ports are subject to a monthly cap of $7,500.
As noted herein, these different protocols are not all necessary to conduct business on MRX; a Member may choose among protocols based on their business workflow. The proposed port fees are similar to fees assessed by GEMX.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The proposed changes to the Pricing Schedule are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for order flow, which constrains its pricing determinations. The fact that the market for order flow is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention to determine prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues, and also recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Congress directed the Commission to “rely on `competition, whenever
Over the years, MRX has amended its transactional pricing to remain competitive and attract order flow to the Exchange.
In June 2019, MRX commenced offering complex orders.
An exchange can show that a product is “subject to significant substitution-based competitive forces” by introducing evidence that customers can substitute the product for products offered by other exchanges.
Chart 1 below shows the January 2022 market share for multiply-listed options by exchange. Of the 16 operating options exchanges, none currently has more than a 13.1% market share, and MRX has the smallest market share at 1.8%. Customers widely distribute their transactions across exchanges according to their business needs and the ability of each exchange to meet those needs through technology, liquidity and functionality. Average market share for the 16 options exchanges is 6.26 percent, with the median at 5.8, and a range between 1.8 and 13.1 percent.
Market share is the percentage of volume on a particular exchange relative to the total volume across all exchanges, and indicates the amount of order flow directed to that exchange. High levels of market share enhance the value of trading and ports.
Chart 2 below compares the number of firms purchasing FIX and SQF Ports from MRX to the number of firms purchasing such services from the four MRX-affiliated options exchanges, GEMX, ISE, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“NOM”) and Phlx.
Chart 2 shows that fewer firms purchased MRX ports in March 2022 than the ports of its options exchange affiliates. As described in detail below, only one order protocol is required to submit orders to MRX. Quoting protocols are only required to the extent an MRX Member has been appointed as a Market Maker in an options series pursuant to Options 2, Section 1, and only one quoting protocol is necessary to quote on MRX. Members may choose a greater number of order or quote entry ports, beyond the first FIX Port and the first SQF Port which are proposed to be offered at no cost, depending on that Member's particular business model.
The experience of MRX's affiliates shows that the number of ports that members choose to purchase varies widely. For example, a review of the Phlx exchange in April 2022 shows that, among its member organizations that purchase ports, approximately 26 percent purchased 1 SQF or FIX port, another 26 percent purchased between 2 and 5 ports, 21 percent purchased between 6 and 10 ports, and 28 percent purchased more than 11 ports. This means that any MRX Member has the option of reducing its purchase of port services without purchasing a substitute product by, for example, reconfiguring its systems to change the number of ports from 16 to 14.
By way of comparison, the number of ports that MRX Members purchased in April 2022 also varies widely. For example, approximately 23 percent purchased 1 SQF, FIX or OTTO Port,
All of these statistics must be viewed in the context of a field with relatively low barriers to entry. MRX, like many new entrants to the field, offered ports for free to establish itself and gain market share. As new entrants enter the field, MRX can also expect competition from these new entrants. Those new entrants, like MRX, are likely to set port, or other fees to zero, increasing marketplace competition. Chart 3 below demonstrates that since the inception of its membership, port and market data fees, MRX volumes declined.
Specifically, since May 2, 2022, MRX saw a larger drop in its average daily volume (-11%) than all other options exchanges (-5%) since MRX's fees were added on May 2, 2022 when compared to their respective year-to-date volumes through April 29, 2022. This pattern indicates that the adoption of MRX membership, port, and market data fees impacted MRX's volume negatively.
In summary, MRX port fees are subject to significant substitution-based competitive forces due to its consistently low percentage of market share, the relatively small number of purchasers for each product, and the purchasers that either cancelled or are reviewing their subscriptions. Implementation of the proposed fees is therefore consistent with the Act.
The Exchange believes that there are many factors that may cause a market participant to decide to become a member of a particular exchange. Among various factors, the Exchange believes market participants consider: (i) an exchange's available liquidity in options series; (ii) trading functionality offered on a particular market; (iii) product offerings; (iv) customer service on an exchange; and (v) transactional pricing. The Exchange believes that the decision to become a member of an exchange, particularly as a registered market maker, is a complex one that is not solely based on non-transactional costs assessed by an exchange. Market participants weigh the tradeoff between where they choose to deploy liquidity versus where trading opportunities exist. Of course, the cost of ports may factor into a decision to become a member of a certain exchange, but the Exchange believes it is by no means the only factor when comparing exchanges.
Market makers play an important role on options exchanges as they provide
An exchange's trading functionality attracts market participants who may elect, for example, to submit an order into a price improving auction,
Introducing new and innovative products to the marketplace designed to meet customer demands may attract market participants to a particular options venue. New products in the options industry may allow market participants greater trading and hedging opportunities, as well as new avenues to manage risks. The listing of new options products enhances competition among market participants by providing investors with additional investment vehicles, as well as competitive alternatives, to existing investment products. An exchange's proprietary product offering may attract order flow to a particular exchange to trade a particular options product.
The pricing available on a particular exchange may impact a market participant's decision to submit order flow to a particular options venue. The options industry is competitive. Clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for options security transaction services; the Exchange is only one of sixteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely, and often do, shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules.
The proposed port fees described below are in line with those of other markets. Setting a fee above competitors is likely to drive away customers, so the most efficient price-setting strategy is to set prices at the same level as other firms.
As noted above, market participants may choose to become a member of one or more options exchanges based on the market participant's business model. A very small number of market participants choose to become a member of all sixteen options exchanges. It is not a requirement for market participants to become members of all options exchanges, in fact, certain market participants conduct an options business as a member of only one options market. Most firms that actively trade on options markets are not currently Members of MRX and do not purchase port services at MRX. Ports are only available to MRX Members or service bureaus, and only an MRX Member may utilize a port.
Using options markets that Nasdaq operates as points of comparison, less than a third of the firms that are members of at least one of the options markets that Nasdaq operates are also Members of MRX (approximately 29%). The Exchange notes that no firm is a Member of MRX only. Few, if any, firms have purchased port services at MRX, notwithstanding the fact that ports are currently free, because MRX currently has less liquidity than other options markets. As explained above, MRX has the smallest market share of the 16 options exchanges, representing only approximately 1.8% of the market, and, for certain market participants, the current levels of liquidity may be insufficient to justify the costs associated with becoming a Member and connecting to the Exchange, notwithstanding the fact that ports are currently free.
The decision to become a member of an exchange, particularly for registered market makers, is complex, and not solely based on the non-transactional costs assessed by an exchange. As noted herein, specific factors include, but are not limited to: (i) an exchange's available liquidity in options series; (ii) trading functionality offered on a particular market; (iii) product offerings; (iv) customer service on an exchange;
In lieu of becoming a member at each options exchange, a market participant may join one exchange and elect to have their orders routed in the event that a better price is available on an away market. Nothing in the Order Protection Rule requires a firm to become a Member at MRX.
With respect to the submission of orders, Members may also choose not to purchase any port at all from the Exchange, and instead rely on the port of a third party to submit an order.
Only if a market participant elects to become a Member of MRX will the market participant need to utilize a port to submit orders and/or quotes into MRX. Once an applicant is approved for membership on MRX and becomes a Member, the Exchange assigns the Member a badge
MRX is obligated to regulate its Members and secure access to its environment. In order to properly regulate its Members and secure the trading environment, MRX takes measures to ensure access is monitored and maintained with various controls. Ports are a method utilized by the Exchange to grant Members secure access to communicate with the Exchange and exercise trading rights. When a market participant elects to be a Member of MRX, and is approved for membership by MRX, the Member is granted trading rights to enter orders and/or quotes into MRX through secure ports.
As noted herein, there is no legal or regulatory requirement that a market participant become a Member of MRX, or, if it is a Member, to purchase port services beyond the one quoting protocol or one order entry protocol necessary to quote or submit orders on MRX, which the Exchange proposes to provide at no cost in addition to one FIX Disaster Recovery Port and one SQF Disaster Recovery Port, which are also being provided at no cost.
The Exchange's proposal to amend port fees is reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as MRX is providing MRX Electronic Access Members one FIX Port to submit orders and MRX Market Makers one SQF Port to submit quotes to MRX, at no cost, in addition to providing one FIX Disaster Recovery Port and one SQF Disaster Recovery Port at no cost; all other ports offered by MRX are optional.
The proposed fees reflect the ongoing services provided to maintain and support the ports. In order to submit orders into MRX, only one order protocol is required, and MRX is providing Electronic Access Members one FIX Port at no cost. Quoting protocols are only required to the extent an MRX Member has been appointed as a Market Maker in an options series pursuant to Options 2, Section 1. Similarly, only one quoting protocol is necessary to quote on MRX and MRX is providing Market Makers one SQF Port at no cost. As noted above, only Members may utilize ports. A Member can send all orders, proprietary and agency, through one port to MRX and all quotes through one port. Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, it is reasonable to assess no fee for the first FIX Port obtained by an Electronic Access Member or the first SQF Port obtained by a Market Maker. Further it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess no fee for the first FIX Port to Electronic Access Members as all Electronic Access Members would be entitled to one FIX Port at no cost. Also, it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess no fee for the first SQF Port to Market Makers as all Market Makers would be entitled to one SQF Port at no cost.
The Exchange's proposal to assess Members $650 per port, per month, per account number for FIX Ports beyond the first port and $1,250 per port, per month for SQF Ports beyond the first port is reasonable because these ports are optional and Members only require one FIX Port to submit orders to MRX
The Exchange's proposal to assess $650 per port, per month, per account number for an OTTO Port is reasonable because OTTO is optional. The Exchange is offering a FIX Port at no cost to submit orders to MRX. In addition to the FIX Port, all Members may elect to purchase OTTO to submit orders to MRX. Unlike FIX, which offers routing capability, OTTO does not permit routing. Depending on a Member's business model, Members may elect to purchase an OTTO Port in addition to the FIX Port, which is being provided at no cost. Members may prefer one protocol as compared to another protocol. For example, the ability to route may cause a Member to utilize FIX and a Member that desires to execute an order locally may utilize OTTO. Also, the OTTO Port offers lower latency as compared to the FIX Port, which may be attractive to Members depending on their trading behavior. MRX Members utilizing the FIX Por, which is offered at no cost, do not need to utilize OTTO. Members may elect to utilize both order entry protocols, depending on how they organize their business. OTTO provides MRX Members with an additional choice as to the type of protocol that they may use to submit orders to the Exchange. Today, Phlx and BX offer only a FIX Port to submit orders on those options markets.
The Exchange's proposal to offer an SQF Purge Port for $1,250 per port, per month is reasonable because this port is optional. The SQF Purge Port is designed to assist Market Makers in the management of, and risk control over, their quotes. Market Makers may utilize a purge port to reduce uncertainty and to manage risk by purging all quotes in their assigned options series. Of note, Market Makers may only enter interest into SQF in their assigned options series. Additionally, the SQF Purge Port may be utilized by a Market Maker in the event that the Member has a system issue and determines to purge from the order book. The SQF Purge Port is optional as Market Makers have various ways of purging their quotes from the order book. First of all, a Market Maker may cancel quotes through SQF in their assigned options series in the same manner as they may cancel quotes with an SQF Purge Port. Second, TradeInfo permits the cancellation of open orders at the order, port or firm mnemonic level.
The Exchange's proposal to assess $650 per port, per month for CTI Ports and FIX DROP Ports is reasonable because these ports are optional because Members have various ways of receiving information concerning open orders and executed transactions. First, FIX and OTTO provide Members with real-time order executions similar to the Clearing Trade Interface and FIX DROP. Second, TradeInfo provides Members with the ability to query open orders and order executions real-time, at no cost, similar to the Clearing Trade Interface and FIX DROP. Third, Members receive free daily reports listing open orders and trade executions, while not real-time, the Open Orders Report and Trade Detail Report provides Members with information similar to the Clearing Trade Interface and FIX DROP. The proposed CTI and FIX DROP Ports are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any Member may elect to purchase an optional CTI Port or FIX DROP Port and would be subject to the same fee.
The Exchange's proposal to assess no fee for the first FIX Disaster Recovery Port or the first SQF Disaster Recovery Port is reasonable because it will provide Members with continuous access to MRX in the event of a failover, at no cost. Further it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess no fee for the first FIX Disaster Recovery Port to Electronic Access Members as all Electronic Access Members would be entitled to one FIX Disaster Recovery Port at no cost. Also, it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to assess no fee for the first SQF Disaster Recovery Port to Market Makers as all Market Makers would be entitled to one SQF Disaster Recovery Port at no cost.
The Exchange's proposal to assess Members $50 per port, per month, per account number for optional FIX Disaster Recovery Ports beyond the first port offered at no cost and $50 per port, per month, per account number for optional SQF Disaster Recovery Ports beyond the first port offered at no cost is reasonable because these ports are optional and Members only require one FIX Disaster Recovery Port to submit orders to MRX in the event of a failover and one SQF Disaster Recovery Port to submit quotes to MRX in the event of a failover. Additionally, to the extent a Member expended more than $7,500 for Disaster Recovery Ports, the Exchange would not charge an MRX Member for additional Disaster Recovery Ports beyond the cap. The fees for the proposed additional FIX and SQF Disaster Recovery Ports are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any Member may elect additional ports and would be subject to the same fees.
The Exchange's proposal to offer Disaster Recovery Ports for SQF Purge Ports, and OTTO Ports at $50 per port, per month, per account number and CTI Ports, and FIX DROP Ports for $50 per port, per month is reasonable because these ports are optional. As noted herein, there are other alternatives for all of these ports today, the purchase of an SQF Purge Port, OTTO Port, CTI Port, and FIX DROP Port in production is optional and, therefore, so is the purchase of Disaster Recovery Ports for these ports. The proposed Disaster Recovery Port fees are intended to encourage Members to be efficient when
Finally, in the event that an MRX Member elects to subscribe to multiple ports, the Exchange offers a monthly cap beyond which a Member would be assessed no additional fees for month. As noted above, the SQF Port and the SQF Purge Port are subject to a monthly cap of $17,500 and the OTTO Port, CTI Port, FIX Port, FIX Drop Port and all Disaster Recovery Ports are subject to a monthly cap of $7,500. These caps are reasonable because they allow Members to cap their fees beyond a certain level if they elect to purchase multiple ports in a given month. The caps are also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because any Member will be subject to the cap, provided they exceeded the appropriate dollar amount in a given month.
The proposed port fees are similar to the fees assessed by GEMX.
After 6 years, MRX proposes to commence assessing port fees, just as all other options exchanges. The introduction of these fees will not impede a Member's access to MRX, but rather will allow MRX to continue to compete and grow its marketplace so that it may continue to offer a robust trading architecture, a quality opening process, an array of simple and complex order types and auctions, and competitive transaction pricing. If MRX is incorrect in its assessment of the value of its services, that assessment will be reflected in MRX's ability to compete with other options exchanges.
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 its proposal remains competitive with other options markets, and will offer market participants with another choice of venue to transact options. The Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited.
By way of example, today, with the exception of Precise, ISE has identical functionality to MRX. Market participants may elect to become members of ISE instead of MRX if those market participants believe that the order flow on ISE provides more value than the order flow on MRX. ISE has more market share (6.2%) as compared to MRX (1.8%). A market participant may evaluate the fees assessed by ISE, its market share, and proprietary products, among other things, and determine to become a member of ISE instead of MRX if it determines the proposed fees to be unreasonable.
The proposed port fees are similar to port fees assessed by GEMX
Only one account number is necessary per Member and account numbers are free.
The remainder of the proposed port fees are for optional ports (additional FIX and SQF Ports, additional FIX and SQF Disaster Recovery Ports, SQF Purge Port, OTTO Port, CTI Port, FIX DROP Port and Disaster Recovery Ports for SQF Purge Ports, OTTO Ports, CTI Ports, and FIX DROP Ports). These different protocols are not all necessary to conduct business on MRX. Members choose among the protocols based on their business workflow. The proposed fees do not impose an undue burden on competition because the Exchange would uniformly assess the port fees to all Members and would uniformly apply monthly caps. Market participants may also connect to third parties instead of directly to the Exchange.
With respect to the higher fees assessed for SQF Ports and SQF Purge Ports, the Exchange notes that only Market Makers may utilize these ports. Market Makers are required to provide continuous two-sided quotes on a daily basis,
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act.
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) declaration for the State of ALASKA dated 07/12/2022.
Issued on 07/12/2022.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's EIDL declaration, applications for economic injury disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for economic injury is 175240.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration #17524 is Alaska.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Michigan dated 07/12/2022.
Issued on 07/12/2022.
Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations.
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 17522 C and for economic injury is 17523 0.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration # is Michigan.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Bámigbóyè: A Master Sculptor of the Yorùbá Tradition” at the Yale University Art Gallery, New Haven, Connecticut, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Chi D. Tran, Program Administrator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), E.O. 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
The Department of State announces an amendment to the meeting of the U.S. State Department's Overseas Security Advisory Council originally schedule November 15, 2022. The new meeting date will now be November 17, 2022. Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix), 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4), and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(7)(E), it has been determined that the meeting will be closed to the public. The meeting will focus on an examination of corporate security policies and procedures and will involve extensive discussion of trade secrets and proprietary commercial information that is privileged and confidential, and will discuss law enforcement investigative techniques and procedures. The agenda will include updated committee reports, global threat overviews, and other matters relating to private sector security policies and protective programs and the protection of U.S. business information overseas.
For more information, contact Rebecca Spingarn, Overseas Security Advisory Council, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522-2008, phone: 571-228-3221.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice of National Grain Car Council meeting.
Notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Grain Car Council (NGCC), pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
The meeting will be held on Thursday, August 25, 2022, beginning at 1:00 p.m. (CDT), and is expected to conclude at 5:00 p.m. (CDT).
The meeting will be held at The Westin Kansas City at Crown Center, 1 East Pershing Road, Kansas City, MO 64108.
Alan Cassiday at (202) 245-0308 or
The NGCC was established by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) as a working group to facilitate private-sector solutions and provide recommendations to the ICC (and now the Surface Transportation Board (Board)) on matters affecting rail grain car availability and transportation.
The general purpose of this meeting is to discuss rail carrier preparedness to transport the 2022 grain harvest. Agenda items include the following: remarks by NGCC Chair Shane Berrett, Board Chairman Martin J. Oberman, Board Vice Chairman and NGCC Co-Chair Michelle A. Schultz, and Board Members Patrick J. Fuchs, Karen J. Hedlund, and Robert E. Primus; reports by member groups on expectations for the upcoming harvest, domestic and foreign markets, the supply of rail cars, and rail service; and market and industry updates. The full agenda will be posted on the Board's website at
The meeting will be conducted pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 2; Federal Advisory Committee Management, 41 CFR part 102-3; the NGCC charter; and Board procedures.
By the Board, Mai T. Dinh, Director, Office of Proceedings.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to release of airport land.
The FAA proposes to rule and invites public comment on the request to release and sell two parcels of land totaling 1.03 acres of federally obligated airport property at the Camdenton Memorial-Lake Regional Airport (OZS), Camdenton, Missouri.
Comments must be received on or before August 17, 2022.
Comments on this application may be mailed or delivered to the FAA at the following address: Amy J. Walter, Airports Land Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106.
In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be mailed or delivered to: Jeffrey J. Hooker, City Administrator, City of Camdenton, 437 W US Hwy. 54, Camdenton, MO 65020, (573) 346-3600.
Amy J. Walter, Airports Land Specialist, Federal Aviation Administration, Airports Division, ACE-620G, 901 Locust, Room 364, Kansas City, MO 64106, (816) 329-2603,
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release two parcels of land totaling 1.03 acres of airport property at the Camdenton Memorial-Lake Regional Airport (OZS) under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The City of Camdenton requested a release from the FAA to sell one parcel, totaling approximately 0.26 acres, to Camden County for road right-of-way and one parcel totaling approximately 0.47 acres, to an adjoining property owner, James E. Newman. The FAA determined this request to release and sell property at the Camdenton Memorial Lake-Regional Airport (OZS) submitted by the Sponsor meets the procedural requirements of the FAA and the release and sale of the property does not and will not impact future aviation needs at the airport. The FAA may approve the request, in whole or in part, no sooner than thirty days after the publication of this notice.
The following is a brief overview of the request:
The Camdenton Memorial-Lake Regional Airport (OZS) is proposing the release and sale of a two parcels of airport property containing 1.03 acres. The release of land is necessary to comply with Federal Aviation Administration Grant Assurances that do not allow federally acquired airport property to be used for non-aviation purposes. The sale of the subject property will result in the land at the Camdenton Memorial-Lake Regional Airport (OZS) being changed from aeronautical to non-aeronautical use and release the lands from the conditions of the Airport Improvement Program Grant Agreement Grant Assurances in order to sell the land. In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 47107(c)(2)(B)(i) and (iii), the airport will receive fair market value for the property, which will be subsequently reinvested in another eligible airport improvement project for general aviation use.
Any person may inspect, by appointment, the request in person at the FAA office listed above under
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of Availability of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)/Record of Decision (ROD).
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its decision to adopt the Department of the Navy (DON)
Ryan Weller, Operations Support Group, Western Service Center, 2200 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-2286.
The FAA's Proposed Action would be entirely airspace-based and would establish a Special Use Airspace (SUA), consisting of one RA. The new SUA would connect the existing RAs R-2505 and R-2524. The new RA would be titled R-2511 and would have the same dimensions as the existing Trona Controlled Firing Area (TCFA). The FAA's Proposed Action would not change or modify existing military flight activities or weapons testing occurring within the SUA. Aircraft activities would be consistent with those already occurring in the airspace.
The RA would help notify, advise, and alert other pilots to where military training activity could be occurring. The RA would be established when determined necessary to confine or segregate activities considered hazardous to non-participating aircraft, which is defined as any aircraft
After evaluating the aeronautical study and the EA, the FAA has issued a FONSI/ROD to establish R-2511. The RA would improve flight safety for all pilots (civilian, commercial and military) while improving the capability of the DON to conduct RDAT&E and training activities. The R-2511 would create a linkage between existing R-2505 and R-2524, covering an area of approximately 87 square miles. The designated altitudes are at 6,000 feet (ft) mean sea level (MSL) to, but not including, flight level (FL) 200 (20,000 ft MSL). The times of use are between 0700-1700 pacific time, Monday through Friday. Activation of the RA is by Notice to Air Missions (NOTAM) at least seven days in advance. Operations would be scheduled for two-hour blocks, with a maximum of two blocks authorized per day. Annual operations would be conducted within the R-2511 up to 36 days per year.
In accordance with Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations for implementing NEPA (40 CFR parts 1500-1508), and other applicable authorities (including FAA Order 1050.1F, Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures, paragraph 8-2, and FAA Order JO 7400.2M, Procedures for Handling Airspace Matters, paragraph 32-2-3), the FAA has conducted an independent review and evaluation of the DON's EA. As a cooperating agency with responsibility for approving SUA under 49 U.S.C. 40103(b)(3)(A), the FAA provided subject matter expertise and coordinated with the DON during the environmental review process.
The FONSI/ROD and EA are available on the FAA website at:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), DOT.
Notice of final disposition; denial of exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to deny the Harris Companies, Inc. (Harris) application for exemption from the electronic logging device (ELD) rule for all its employees who are required to prepare records of duty status (RODS). This includes elevator technicians, electricians, other general laborers, and welders who operate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) in interstate commerce. FMCSA has analyzed the exemption application and the public comments and determined that the applicant has not demonstrated that it would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent the requested exemption.
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division: Telephone: (202) 366-4225 or
To view comments, as well as documents mentioned in this notice as being available in the docket, go to
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315 to grant exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305). The Agency's decision must be published in the
Harris, a family-owned and operated company comprised of an elevator division and an electric division, applied for an exemption from the use of ELDs required under 49 CFR 395.8. The exemption would cover the company's 14 elevator technicians and electricians and seven general laborers and welders who operate CMVs. The company currently uses electronic devices to document hours of service (HOS). However, given internet connectivity issues affecting operation of its ELDs, Harris requested the exemption to allow it to resume the use of paper RODS.
On December 13, 2019, FMCSA published notice of the Harris application for exemption and requested public comment (84 FR 68287). The Agency received three comments, two opposing and one supporting the exemption request. The Commercial
emphasized the inability of its current ELDs to operate properly in rural areas with little to no internet connection.
To ensure an equivalent level of safety, Harris offered company safety policies and procedures. Harris referenced several ongoing company training programs to ensure compliance with the various Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations. These training programs include general safety and compliance policies, vehicle operating policies, HOS training and compliance, drug and alcohol testing procedures, and risk management services. In addition, Harris offered the continuous use of paper RODS for recording and tracking their drivers' HOS compliance.
FMCSA has evaluated the Harris application for exemption and the public comments submitted. When the Agency adopted the ELD rule in 2015, as mandated by Congress, it determined that ELDs would improve CMV safety and reduce the overall paperwork burden for both motor carriers and drivers. ELDs have led to improved compliance with the applicable HOS rules. Harris has failed to provide a sufficient analysis of the safety impacts of the requested exemption or adequate countermeasures to ensure that the exemption would likely achieve a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulations. For these reasons, FMCSA denies the request for exemption.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, PHMSA invites comments on information collections pertaining to hazardous materials transportation for which PHMSA intends to request renewal and extension from the Office of Management and Budget. Additionally, we note that on May 3, 2022, a notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting comments on these information collections was published in the
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before August 17, 2022.
Written comments and recommendations for the information collections should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
We invite comments on: (1) whether the collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the information collections; (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 the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Steven Andrews or T. Glenn Foster, Standards and Rulemaking Division, (202) 366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
Section 1320.8 (d), title 5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) requires PHMSA to provide interested members of the public and affected agencies an opportunity to comment on information collection and recordkeeping requests. This notice identifies information collection requests PHMSA previously published in a 60-day notice
These information collections are contained in 49 CFR 171.6 of the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR; 49 CFR parts 171 through 180). PHMSA has revised burden estimates, where appropriate, to reflect current reporting levels or adjustments based on changes in proposed or final rules published since the information collection was last approved. The following information is provided for each information collection: (1) title of the information collection, including former title if a change is being made; (2) OMB control number; (3) summary of the information collection activity; (4) description of affected public; (5) estimate of total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden; and (6) frequency of collection. PHMSA will request a 3-year term of approval for the information collection activity and will publish a notice in the
PHMSA requests comments on the following information collection:
In addition to the basic shipping description information on shipping papers, we also require the subsidiary hazard class or subsidiary division number(s) to be entered in parentheses following the primary hazard class or division number on shipping papers. This requirement was originally required only by transportation by vessel. However, the lack of such a requirement posed problems for motor carriers regarding compliance with segregation, separation, and placarding requirements, as well as posing a safety hazard. For example, in the event the motor vehicle becomes involved in an accident, when the hazardous materials being transported include a subsidiary hazard such as “dangerous when wet” or a subsidiary hazard requiring more stringent requirements than the primary hazard, there is no indication of the subsidiary hazards on the shipping papers and no indication of the subsidiary risks on placards. Under circumstances such as motor vehicles being loaded at a dock, labels are not sufficient to alert hazardous materials employees loading the vehicles, nor are they sufficient to alert emergency responders of the subsidiary risks contained on the vehicles. Therefore, we require the subsidiary hazard class or subsidiary division number(s) to be entered on the shipping paper for purposes of enhancing safety and international harmonization.
The following information collection and burden is associated with this OMB Control Number:
Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, BTS announces its plan to submit the Information Collection Request (ICR) described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for its review and approval and invites public comment. BTS is also requesting an emergency approval for the pilot effort to develop a proof of concept for this collection as described below. BTS is requesting OMB approval for the emergency aspect of the collection within 7 days.
Comments regarding the pilot effort of this collection should be submitted within 5 days. All other comments should be submitted within 60 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Comments regarding the pilot effort of this collection should be submitted directly to the Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, 725—17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503, Attention: BTS Desk Officer, by email at
•
•
•
Demetra V. Collia, Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology, USDOT, RTS-35, E36-302, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, by email at
FLOW is a joint endeavor between the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) and the freight industry aimed at improving key freight information exchange between parts of the goods movement supply chain. Data collected and exchanged will support industry collaborative demand management (CDM) decision making associated with the daily management of cargo and assets. Companies participating in FLOW will voluntarily submit relevant data; there is no regulatory requirement to submit such data.
Industry partners involved with FLOW, referred to as FLOW participants, include beneficial cargo owners (BCOs), ocean carriers, non-vessel operating common carriers (NVOs), ports and terminals, motor carriers, railroads, intermodal equipment providers (IEPs), and warehousers. It is expected that the practice of sharing operational information between FLOW participants will be a source of significant benefit to the operation of the national logistics system,
The first phase of the FLOW initiative is a pilot effort to develop a proof-of-concept information exchange and operationalize it to support industry decision-making. During the pilot phase, the initiative will focus on the flow of goods to and from a limited number of terminals (
Data collected under this initiative is necessary to support the Administration's directive to identify and operationalize an information exchange to support a more resilient and fluid supply chain. Data will be submitted by participating companies via a secure online portal. Data submitted will include purchase order forecasts, cargo bookings, vessels in-transit, marine terminal space availability, drayage truck dispatch capacity, over-the-road truck dispatch capacity, chassis availability, and warehouse capacity. These data will be used to create an index of demand over capacity that is expected to act as a leading indicator of freight congestion and supply chain performance. The index, which will help communicate the degree of oversupply or undersupply of logistics assets, is intended to support a data driven approach to balance U.S. cargo traffic demand with system capacity.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App.2, that a meeting of the Veterans' Advisory Committee on Rehabilitation (hereinafter the Committee) will be held virtually on Wednesday and Thursday, August 3-4, 2022 from 11 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. EST. The meeting sessions are open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice to the Secretary of VA on the rehabilitation needs of Veterans with disabilities and on the administration of VA's Veteran rehabilitation programs. The Committee members will receive information on how VA assists Service members with transitioning to the civilian work force to include awareness of VA benefits, outreach efforts, and supported employment programs. In addition, the Committee will discuss and explore potential recommendations to be included in the next annual report.
Although no time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the public, members of the public may submit written statements for review by the Committee to David Smith, Designated Federal Officer, Veterans Benefits Administration (28), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or at
For any members of the public who wish to attend virtually, please use the Microsoft Teams Meeting link:
Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), National Ocean Service (NOS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Department of Commerce (DOC).
Proposed rule; request for public comments.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) is proposing several changes to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) to expand the boundary of the sanctuary, update sanctuary-wide regulations, update the individual marine zones and their associated regulations, and revise the sanctuary's terms of designation. In addition, a revised draft management plan is included in the supporting material for this proposed rule. FKNMS currently protects 3,800 square miles of waters surrounding the Florida Keys, from south of Miami westward to the Dry Tortugas. Within the boundaries of the sanctuary lie spectacular, unique, and nationally significant marine resources including North America's only coral barrier reef, extensive seagrass beds, mangrove-fringed islands, and more than 6,000 species of marine life. The sanctuary also protects pieces of our Nation's history such as shipwrecks and other archeological resources. This proposed rule follows NOAA's publication of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) in August 2019, also referred to as the Restoration Blueprint, which included a range of alternatives. The proposed rule is necessary to improve the condition of resources in the Florida Keys through a series of regulatory measures designed to reduce threats and, where appropriate, restore coral reefs, seagrasses, and other important habitats. The intended effect of this proposed rule is to protect and preserve the living and heritage resources of the Florida Keys for the benefit of the public. NOAA is soliciting public comment on this proposed rule.
The virtual public comment meeting will occur at the following date and time:
• Tuesday, August 30, 2022,
The in-person public meetings will occur at the following dates and times:
• Key Largo, FL;
• Marathon, FL;
• Key West, FL;
Please check
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NOS-2019-0094, by the following methods:
•
•
Copies of the proposed rule, the DEIS, maps of the proposed management zones, and additional background materials can be found on the FKNMS website at
Beth Dieveney, Policy Analyst, FKNMS, 33 East Quay Rd., Key West, FL, 33040, 305-797-6818 phone, or by email at
Designated in 1990, FKNMS was the ninth national marine sanctuary to be established in a network that now comprises 15 sanctuaries and 2 marine national monuments. As one of the largest marine protected areas in the United States, the sanctuary currently protects approximately 3,800 square miles of coastal and ocean waters from the estuarine waters of South Florida along the Florida Keys archipelago to the Dry Tortugas, encompassing more than 1,700 islands. The ecosystems of FKNMS provide habitats for more than 6,000 species of fishes, invertebrates, and plants, in addition to uniquely expansive and diverse seagrass and coral reef communities.
The Florida Keys have more than 77,000 residents and up to 5.5 million annual visitors, and a local economy of nearly $5.0 billion. In 2018, tourism spending in Monroe County accounted for $2.4 billion, supporting 44 percent of jobs/employment in the county. Tourism activity and spending is heavily dependent on the maintenance of a healthy marine environment. Approximately 60 percent of the economy is tied directly to marine-related activities, including commercial and recreational fishing, boating, diving, wildlife viewing, and other various tourist-related activities. A declining marine environment puts the Florida Keys' economy and jobs at risk.
The statutory bases for NOAA's management of FKNMS are primarily the purposes and policies of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA; 16 U.S.C. 1431
• “Provide authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of these marine areas, and activities affecting them, in a manner which complements existing regulatory authorities” (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(2));
• “Maintain the natural biological communities in the national marine sanctuaries, and to protect, and, where appropriate, restore and enhance natural habitats, populations, and ecological processes” (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(3));
• “Facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection, all public and private uses of the resources of these marine areas not prohibited pursuant to other authorities” (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(6));
• “Develop and implement coordinated plans of the protection and management of these areas with appropriate Federal agencies, State and local governments . . . and other public and private interests concerned with the continuing health and resilience of these marine areas” (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(7));
• “Create models of, and incentives for, ways to conserve and manage these areas, including the application of innovative management techniques” (16 U.S.C. 1431(b)(8)); and
• “Evaluate the substantive progress toward implementing the management plan and goals for the sanctuary, especially the effectiveness of site-specific management techniques and strategies, and shall revise the management plan and regulations as necessary to fulfill the purposes and policies of this chapter.” (16 U.S.C. 1434(e)).
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act (FKNMSPA, Public Law 101-605), directs NOAA to protect and preserve living and other resources of the Florida Keys marine environment, provide education on and interpretation of sanctuary resources to the public, and manage human uses of the sanctuary consistent with the FKNMSPA.
The need for this proposed rule is to respond to threats to marine resources of the Florida Keys, consistent with the purposes and policies of both the NMSA and the FKNMSPA. FKNMS is currently operating under the original regulations, including marine zones, that became effective in 1997, and a 2007 revised management plan, which directs the sanctuary's non-regulatory management activities. In order to ensure long-term resource viability and ecosystem function, this management framework needs to be updated to address current and foreseeable future threats. Generally, the marine resources within the sanctuary face increased risk from local, regional, and global threats; and changes in visitor numbers, use patterns, types, and shifting recreational interests. Specifically, these threats include diminished water quality originating from both within and outside the sanctuary, significant decrease in coral cover, and habitat degradation from vessel impacts including anchor damage, propeller-scarring, and groundings. Each of these threats has major implications for FKNMS.
In addition, updates are needed to the management regime in order to respond to the
Furthermore, during scoping for the 2019 DEIS, the public emphasized the need for a more ecosystem-based management approach to better protect the region's marine resources. To that end, there was strong support for sanctuary expansion and updated marine zones—actions that are consistent with the purposes and policies of the NMSA and the FKNMSPA. More specifically, the need for this proposed rule is to extend national marine sanctuary protections to areas that have significant marine resources with demonstrated biological and ecological connectivity to existing sanctuary resources and to adapt management strategies to changing conditions, use patterns, and emerging threats to resources. FKNMS' efforts to update the sanctuary's regulations and management plan are informed by recent scientific findings of degraded habitat in the sanctuary and how the condition of resources can improve with application of long-term management and conservation strategies, which include marine zoning.
At the same time, as articulated in the revised draft management plan, continued research, restoration, and education is needed to conserve and restore these nationally significant sanctuary resources. This work is critical for assessing changes occurring in the environment, fostering a stewardship ethic, and developing a better understanding of the ecosystem services that sanctuary resources provide for communities throughout the Florida Keys.
In a parallel process, ONMS has been working to update the sanctuary regulations found at 15 CFR part 922. Part 922 includes general regulations applicable to all sanctuaries (subparts A through E) and site-specific regulations that relate to each individual sanctuary (subparts F through T). An interim final rule that was published at
The definitions in § 922.162 for “marine life species” and “tropical fish” incorporate by reference the same definitions under State of Florida regulations for Marine Life found at Florida Administrative Code 68B-42.001 and 68B-42.002. Specifically, under these Florida regulations, the definitions of “marine life species” and “tropical fish” incorporate lists of species designated as “restricted species” found at 68B-42.002. Under Florida regulations, a fishing permit is required to target any species that fall under the definition of “marine life species” and “tropical fish.” Similarly, sanctuary regulations at § 922.163(a)(12) require that marine life species only be harvested from the sanctuary if authorized by a state permit or exemption. Sanctuary regulations at § 922.164(b)(2) also prohibit the collection of tropical fish from within two areas of the sanctuary that were formerly the Key Largo and Looe Key national marine sanctuaries. Florida regulations are readily accessible at
The definition of “traditional fishing” in § 922.162 incorporates by reference pages 84 through 91 of the 1996 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan/Environment Impact Statement (1996 FL Keys NMS FMP/EIS (Vol. II)). This document was prepared
On April 19, 2012, NOAA and the U.S. Department of the Interior's (DOI) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a notice of intent in the
In addition, as part of formal scoping, the FKNMS Sanctuary Advisory Council played a significant role throughout this review and the alternatives development process. Informed by their
Following the NOI and scoping, in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA, 42 U.S.C. 4321
All alternatives were consistent with NOAA's mission to conserve and manage coastal and marine ecosystems and resources, would further the
Due to broad public interest and the comprehensive nature of the review of FKNMS regulations and management plan, NOAA separated the DEIS and rulemaking processes to allow increased opportunity for public and agency input to inform this proposed rule. This proposed rulemaking combines individual aspects of each of the four alternatives presented in the DEIS and is directly informed by the thousands of public and agency comments received on the DEIS (see further discussion in part II, section 3.
This section provides a high-level summary of public and agency coordination conducted and comments received on the 2019 DEIS. These comments formed the foundation for many of the changes NOAA considered and made between the 2019 DEIS Alternatives and this proposed rule.
NOAA accepted public comments on the DEIS from August 2019 to January 2020 through
NOAA received 1,213 separate comments during the public comment period, and several letter campaigns and petitions each with multiple signatories for a total of well over 35,000 comments. The types of organizations that commented include the following: state and federal agencies, local municipalities, homeowners' associations, fishing organizations, diving organizations, non-governmental organizations, trade organizations, scientists, permit holders, and school groups.
The public comments are generally summarized below, and, where relevant to this proposed rulemaking are included in the specific sections below. A comprehensive summary of public comments along with responses to comments will be included in the final environmental impact statement (FEIS), which FKNMS anticipates will be published in 2022 following public review and comment on this proposed rule.
In general, public comments on the 2019 DEIS ranged from supporting no action or the status quo (Alternative 1) to supporting more protective actions than those proposed in Alternative 4. Many comments supported elements of Alternatives 3 or 4 at a minimum to adequately protect the Florida Keys ecosystem. Comments supportive of the alternatives in the 2019 DEIS referred to increasing threats to resources and a need to increase the size and associated regulations of marine zones. Comments in opposition to the alternatives in the 2019 DEIS primarily spoke against additional marine zones and other regulations that could potentially restrict user access. Many commenters cited a need to address large regional threats, including water quality, education, and enforcement.
The FKNMS Sanctuary Advisory Council hosted two meetings (October and December 2019) to hear public comment on the DEIS alternatives. From February through April 2020 the Sanctuary Advisory Council deliberated to prioritize issues and provide NOAA with recommendations.
The range of Sanctuary Advisory Council input is well represented in the range of general public comments received as outlined above and in part III.
NOAA and USFWS jointly published a
USFWS, through the Florida Keys National Wildlife Refuge Complex, provided comments on all proposed Wildlife Management Areas that fall within their National Wildlife Refuge boundaries. Highlights of USFWS comments specific to regulatory and marine zone proposals, including guiding principles that informed their comments, are included in the relevant sections below.
DOI's Bureau of Energy Management (BOEM) considered potential impacts to offshore wind and determined there would be no effect from NOAA's proposed sanctuary expansion in the Florida Keys. BOEM further reviewed potential offshore oil and gas resources and due to uncertainty provided a low, mid, and high potential impact determination. BOEM determined effects to recoverable methane hydrates would be zero. BOEM identified an expired Outer Continental Shelf Marine Minerals lease less than 200 yards from the northern edge of the proposed sanctuary boundary expansion area that overlaps with the Atlantic Sand Aliquots, a potential sand resource site for beach renourishment projects. FKNMS has since confirmed with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Florida Department of Environmental Protection that the area has not been used as a sand borrow site since 2012.
Pursuant to NMSA Section 304(a)(5), ONMS sent letters on August 22, 2019, to initiate consultation with the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GMFMC) and the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC).
GMFMC submitted a comment letter dated February 21, 2020, and, in general, noted the need for additional information to facilitate stakeholder understanding of the proposals and engagement in the process and acknowledged the importance of water quality and impacts to coral and other important fish habitats.
SAFMC submitted a comment letter dated March 13, 2020 and, in general, noted concern about water quality degradation and its effects on the fisheries and coral reefs and the need for additional law enforcement.
Where relevant, highlights of GMFMC and SAFMC comments specific to regulatory and marine zone proposals are included in the sections below.
The Department of the Navy provided a summary of their operational environment and activities at Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West during development of the 2019 DEIS (see Appendix F of the DEIS). The Department of the Navy submitted a comment letter on March 2, 2020 and has continued to provide additional information and clarification on Navy activities in and adjacent to the sanctuary throughout the development of this proposed rule. Navy comments included additional information about existing operations in and adjacent to the sanctuary and comments on specific zone proposals in the 2019 DEIS that may impact naval operations are included in relevant sections below.
NOAA has worked closely with several Florida state agencies throughout the public scoping process, and development of the DEIS and this proposed rule. As 60 percent of the sanctuary is within Florida State waters, the sanctuary is cooperatively managed with the State of Florida, with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) as lead agencies. The Florida Department of State through the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is also a key resource management partner for sanctuary historical resources. NOAA coordinates with other state agencies as needed on topic-specific issues. Several co-trustee agreements outline a framework for this cooperative management relationship. These agreements are currently under review and any revised and/or new co-trustee agreements will be included in the FEIS.
Florida DEP staff has coordinated directly with sanctuary staff, was represented by a Florida State Parks staff member at most Sanctuary Advisory Council community working group meetings where they provided management perspective and resource status and use data, and has an official non-voting seat on the Sanctuary Advisory Council. DEP submitted a comment letter to NOAA on the 2019 DEIS on May 1, 2020. Generally, DEP comments acknowledged the valuable partnership with the sanctuary and the role DEP's Division of State Lands plays with regards to managing State sovereign submerged lands. DEP also commented that they believed the areas of greatest public concern are water quality, enforcement, habitat restoration, and education and outreach. Highlights of DEP comments specific to regulatory and marine zone proposals are included in the relevant sections below.
Florida FWC staff has coordinated directly with sanctuary staff, notably with Florida Fish and Wildlife Research Institute (FWRI) experts assigned to provide scientific and technical support for each of the Sanctuary Advisory Council community working groups. Florida FWC staff also served as a co-chair with FKNMS to facilitate one working group, and has an official non-voting seat on the Sanctuary Advisory Council. NOAA also provided multiple updates at FWC meetings over the course of the development of the 2019 DEIS and throughout the public comment period. In addition, FWRI research findings directly informed various regulatory and zoning aspects of this proposed rule.
FWC submitted a comment letter to NOAA on the 2019 DEIS on April 29, 2020. FWC articulated a suite of guiding principles that informed their comments. FWC further commented on several management plan issues including law enforcement, education, water quality, coral reef ecosystem and recovery, carrying capacity, and artificial reefs. Highlights of FWC's comments specific to regulatory and marine zone proposals are included in the relevant sections below.
The Florida State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and Florida Division of Historical Resources staff have coordinated with FKNMS staff to review and develop an updated draft
The following sections summarize the proposed rule including a brief discussion of comments received on the 2019 DEIS and how they informed the proposed rule. In addition to comments received the proposed rule is also informed by additional agency input and scientific and user data.
These sections are organized in the same way they were presented in the 2019 DEIS/Restoration Blueprint:
1. sanctuary boundary;
2. sanctuary-wide regulations;
3. marine zone boundaries within the sanctuary; and
4. marine zone regulations.
A revised draft management plan is included as supporting material and is available at the address and website listed in the
There are three principal areas where NOAA is proposing changes to the FKNMS boundary. First, NOAA seeks to align the FKNMS seaward boundary with the northernmost Area to Be Avoided (ATBA) seaward boundary, which by doing so will also encompass two areas of the existing ATBA that currently fall outside the sanctuary boundary (two small areas of the ATBA along the Key West shipping channel); second, to encompass the proposed modified Tortugas South Conservation Area (which is currently referred to as the Tortugas South Ecological Reserve); and third, to include a non-contiguous
NOAA received many comments that supported the status quo (
Agency comments, specifically from FWC, requested that the proposed boundary in the Tortugas region be shifted further north due to a lack of knowledge about resources in the southern portion of the existing Tortugas South Ecological Reserve (see part III, section 3. Marine Zone Boundaries within the Sanctuary for details as to why NOAA is not proposing this marine zone boundary change).
This section describes regulations that would apply throughout the sanctuary (
NOAA's proposed rule maintains the current exception for live rock aquaculture from sanctuary-wide regulatory prohibitions if authorized by a submerged lands lease issued by the Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services or a National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Aquacultured Live Rock permit, which is issued under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) authority in conjunction with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers via the Programmatic General Permit SAJ-71. Additionally, NOAA proposes to develop a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) with NMFS and Florida Department of Agricultural and Consumer Services related to live rock aquaculture in the sanctuary. This MOA would enhance inter-agency collaboration, clarify the process by which such proposals are reviewed, and ensure that requirements to protect sanctuary resources are included in live rock aquaculture permits. The proposal to develop the MOA is included in the revised draft management plan, which is included with this proposed rule as a supporting document.
The DEIS included a regulatory alternative that would have required live rock aquaculture operations to obtain a separate sanctuary permit, in addition to state or NMFS permits. However, public comments supported either (1) maintaining the status quo (
NOAA proposes to update the existing discharge regulation to explicitly prohibit discharge by cruise ships, and to simplify and clarify terminology by removing the exception for “exhaust gas” and “water generated by routine vessel operations.” Each of these are explained in more detail below.
NOAA has a long history of regulating various discharges under the NMSA to ensure that the discharges do not degrade water quality within the sanctuary. When the original FKNMS regulations were implemented in 1997, NOAA established prohibitions against discharging most items into the sanctuary, with exceptions for bait or chum, biodegradable effluent from approved marine sanitation devices, graywater and deck washdown during routine vessel operations, and vessel cooling water and engine exhaust. In sanctuary zones, such as Sanctuary Preservation Areas and Ecological Reserves, NOAA established more stringent regulations to only allow discharge of vessel cooling water and engine exhaust. The 1997 regulations also prohibited the discharge of material or other matter from outside the sanctuary that enters and injures a sanctuary resource. In 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established a No Discharge Zone under
Under its NMSA authorities, NOAA now proposes to further restrict discharges from cruise ships while in the sanctuary. Specifically, the proposed rule would prohibit discharges of any material or other matter from a cruise ship, except cooling water. This change would result in prohibiting the discharges of graywater and deck washdown from cruise ships, which are currently exempt from the prohibitions. Cruise ships are among the largest vessels traversing the sanctuary and the source of a considerable volume of discharges. Scientific literature discusses the adverse effects of various cruise ship discharges on the marine environment, including brine from desalination equipment, ballast water, and spa/pool water, among others. NOAA believes that it is feasible for cruise ships to successfully avoid discharging in sanctuary waters because cruise ship operations in sanctuary waters are extremely limited to entering and leaving the port of Key West. In addition, certain routine maintenance activities may occur while a cruise ship is in port within the sanctuary, including hull cleaning or scraping and application of antifouling paint, which may alter water quality. These activities may occur in other ports in less sensitive ecosystems outside of the sanctuary.
This proposed rule is informed by information received through coordination with the EPA, notably the agency's studies related to cruise ship discharges and vessel operations in other sensitive marine environments (classified as “Waters Federally Protected wholly or in part for Conservation Purposes” under the EPA Vessel General Permit). NOAA also considered information related to the successful management of cruise ship operations in certain National Parks, including Glacier Bay, Alaska where, through concession agreements, cruise ships operate with higher environmental standards when in park waters.
NOAA determined that the 2019 DEIS alternatives, which proposed instead to specify certain discharges that would be allowed by cruise ships (
NOAA would continue to provide an exception to the discharge prohibition for cooling water from all vessels, including cruise ships, because it is currently technologically infeasible for cruise ships to operate without discharging cooling water. However, this exception does not apply if cooling water is mixed with other substances. In particular, cooling water that is mixed with any other substances, such as exhaust gas cleaning systems (EGCS) scrubber wash water, would be prohibited.
NOAA proposes to remove the exception for “exhaust gas” from its discharge prohibitions for all vessels to reduce confusion. NOAA believes the original intent of this exception was to allow the discharge of boat engine wet exhaust, rather than exhaust emissions, since NOAA does not regulate air emissions. The term “cooling water” encompasses “boat engine wet exhaust,” which is defined in the EPA Vessel General Permit (Section 2.2.21) as the ambient water that is injected into the exhaust for cooling and noise reduction purposes and then discharged, typical of marine outboard engine operation. NOAA does not believe “boat engine wet exhaust” or “cooling water” would include any other discharges including EGCS scrubber wash water.
NOAA also proposes to simplify the exception for discharges of “water generated by routine vessel operations.” The current regulatory exception for discharges of “water generated by routine vessel operations (
Of note, on December 4, 2018, Congress passed the Vessel Incidental Discharge Act (VIDA) (Title IX of the Frank LoBiondo Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2018). VIDA requires the EPA to develop new national standards of performance for commercial vessel incidental discharges and the United States Coast Guard to develop corresponding implementing regulations. At the time of publication of this NMSA proposed rule for the
During the 2019 DEIS process, public comments strongly supported the need to take additional action related to sanctuary water quality; this included support for revising the existing discharge regulation exceptions to prohibit graywater discharges from cruise ships. Comments also requested clarification about specific discharges that may be allowed and required technological standards (
NOAA proposes updating the existing regulations to allow for rapid, temporary rulemaking to facilitate time-sensitive, adaptive management and respond to emergencies. First, the proposed rule would expand the time frame during which any temporary regulation could remain in place from 60 days to six months, with the option for one additional extension of six months (rather than the currently authorized additional 60 days). While NOAA's proposal is to extend the potential time frame that a temporary regulation could be in effect, NOAA would consider the specific circumstances and craft any temporary regulation for the appropriate duration, which may be less than the maximum time allowed under this proposed regulation. Second, this proposed rule outlines three categories for which NOAA would issue temporary regulations (as outlined below in this section). Third, this proposed rule would set out the procedure by which a temporary regulation would be promulgated. This includes the requirement that the agency provide a justification for the time sensitivity of the action to comply with the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). This procedure also (1) addresses notice and comment requirements, and (2) requires State approval for any temporary regulations proposed in State waters. NOAA intends to work with its state partners to clarify the process for actions in State waters in co-trustee management agreements.
NOAA proposes three categories for temporary regulation to protect sanctuary resources when time is of the essence. The first category would allow for temporary regulations to prevent or minimize destruction of, loss of, or injury to sanctuary resources from any human-made or natural circumstances, including a concentration of human use, change in migratory or habitat use patterns, vessel impacts, natural disaster or similar emergency, disease, or bleaching. Second, temporary regulations may be used to initiate restoration, recovery, or other activities where a delay would undermine the success of the activity. Lastly, NOAA may use temporary regulations to initiate research where an unforeseen event produces an opportunity for scientific research that may be lost if it is not initiated immediately.
Importantly, temporary regulations would only allow NOAA to shorten or bypass minimum public comment periods if NOAA makes a finding of “good cause” that such procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest” pursuant to Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)). This finding must be made before promulgating a temporary regulation without following the full rulemaking procedures, including public notice and comment. While NOAA must make this required finding before promulgating a temporary regulation under this proposal, NOAA believes that all three of the temporary regulation categories will satisfy this good cause requirement because each of these categories requires NOAA to take rapid, immediate actions in order to address an important and time-sensitive environmental need. However, when any given issue arises, NOAA will review it on a case by case basis to determine if application of this proposed rule is consistent with the Administrative Procedure Act. Where the agency determines that time is available without jeopardizing the effectiveness of the action, NOAA will follow notice and comment procedures, even for temporary actions.
Public comments included support for NOAA's authority to respond to emergencies and to allow NOAA to be more responsive to emerging issues that would benefit from immediate management action. NOAA believes this proposal provides a framework for such immediate actions where one did not previously exist. Comments also included concerns that the proposal to expand the time that a temporary regulation could be in place (from a maximum of 120 days to a maximum of one year) would subvert the public comment process required for rulemaking. NOAA is addressing this concern in this proposed rule by identifying categories for which temporary regulations may be promulgated for the public to provide comments, and has incorporated the existing requirements from the Administrative Procedure Act to demonstrate good cause. Some commenters recommended the sanctuary consider different time frames for sanctuary-wide versus marine zone emergencies. NOAA believes different maximum time frames would hamper NOAA's management flexibility. NOAA has established a maximum time frame (six months with one six-month extension), but NOAA would consider shorter time frames where appropriate to meet management needs. Comments also voiced concerns that “emergency” was not clearly defined. NOAA believes it would be clearer and more efficient to establish well-defined categories, criteria, and processes for temporary regulations to respond to time-sensitive needs to manage sanctuary resources, rather than attempt to define “emergency.”
State agency, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, and South Atlantic Fishery Management Council comments noted concern about application of the emergency regulation to fishing and related businesses; however, the comments also supported aligning the time frame (up to one year) with regulations that provide for emergency actions in section 305(c) of the MSA. NOAA has chosen to increase the time frame to harmonize with the emergency time frames as outlined in section 305(c) of the MSA, as well as other national marine sanctuary regulations. State agency comments emphasized the need for Governor approval for all proposed temporary regulations in State waters and recommended that a process be developed and codified in co-trustee management agreements for FWC and the Governor to engage on temporary regulations in State waters prior to approval. NOAA proposes to maintain the requirements for Governor approval for temporary regulations in State waters and proposes to work with FWC to develop a streamlined co-trustee process.
While NOAA is proposing these regulations to allow greater
NOAA proposes to update historical resource permitting by replacing the current survey/inventory, research/recovery, and deaccession/transfer permit categories with a new, single archaeological research permit category. The proposed rule would define the term “archaeological research,” explain criteria that must be met in order for NOAA to issue an archaeological research permit (including applicant qualifications), and prescribe certain conditions that would apply to these permits. This would align sanctuary historical resource permitting with state permitting regulations for archaeological research promulgated under Chapter 1A-32, Florida Administrative Code, and optimize compliance with the
The proposed archaeological research permit category would simplify permitting research focused on historical resources in the sanctuary, including the State waters portion of the sanctuary. While the current system requires separate NOAA and Florida Division of Historical Resources permits for archaeological research activities in State waters, the proposed archaeological research permit category combined with the process set forth in the draft
The current permitting system is unnecessarily complicated and confusing to applicants as it artificially bisects the archaeological research process. Division of permits into either survey/inventory or research/recovery often resulted in insufficient research plans to meet project goals. The proposed archaeological research permit category would require that applicants commit to following an explicit statement of objectives and that project methods be chosen to gather the information required to meet the stated objectives.
The proposed archaeological research permit category would also require that an applicant be the project's supervising archaeologist whose qualifications meet the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualification Standards for archaeology. This aligns with the required credentials for investigators receiving a state archaeological research permit under Chapter 1A-32, Florida Administrative Code. Additionally, the proposed permit category would require that the supervising archaeologist be on site for any excavation and/or artifact recovery. As a result of these proposed changes, NOAA believes that the quality of the research, both proposed and conducted, will be improved. NOAA anticipates that the reporting of research results will also be of higher quality when directed by a professional archaeologist with the required field experience. For the above reasons, NOAA believes that the proposed archaeological research permit category with associated application and review criteria will increase the protection of historical resources throughout the sanctuary.
In addition to the above changes, NOAA proposes to eliminate the permit category allowing for the deaccession/transfer of historical resources. Eliminating the deaccession/transfer of historical sanctuary resources is consistent with Chapter 1A-31, Florida Administrative Code, which states that the State of Florida will not issue permits for exploration and recovery of historic shipwreck sites by commercial salvors or for transferring objects recovered by commercial salvors for areas of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary. Eliminating the deaccession/transfer permit category is also consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Federal Agency Historic Preservation Programs and Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties, which focus on the preservation and long-term curation of any recovered historical resources for the benefit of the public (as opposed to private ownership). Likewise, this approach is consistent with the Abandoned Shipwreck Act Guidelines, which recommend that, at a minimum, state-owned shipwrecks located within a national marine sanctuary or in other areas (like habitat areas or coralline formations) protected under Federal or State statute, order or regulation not be available for commercial salvage, treasure hunting or personal collecting. These Federal guidelines, and the statutes that underpin them, are part of the Federal archaeology program and align with NOAA's long-standing classification and protection of historical resources as sanctuary resources under the NMSA.
To date, no deaccession/transfer permit has ever been issued and, as such, the impact of this change will be minimal. NOAA intends to continue engaging directly with current sanctuary historical resource permit holders and entities with pre-existing, valid rights of access to clarify how updated historical resource permitting regulations would or would not affect potential future activities.
The DEIS (Appendix C) also included the draft
This proposal responds to public and agency comments that supported updating sanctuary historical resources permitting to align with the State of Florida regulations, creating a consistent approach to permitting historical resource investigations in both state and federal sanctuary waters of the sanctuary. NOAA determined that the benefit of updating the FKNMS historical resource permitting program outweighed public comment supporting the status quo.
NOAA received agency comments from the Florida SHPO that indicated that the proposed permitting update presented as DEIS Preferred Alternative (Alternative 3) would sufficiently address the sanctuary's National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 responsibilities in combination with the new management plan and draft Section 106 Programmatic Agreement. The SHPO also acknowledged that when finalized and executed, the Programmatic Agreement would reinforce the sanctuary's and state's shared stewardship responsibility for historical resources and would also ensure NOAA's consistent and streamlined adherence to National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 regulations. The SHPO noted that comments from other interested parties and the public should be addressed when finalizing the Programmatic Agreement language.
NOAA proposes to prohibit the feeding and attracting of fish, including sharks, or other marine species, from any vessel or while diving, and to define “diving,” and “feeding.” The term “attracting” is defined in National Marine Sanctuary System-wide regulations at 15 CFR 922.11.
NOAA carefully considered public comments regarding extending this prohibition to shore-based operations (
The proposed new fish feeding regulation would not affect the existing regulatory exception that allows discharge of fish, fish parts, chumming materials, or bait that is used or generated while conducting traditional fishing in the sanctuary.
NOAA proposes modifying the regulatory definition for traditional fishing to clarify that the 1996 FEIS and management plan describe what activities are considered “traditional fishing.” In addition, in response to agency and FMC comments and in recognition of decades of fishery management by state and federal partners that promotes gear innovations to reduce bycatch and other unintended effects of fishing, ONMS plans to work with NMFS, FWC, and the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic FMCs on an updated Protocol for Cooperative Fisheries Management. The updated Protocol would further clarify what traditional fishing activities consist of and develop a transparent process by which allowing new or modified fishing activities, such as those that reduce impacts to sanctuary resources, and other relevant changes to fisheries management, can be evaluated for potential future rulemaking.
Public comments generally supported additional prohibitions on fish feeding in the sanctuary. Other comments opposed additional regulation because of the potential loss of eco-tour and educational opportunities and questioned the impacts of fish feeding on the environment, human safety, and fish and shark behavior. In preparing this rule, NOAA has carefully considered available literature on the effects of fish feeding, which include potentially harmful impacts on fish behavior, including shark behavior, and believes that the regulation is necessary. But, as stated above, NOAA would consider issuing permits to pre-existing eco-tour operators in order to minimize the economic impacts of this provision. Agency comments indicated support for regulating fish feeding and, specifically, FWC noted it would consider modifying its existing fish feeding regulation in State waters to be consistent with a sanctuary regulation.
NOAA proposes including new regulations prohibiting anchoring, mooring, or occupying a vessel at risk of becoming derelict, or deserting a vessel aground, at anchor, or adrift in the sanctuary. The proposed rule would also prohibit leaving harmful matter aboard a grounded or deserted vessel, and would define “at risk of becoming derelict” and “deserting.” The term “harmful matter” is defined in National Marine Sanctuary System-wide regulations at 15 CFR 922.11. These proposed regulations and associated definitions align with existing state regulations that outline conditions for at-risk vessels, and include specific timeframes for giving notice that a vessel has gone aground and for submitting a salvage plan to FKNMS. In addition, these notification requirements would apply anytime a vessel operator strikes the seabed regardless of whether or not sanctuary resources are injured.
NOAA and Florida DEP have an existing Co-Trustee Agreement for Civil Claims that would be updated to reflect these new regulations and processes, and to facilitate coordination and response to grounded and deserted vessels in State waters.
Finally, the revised draft management plan includes additional details for how NOAA would engage with towing and salvage operators to develop best management practices and a permitting process for removing grounded and deserted vessels.
Public comments were generally supportive of NOAA developing new regulations to address grounded and deserted vessels; however, many commenters noted that NOAA should ensure that definitions and application of any proposed regulations are consistent with state regulations and enforcement authorities, particularly related to the term “at risk vessel.” NOAA agrees and the proposed regulations are consistent with state regulations. Commenters also noted that enforcement of a new regulation could prove challenging given the number of deserted vessels in the sanctuary and broad geographic area where they are
State agency comments were supportive of regulating grounded and deserted vessels, in part, if it builds upon existing state regulations including Florida's Coral Reef Protection Act and relevant FWC boating regulations.
NOAA proposes to include a new regulation that requires large vessels to use designated large vessel mooring buoys and small vessels to use regular mooring buoys. An associated new definition for “large vessel” would also be added. Additional information about sanctuary mooring buoy management, including plans to engage user groups to help identify areas of use, numbers of users, and placement of mooring buoys, is included in the revised draft management plan.
Public and agency comments generally supported delineating large and small vessel mooring buoys and using the availability of such buoys to limit access to sensitive areas that have been damaged by overcrowding and intensive use. Commenters also recommended boater education courses to increase boater knowledge regarding proper use of and regulations associated with mooring buoys. The sanctuary currently has a voluntary boater education course and participates in and provides sanctuary specific content for boater training courses hosted by the U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary and others.
Public and agency comments were generally not supportive of prohibiting overnight use of mooring buoys largely due to issues of public safety, public access, and enforcement. Some public comments, however, highlighted concern for new and increasing practice of anchored and moored vessels being used for overnight accommodation (
NOAA proposes revising the existing military exemption regulation in two ways. First, NOAA would update the list of exempted military activities from the list found in the 1996 Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan (FEIS) for the sanctuary to the forthcoming Final Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan for the sanctuary. Second, NOAA would clarify the process for new military activities to be exempted from sanctuary prohibitions. Each proposed change is described below.
Current FKNMS regulations reference military activities in the sanctuary and, for certain activities, provide an exemption from sanctuary prohibitions. The current exemptions for Department of Defense (DOD) activities in the sanctuary reference existing classes of military activities which were conducted prior to the effective date of these regulations, as identified in the Environmental Impact Statement and Management Plan for the Sanctuary. This language refers to the description of military activities contained in the 1996 FKNMS FEIS (Volume II, pages 93-96). NOAA proposes updating this exemption to include military activities currently conducted within the sanctuary that NOAA has determined are appropriate for exemption because the activities are not likely to injure sanctuary resources or will be carried out in a manner that avoids to the maximum extent practical any adverse impact on sanctuary resources and qualities. An updated list that reflects current DOD activities conducted in the sanctuary that NOAA considers to be exempt is provided in the revised draft management plan. The updated list includes activities that are already exempt, the effects of which were analyzed in the 1996 FKNMS FEIS, and will be included in the 2022 FEIS. In addition, the updated list includes one new activity, the effects of which were analyzed in the Navy's 2018 Atlantic Fleet Testing and Training Environmental Impact Statement and will be incorporated by reference in the forthcoming FEIS. The updated list of exemptions does not include DOD activities that occur outside of the sanctuary, or DOD activities that occur inside the sanctuary but are not prohibited by FKNMS regulations. The updated exemptions would apply to activities that occur within the current sanctuary boundary and the proposed boundary expansion area.
Second, NOAA proposes revising the existing FKNMS military exemption regulation to clarify how new or modified DOD activities may be exempted from the prohibitions in the future. NOAA commits to working with DOD to consider exempting new activities from the prohibitions. NOAA would use the same standard to exempt new activities as used to update the list of DOD exemptions in the forthcoming FEIS. In other words, NOAA would exempt a new activity from the prohibitions if NOAA determines such activity is not likely to injure sanctuary resources or will be carried out in a manner that avoids to the maximum extent practical any adverse impact on sanctuary resources and qualities. Any changes to this list of exempted military activities would only occur after compliance with all applicable laws, such as the Administrative Procedure Act and NEPA, as necessary, and after public notice and comment, as applicable.
NOAA has removed from the military exemption regulation reference to NMSA 304(d) Interagency Cooperation. The regulation previously referenced 304(d) as the mechanism for exempting new DOD activities from the prohibitions. However, NOAA has removed the reference to the 304(d) Interagency Cooperation process because 304(d) applies to all federal agency actions that are likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure sanctuary resources, including those conducted by DOD, regardless of whether the specific actions are prohibited by sanctuary regulations. Additionally, certain activities that DOD may seek to exempt from the prohibitions would not require 304(d) consultation if the activities are not likely to injure sanctuary resources.
For those DOD activities that will be exempted and that are likely to injure sanctuary resources, NOAA believes the information DOD provided to NOAA, which was included in Appendix F of the FKNMS 2019 DEIS, satisfies the requirements of a sanctuary resource statement under the NMSA 304(d) Interagency Cooperation provision. Therefore, NOAA will document in the forthcoming FEIS DOD's compliance with the NMSA 304(d) process for all activities that the DOD conducts inside or outside of the sanctuary that are likely to injure sanctuary resources. If a DOD activity described in the 2022 FEIS for this rule is modified, or new information becomes available, such that the activity is likely to destroy, cause the loss of, or injure a sanctuary resource or quality in a manner greater than considered in the FEIS, DOD would reinitiate 304(d) consultation.
Since FKNMS designation, DOD has coordinated closely and successfully with ONMS informally as well as through the Interagency Cooperation requirement under section 304(d) of the NMSA to ensure that DOD operations in
NOAA proposes including technical revisions and updates to regulatory definitions, terms, and provisions (see the general summary included in Appendix B of the DEIS). As this is the first comprehensive review of FKNMS regulations since they were implemented in 1997, NOAA has undertaken a thorough review of all existing regulations. These technical changes can be grouped in three broad categories described below.
First, since the 1997 FKNMS regulations, ONMS has published application guidelines to aid potential applicants for ONMS permits. The
Second, the proposed rule would also include two new general permit categories that are unique to FKNMS—one for Archaeological Research and one for Restoration—which are discussed in detail in other sections of this document. A third general permit category specific to FKNMS, activities that further FKNMS purposes, is found at 15 CFR subpart D. The proposed rule would only specify where different or additional information or procedures are needed for general permit categories that are unique to FKNMS (such as Tortugas North Conservation Area access permits).
Lastly, NOAA also proposes adding a provision for the certification of any valid lease, permit, license, or right of subsistence use or of access that is in existence when the revised sanctuary terms of designation become effective. Under National Marine Sanctuary System-wide regulations, FKNMS currently has authority to certify such pre-existing rights of access or use (15 CFR 922.10). The proposed rule would add procedures and criteria to clarify how ONMS would issue such certification permits for FKNMS. A certification permit would be available to persons holding such valid and pre-existing rights of access or use in the proposed sanctuary expansion areas, which are currently not under sanctuary jurisdiction but are proposed to be regulated. Certification permits would also be available to persons holding valid and pre-existing rights of access or use to conduct activities in the sanctuary that were not previously regulated but are now proposed to be regulated.
NOAA's proposed rule includes five marine zone types: Management Areas, Conservation Areas, Sanctuary Preservation Areas, Restoration Areas, and Wildlife Management Areas. This section includes a summary of the marine zones and associated regulations proposed in this rule with relevant highlights from the 2019 DEIS alternatives, and an overview of public and agency comments and how they informed this proposed rule. Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates for all marine zones included in NOAA's proposed rule can be found in Appendices II through IX. An interactive map (available at the address and website listed in the
NOAA proposes maintaining Key Largo and Looe Key Existing Management Areas, with minor modifications, but would rename them the “Key Largo Management Area” and the “Looe Key Management Area.” These two areas were designated as national marine sanctuaries in 1975 and 1981, respectively, which preceded designation of FKNMS and were therefore included within the FKNMS boundary and referred to as Existing Management Areas. The Looe Key Management Area currently encompasses the Looe Key Special Use Area (SUA) and Sanctuary Preservation Area (SPA). NOAA proposes only slight modifications to the Looe Key Management Area due to the proposed elimination of the Looe Key SUA and the addition of two Restoration Areas within the Looe Key Management Area boundary (see part III, section 3c.
The Key West and Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuges, which are currently referred to as Existing Management Areas, would simply be referred to by their full names. Existing regulations in the Key West and Great White Heron national wildlife refuges would be maintained with the exception of a minor changes to the area where personal watercraft are allowed (see part III, section 4q.
NOAA received many comments opposing the no anchor regulation in the Key Largo Management Area proposed in the 2019 DEIS. Comments noted that this was a very large area with multi-use activities, including fishing that would be highly impacted by a no anchor regulation. Comments also noted that the area includes a variety of habitats including sandy bottom, where a no anchor regulation is not needed. Comments did however support the use of no anchor regulations in smaller, targeted areas with sensitive habitats that would benefit from protection from anchor damage. In response to these comments, NOAA will not apply a no anchor regulation in the Key Largo Management Area. However, NOAA does propose additional no anchor regulations in SPAs and Restoration Areas as described in the below sections.
NOAA received public comments on changes proposed in the 2019 DEIS to Looe Key Management Area and associated Sanctuary Preservation Area (SPA) and Special Use Area (SUA). Commenters did not support the proposed changes presented in the 2019 DEIS for a no anchor prohibition for the entire Looe Key Management Area or the proposed expansion of the SPA and SUA boundaries, which would have eliminated a large portion of the Management Area where certain fishing activities are currently allowed. Comments that did not support spatial changes to these zones noted the potential loss of fishing opportunity and access (
FWC comments did not support the proposed spatial changes for Looe Key SPA and SUA due to potential loss of fishing access. However, their comments also noted the presence of coral nursery sites in the vicinity of Looe Key SPA and recommended expanding the SPA to capture these sites. Rather than change the SPA, NOAA instead proposes to establish Restoration Areas to capture these sites (see respective sections below for additional information about these zone types and proposed changes).
NOAA proposes to combine the existing Ecological Reserves and Special Use Areas into one Conservation Area zone type, and to maintain and apply the existing Special Use Area (SUA) regulations prohibiting fishing, requiring continuous transit without interruption, and requiring stowage of gear in such areas. As defined in this proposed rule, “Conservation Area” means an area of the sanctuary that provides natural spawning, nursery, and residence areas for the replenishment and genetic protection of marine life, and protects and preserves groups of habitats and species, within which activities are subject to conditions, restrictions and prohibitions to achieve these objectives. These areas consist of contiguous, diverse habitats, protect a variety of sanctuary resources and/or facilitate scientific research that promotes sanctuary management or recovery of sanctuary resources. In addition, these areas, with the exception of Western Sambo, have similar regulations, which are intended to provide the greatest level of protection to these contiguous habitats and areas set aside to support scientific research.
NOAA's proposed rule includes six Conservation Areas, all of which are existing sanctuary marine zones. Proposed changes include slightly expanding the spatial area of three existing zones (Tennessee Reef, Western Sambo, and Tortugas South), and eliminating one zone (the existing Looe Key SUA). Western Sambo would also be included as a Conservation Area with slightly different regulations as outlined below. With the exception of the zone name change to Conservation Area, NOAA proposes no changes to the existing Conch Reef SUA, Eastern Sambo SUA, or Tortugas North Ecological Reserve.
A summary of proposed Conservation Areas and changes from current FKNMS zoning and regulations follows. Note that for all of the proposed zones below the zone name would be changed to Conservation Area.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
There are several Conservation Areas that NOAA proposed in the 2019 DEIS that are not included in this proposed rule. These are:
•
•
•
Public comments related to Conservation Areas both supported the status quo and supported creating additional areas and/or expanding existing or proposed areas. A selection of specific issues is noted here.
Public and agency comments supported expanding the existing Western Sambo Ecological Reserve and the Tennessee Reef Special Use Area to include deep water coral reef habitats. In these proposed expanded zones, FWC also specifically requested that in areas deeper than 60 feet, hook and line trolling or drift fishing be allowed. The proposed rule does not allow fishing in these expanded areas. Conservation Areas are designed to provide the greatest level of protection for the habitats and species within these zones, as such NOAA is not including exceptions for fishing in a portion of these zones. In addition, NOAA determined that consistent regulations would better facilitate public understanding and compliance.
Public and agency comments generally supported extending the existing Tortugas South Ecological Reserve westward to capture additional habitat and an area shown to support multi-fish aggregation activity. Agency comments, specifically from FWC, also recommended that NOAA remove 34 square miles from the southern portion of this zone to allow for fishing opportunities in an area that has been closed to fishing since 2001, noting that the vast majority of known coral reefs in the Tortugas region and fish spawning aggregations would still be included in marine zones in this area. As noted above, NOAA determined that maintaining protection in the southern portion of Tortugas South is warranted due to recently collected and compiled data showing unique habitat features in this area, which support the presence of a diversity of fish species.
Specific to the 2019 DEIS proposal to establish three large, contiguous Conservation Areas in the sanctuary (Carysfort Reef, Long Key Tennessee Reef, and Tortugas Corridor) to further protect interconnected habitats and various stages of marine life, public and agency comments noted the value of providing these additional ecosystem-level management and protection, however also noted the need to properly design a network of reserves. Public comments also included general concern about loss of access and opportunity for use in all the proposed areas. In response to these comments, NOAA is not proposing these three specific areas.
While NOAA is not proposing to include these three new large, contiguous marine zones in the proposed rule at this time, the specific zones proposed in the 2019 DEIS alternatives and the overarching concept of protecting diverse, connected habitats, are topics NOAA may explore more robustly in the future. Specifically, FWC noted that “[t]he knowledge gained from research and monitoring related to the existing spatial management in FKNMS provides a body of knowledge indicating that a properly designed network of reserves containing an appropriate array of management approaches could have substantial positive impacts to the Florida Keys ecosystem and fisheries.” In light of this, FWC recommended NOAA establish an interagency team to evaluate the merits of a carefully designed network of marine reserves. NOAA acknowledges the important research data FWRI scientists have contributed over the years related to performance of the existing network of sanctuary marine zones, and NOAA will continue to work with state and academic partners to monitor the effects of any revised sanctuary zone network, and to explore new contiguous zones in the future.
Public and agency comments did not support creating new Conservation Areas to protect shallow mixed bank and hardbottom habitat in the middle keys, bayside at Channel Key Bank and Moser Channel Red Bay Bank. Public comments noted these are important lobster and flats fishing areas and did not support creating transit only areas; however, public and agency comments did support additional idle speed no wake regulations in these general areas (see the Wildlife Management Area section below).
NOAA's proposed rule includes 17 SPAs. As defined in NOAA's proposed rule, “Sanctuary Preservation Area” means an area of the sanctuary that encompasses a discrete, biologically important area, within which activities are subject to conditions, restrictions and prohibitions, to avoid concentrations of uses that could result in significant declines in species populations or habitat, to reduce conflicts between uses, to protect areas that are critical for sustaining important
The proposed rule expands two existing SPAs (Carysfort Reef and Alligator Reef) to capture deep reef habitat, connects the existing Key Largo Dry Rocks and Grecian Rocks SPAs, slightly expands Sombrero Key, eliminates the existing French Reef and Rock Key SPAs, creates two new SPAs at Turtle Rocks and Turtle Shoal, and makes no spatial changes to the eleven existing SPAs: The Elbow, Molasses Reef, Conch Reef, Davis Reef, Hen and Chickens, Cheeca Rocks, Coffins Patch, Newfound Harbor Key, Looe Key, Eastern Dry Rocks, and Sand Key SPAs.
SPA regulations included in the proposed rule eliminate the current exception for catch and release fishing in four existing SPAs where it is currently applied (Conch Reef, Alligator Reef, Sombrero Key, and Sand Key) and eliminate the practice of issuing bait fishing permits (See part III, section 4.
A summary of proposed Sanctuary Preservation Areas and changes from current FKNMS zoning and regulations and/or the 2019 DEIS alternatives follows (listed northeast to southwest). For all of the zones listed below, the SPA regulations as outlined above and at 15 CFR 922.164(e), would apply.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The 2019 DEIS included proposals to modify existing SPA boundaries, add new SPAs, and modify regulations within SPAs. NOAA received public comments specific to these proposals, too many to include for each individual SPA; therefore, the summary below is by general theme.
The 2019 DEIS included a proposal to apply idle speed no wake and no anchor regulations in all SPAs. Public and agency commenters did not support an idle speed no wake regulation due to several factors, including the size of many zones and the inclusion of portions of Hawk Channel. In general, comments supported greater protections to coral and other sensitive habitats from anchor damage. Comments also addressed the need for additional, well placed and maintained mooring buoys, particularly if additional no anchor restrictions would be applied. Based on the extensive input received through public comment and agency evaluation of the conservation need and value of idle speed no wake regulations in all SPAs, NOAA's proposed rule does not include an idle speed no wake regulation for SPAs. However, NOAA's proposed rule does include no anchor regulations in all SPAs.
The 2019 DEIS included proposed spatial changes to several existing SPAs. NOAA proposed expanding two SPAs (Carysfort Reef and Alligator Reef) and the Tennessee Reef Conservation Area (discussed in part III, section 3
Of the eight proposed new SPAs included in the 2019 DEIS Alternative 3, NOAA proposes including two in this proposed rule: Turtle Rocks and Turtle Shoal. Both would protect nearshore patch reef habitats, which is a habitat type that is currently underrepresented in the sanctuary zoning network and potentially consists of some of the most resilient areas of the sanctuary. Protecting these resilient areas from local stressors is intended to maintain the health of these sites, associated sanctuary resources, and provide a refuge for important frame-building and Endangered Species Act listed corals, which could potentially serve to promote recovery of surrounding reef sites by maintaining resilient reproductive populations of these species whose offspring can reseed degraded areas. Public and agency comments supported additional protections in these patch reef areas including no fishing and no anchoring. Public comments also supported establishing these areas as Conservation Areas to provide the greatest level of protection for these sensitive habitats. However, at this time NOAA is including these areas as SPAs to maintain some level of public access. FWC comments supported making Turtle Rocks slightly larger to encompass the existing John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park No Lobster Trap zone, and DEP recommended that the sanctuary coordinate management with the State park. The proposed zone at Turtle Rocks is expanded slightly from what was included in the 2019 DEIS. FKNMS will continue to coordinate with the State Park for this marine zone and more generally.
The 2019 DEIS did not propose to eliminate any existing SPAs. However, following public and agency comments, NOAA is now proposing to eliminate two existing SPAs (French Reef SPA in the Upper Keys and Rock Key SPA in the Lower Keys) to allow for multiple use in these areas. Some public commenters expressed concern that NOAA establishes new marine zones with access restrictions, particularly impacting fishing access, and does not subsequently re-open areas for fishing once the marine zone has either achieved its purpose or resource conditions have shifted. FWC comments specifically supported the elimination of French Reef and Rock Key SPAs.
NOAA proposes to eliminate French Reef SPA in the Upper Keys and Rock Key SPA in the Lower Keys because the habitats no longer contain reproductively viable populations of Endangered Species Act-listed coral reef species or other important reef-building corals. These areas also were selected due to their proximity to other SPAs; therefore, they would promote continued habitat protections and separation of conflicting uses in the general area. Mooring buoys in these areas would be maintained. Sanctuary-wide regulations would continue to apply in these areas.
Given the increase in important habitat restoration activities in the sanctuary over the past two decades, NOAA's proposed rule includes a new Restoration Area zone type. This new Restoration Area zone would include two distinct designations:
•
•
In the proposed rule, “Restoration Area” would be defined as an area of the sanctuary that supports species or habitat recovery, including protection for short and long-term propagation nurseries (referred to as Restoration Areas—Nursery) and active restoration sites (Restoration Areas—Habitat), within which activities are subject to conditions, restrictions, and prohibitions to achieve these objectives.
Specifically, the proposed rule includes nine Restoration Areas—Nursery zones with regulations prohibiting fishing, anchoring, and discharges and requiring that vessels remain in transit through the area. All proposed Restoration Areas—Nursery zones are very small (individual zones are approximately 70 acres (0.1 square miles)) and are designed to protect the underwater nursery structures and associated corals growing on them with a 200-yard buffer.
Three of the proposed Restoration Areas—Nursery zones (Pickles Reef, Marathon, and Sand Key) were included in the 2019 DEIS as individual SPA zones in Alternatives 2 and 3. These were included in the 2019 DEIS as representative coral nursery sites in the Upper, Middle and Lower Keys. NOAA proposes to establish all existing, permitted coral nurseries as distinct Restoration Areas—Nursery zones. The following existing, permitted coral nurseries are proposed as distinct Restoration Areas—Nursery zones (listed northeast to southwest):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NOAA also proposes establishing four new Restoration Areas—Habitat to protect existing, permitted active coral reef restoration sites. These were not included in the DEIS as distinct marine zones. All proposed Restoration Areas—Habitat are small, ranging from 5 to 220 acres (<0.01 to 0.35 square miles), with an average size of 85 acres (0.13 square miles), and are designed to protect sites supporting active coral restoration with a 200-yard buffer. The proposed rule would establish the following Restoration Areas—Habitat with regulations prohibiting fishing, anchoring, and discharges:
•
•
•
•
In this proposed rule all Restoration Areas—Habitat would protect active coral reef restoration; however, NOAA does not intend to limit application of this proposed new zone type to coral restoration activities only. Conceivably, the Restoration Areas—Habitat zone type could be applied in the future in any area to support and facilitate restoration of other degraded habitats or species (
Finally, to further facilitate habitat restoration and complement this zone type, NOAA proposes including a new category of general permit for Restoration.
Public and agency comments on the 2019 DEIS supported additional protections for coral nursery sites. However, public and agency comments, specifically FWC's, went beyond the 2019 DEIS to recommend additional protections for coral reef transplanting sites and that a specific zone type be created to further advance habitat restoration efforts and for the purpose of facilitating and educating the public about habitat restoration.
In addition, FWC comments recommended that NOAA develop, in partnership with FWC and other stakeholders, a process to quickly open and close areas for temporary, in-water nurseries. For example, “pop-up” nurseries could be deployed, in which corals are reared directly adjacent to restoration sites and then transplanted when ready. NOAA believes that the Temporary Regulation for Emergency and Adaptive Management, as described in part III, section 2c.
NOAA's proposed rule includes 47 WMAs. In this proposed rule, “Wildlife Management Area” means an area of the sanctuary in which various access and use restrictions are applied to manage, protect, preserve, and minimize disturbance to sanctuary wildlife resources, including but not limited to endangered or threatened species, or the habitats, special places, or conditions on which they rely. The access and use restrictions applied in each area are specific to the management goals of that area.
The proposed rule includes no change and/or only minor technical modifications to existing regulations for nine existing WMAs, spatial and/or regulatory modifications for 15 existing WMAs, and proposes 23 new WMAs. In addition, the proposed rule eliminates two existing WMAs and does not include eight zones that were included as new WMAs in the 2019 DEIS. The average size of WMAs (excluding the proposed Pulley Ridge and existing Tortugas Bank zones) is 0.62 square miles, ranging from 0.01 to 6.37 square miles (the proposed new Pelican Shoal WMA and Marquesas Turtle WMA, respectively).
WMAs are generally designed to protect shallow water habitats and species dependent on those habitats. Access and use restrictions applied in WMAs address the specific protections necessary to minimize disturbances to sanctuary habitats and wildlife and are therefore tailored for the specific location and resource need. In addition, these access and use restrictions may be for a limited or seasonal time period. The proposed WMAs aim to balance resource protection with compatible uses. This action generally favors sanctuary resource protection over access where biological and impact data demonstrate a need; however, the least restrictive access regulations and zone size needed to meet the resource protection goals are proposed.
Due to the number and range of proposed WMAs, they are discussed in relevant sections below (
Public comments both supported and opposed the proposed WMA modifications and new zones. Public comments received also indicated that many in the community are not fully aware of the existing WMAs and associated regulations. Many public comments also provided more tailored input with specific information about the resource status at certain WMAs, human use and other existing and/or potential impacts to resources at the site, and in some cases, specific alternate proposals for where and how to manage the site. These comments generally supported taking some action to protect sanctuary resources while also allowing the greatest level of access and use. Most public comments included some mention of the importance and challenge of marking WMAs and educating the public and users.
NOAA also received several public comments suggesting additional areas to include as new WMAs. NOAA used this information to modify the spatial configuration of one area (proposed in the 2019 DEIS as West Barracouta Key Flats, but now in this proposed rule called Ballast and Man Keys Flats). NOAA is not proposing any additional WMAs beyond those included and analyzed in the 2019 DEIS because NOAA would need additional human use and natural resource information to fully evaluate the need and overall benefit of including these additional areas in the sanctuary zoning scheme. NOAA removed several WMAs that were proposed in the 2019 DEIS because NOAA does not have sufficient information regarding use impacts to warrant proposing restrictions. More detail on these zones is included below in section iv.
Agency comments also included input on individual WMA proposals. FWC commented on all the WMAs, specifically providing additional human use, ecological, and biological resource data, particularly for bird species of state interest, and requested that NOAA consider each zone on a case-by-case basis to more closely evaluate the balance between resource protection goals and user access. DEP commented on WMAs located within or adjacent to State Parks and/or Aquatic Preserves, and USFWS commented on WMAs located within National Wildlife Refuge boundaries. Agency comments from FWC, DEP, and USFWS also provided additional use and resource data and considerations for cooperative management. USFWS additionally provided guiding principles for their recommendations that focused on the most impacted and their habitat needs within the National Wildlife Refuges, including migratory birds (
Nine of the twenty-eight existing WMAs have no spatial or regulatory changes, or only minor technical changes, in this proposed rule. The minor technical changes include (1) spatial changes that clarify exceptions to access regulations for certain channels and (2) regulatory changes in zone access terminology such that the existing “no access buffer” and “closed” regulations would be changed to “no entry” to be consistent with the intent of the regulation and with state regulations.
NOAA proposes to eliminate the existing “no access buffer” and “closed” zone regulation, replacing them with a “no entry” regulation that has the same effect. The existing “no access buffer” zone means a portion of the sanctuary where vessels are prohibited from entering regardless of the method of propulsion. In general practice the “no access buffer,” “closed,” and “no entry” regulations have similar intent. In addition, this change in nomenclature creates consistency in application of this regulation throughout the sanctuary and aligns with state regulations. In addition to the zones discussed in this section, the no-access buffer zones at Crocodile Lake and Marquesas Keys WMAs would be eliminated, however both of these WMAs would have additional minor spatial and/or regulatory changes, so are more fully discussed in the section below.
The WMAs in this proposed rule with no spatial or regulatory changes, or only minor technical changes, follow:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
As noted above, WMAs protect important habitats and species dependent on those habitats with access and use restrictions tailored for the specific location and resource need. Listed below (approximately northeast to southwest) are existing WMAs with proposed changes to spatial boundaries, regulations, or a combination of both. These proposed changes were informed by public and agency comments, and additional data on resources and human uses. With this additional input, NOAA refined the spatial areas included in WMAs and the specific regulations that apply to most efficiently protect sanctuary resources while allowing the greatest level of use compatible with the resource protection goals. A summary of proposed changes follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NOAA proposes including 23 new WMAs. All of these areas were included in the 2019 DEIS with various spatial and regulatory options across Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. However, nine of the newly proposed WMAs have been modified in NOAA's proposed rule in either their spatial boundary, access regulations, or both (Whitmore Bight, Channel Key Banks, Red Bay Bank, Marathon Oceanside, Happy Jack Keys, Western Dry Rocks, Marquesas Turtle, Barracuda Keys, and Ballast and Man Keys Flats). These changes have stemmed directly from public and agency comments, resource status, and existing or potential resource impact.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NOAA received hundreds of public comments related to including Western Dry Rocks as a sanctuary marine zone. The 2019 DEIS included options for a 796 acre (1.2 square mile) trolling only Wildlife Management Area (Alternatives 2 and 3) and a transit only Conservation Area (Alternative 4). Public comments both strongly supported and opposed these proposals. Comments in support noted the need to protect this site due to its importance as a multi-fish spawning aggregation site; comments included support for both a year-round closure and seasonal closure during the peak spawning time, particularly for permit species, which are not managed through an existing fishery management plan. Public comments in opposition noted the importance of this site for charter fishing activity, questioned the definition of trolling, and noted that any action at Western Dry Rocks should be taken through fishery management plan action and referenced recent action taken to modify bag and size limits for mutton snapper, one of several fish that spawn at this site. Agency comments, specifically those from FWC, did not support NOAA taking any action at Western Dry Rocks and recommended it be removed from further consideration. FWC commented that fisheries management in State waters at this location should remain under the sole authority of FWC, and further noted that FWC would consider rulemaking for this area. Since submitting their comments on the 2019 DEIS, FWC proposed various options for protecting fish spawning aggregations at Western Dry Rocks, and at their February 2021 FWC Commission meeting, adopted a seasonal closure that prohibits fishing from April 1 through July 31 annually in an area that mostly encompasses NOAA's 2019 DEIS proposal, but is slightly smaller (0.98 square miles). As a result, and because it is customary for federal and state agencies to craft complementary regulations to ensure consistency and transparency and improve enforcement, NOAA also proposes including a seasonal no fishing WMA at Western Dry Rocks. Further, FWC has requested that anchoring by vessels be prohibited during the seasonal fishing closure, so NOAA is proposing to establish no anchoring regulations at the same time of year as the no fishing regulations. NOAA would work cooperatively with FWC to place marker buoys to delineate the Western Dry Rocks WMA.
•
•
•
•
•
Several new WMAs were proposed in the 2019 DEIS alternatives, which, for various reasons, including extensive public and agency comments, are not included in NOAA's proposed rule. One existing WMA, Little Crane Key, which was proposed to be eliminated in the DEIS, is also proposed to be eliminated in NOAA's proposed rule. Another existing WMA, Tidal Flat South of Marvin Key, was not proposed for elimination in the DEIS alternatives but is proposed to be eliminated in NOAA's proposed rule. Table 2 provides a summary of the eight WMAs that were proposed in the DEIS and are not being included in NOAA's proposed rule and the two existing WMAs that would also be eliminated.
In addition, NOAA has decided not to include a shoreline slow speed regulation in this proposed rule. The existing regulation requiring idle speed no wake operation within 100 yards of residential shorelines would remain in effect and not be modified. NOAA's deliberation on this draft regulation considered the value that additional shoreline protections could provide in light of potential impacts from climate change and sea level rise and therefore NOAA does not rule out potential future, additional shoreline vessel speed regulations.
Public comments were generally supportive of a proposed shoreline slow speed regulation because it would potentially decrease the number of individual Wildlife Management Areas (where speed is regulated), reduce the need for marker buoys and signage, and provide additional protections for nearshore habitats and species. However, several comments noted concern regarding the feasibility of enforcing a shoreline slow speed regulation and the number of exceptions that may be required for channels, passes, and ability to access deeper areas nearshore. Agency comments both supported this proposed regulation and noted similar concerns to those included in public comments.
NOAA proposes including regulatory changes to allow motorized personal watercraft (PWC) operation in a small portion of the Key West National Wildlife Refuge, west of the Key West main ship channel around marker G13, where PWC operation is otherwise prohibited.
The 2019 DEIS included this proposal in Alternatives, 2, 3, and 4. Public comments on the operation of PWCs in the sanctuary ranged from banning PWCs throughout the sanctuary to opposing any restrictions for where PWCs could operate. Public comments also included more specific recommendations, such as allowing PWC use in areas parallel to the entire length of the Key West ship channel to further public safety, and that the State of Florida should take the lead for regulating PWCs under Chapter 327.60 Florida Statutes, which states that personal watercraft must be regulated as any other vessel on waters of the State. USFWS comments supported allowing PWC operation in this small section with no other changes to PWC operations within the National Wildlife Refuges.
NOAA proposes streamlining the permit application process for persons wishing to enter the Tortugas North Conservation Area. The current regulation requires that access permits must be requested at least 72 hours but no longer than one month before the date that access is requested. NOAA proposes to remove the current requirement to request access permits no longer than one month before the date of entrance to the area, and remove the requirement to notify FKNMS before entering and upon leaving the area. The requirement to request an access permit at least 72 hours in advance will remain. This permit would also refer to the zone as Tortugas North Conservation Area rather than Ecological Reserve due to the zone type name change.
NOAA received minimal public and agency comments regarding this specific proposal, but those comments received were supportive of it.
NOAA proposes eliminating the exception allowing catch and release fishing by trolling in four SPAs (Conch Reef, Alligator Reef, Sombrero Key, and Sand Key). NOAA believes that user compliance is greatly reduced and enforcement greatly hindered when exceptions to regulations in specific zones are provided. Over two decades of management experience with marine zones in the sanctuary points to providing zones with consistent and clear regulations.
The 2019 DEIS included this proposal in Alternatives 2, 3, and 4. Public comments included support for additional and consistent protections and opposition for the loss of fishing access in these SPAs. FWC comments noted that state rules at 68B-6, F.A.C. allow catch and release by trolling in Sand Key SPA, which is in State waters. Modification to fishing activities in this area would constitute a fisheries management action under FWC authority, and the FWC was not supportive of access limitations without information to justify that such an action was in response to a specific problem. Considering these comments, NOAA determined that the effects of removing the exception for catch and release fishing at Sand Key SPA, in State waters, would be insignificant given the small size of this zone (0.45 square miles) and because fishermen are able to access multiple reef areas nearby but outside this zone. As noted above, consistent no fishing and no harvest regulations in fully protected SPAs facilitate compliance by all users.
NOAA proposes eliminating over a three-year period the practice of issuing bait fishing permits of any kind in SPAs in federal waters and the practice of issuing permits to bait fish using cast nets in SPAs in State waters. FKNMS regulations currently prohibit fishing within SPAs, with exceptions for catch and release fishing in four SPAs (see 15 CFR 922.164(d)). However, NOAA has been issuing a very small number of general permits for limited bait fishing in SPAs since the original FKNMS regulations became effective in 1997. Permits issued to date allow the harvest of bait fish from all 18 SPAs using either a hand-thrown cast net (which is the gear used by recreational and charter fishermen) or modified lampara net (which is the gear type used by commercial fishermen in the State's limited endorsement lampara net fishery). NOAA also issues general permits that authorize the use of small hair hooks (
Public comments supporting this proposal noted that allowing this activity in SPAs creates an incentive to fish in no-fishing zones more generally and supported consistency of regulations in all SPAs. Public comments opposing this proposal noted that allowing bait fishing in SPAs was part of an original trade-off with fishermen to gain their support for the establishment of SPAs, noting that this agreement should continue to be upheld.
Agency comments from FWC and SAFMC supported phasing out the use of cast nets for bait fishing in SPAs, stating that the use of this gear may cause impacts to coral reef and hardbottom habitats. GMFMC noted that NOAA may want to consider specific gear types that could be allowed and recommended consulting with FWC. More specifically, FWC supported continuing to allow the use of modified lampara nets to commercially harvest baitfish in the SPAs. FWC also noted that even though this proposal does not impact the ability of fishermen to fish for bait outside of SPAs, SPA areas have been identified as important areas for bait fishing in the Keys. FWC noted that a limited entry lampara net endorsement exists in State waters and therefore recommended that those endorsement holders be allowed to continue to fish within designated SPAs. FWC explained that gear contact with the reef is unlikely and conflict with other user groups is unlikely based on the time of day they fish.
NOAA considered FWC's comments regarding continuing to allow lampara net use in SPAs in federal waters, but believes that allowing only certain gear types increases conflict with other users and importantly, complicates compliance with the existing prohibition against fishing in these areas. This proposed decision is based on over 25 years of management of the network of marine zones within the sanctuary, including a review of catch log data submitted by permit holders over the past five years. These reports indicate that there is a limited number of recreational and commercial fishermen using the permits to catch bait fish, with over half of the permitted fishermen reporting annually they are not using the permit (
NOAA considered all of this input when proposing the change in bait fishing permits in this proposed rule. Specifically, in support of the comments from FWC summarized above, NOAA would work with state fishery managers to develop a process for fishermen currently managed through the State's limited entry endorsement program to use lampara nets in existing SPAs in State waters.
NOAA's proposed rule does not include a regulation to restrict commercial operator access in three SPAs (Carysfort Reef, Sombrero Key, and Sand Key), as proposed in Alternatives 3 and 4 in the DEIS. In these regulatory alternatives, NOAA would have only allowed charter operator access to these areas to dive/snorkel businesses that participate in the Blue Star program. The Blue Star program is an existing program that recognizes tour operators who are committed to promoting responsible and sustainable diving and snorkeling practices to reduce the impact of these activities on ecosystems in the Florida Keys, participate in training for their staff, and conduct conservation activities. NOAA received many public comments specific to these alternatives to limit access, with the majority of comments opposing. While not supporting this specific proposal, comments also noted concern about increasing numbers and intensity of use and supported considering ways to manage numbers of users in the sanctuary including in coral reef and backcountry areas. In addition, many commenters acknowledged that other resource protection entities (U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, international marine parks, among others) manage use, access, and overall numbers of users through various regulatory and non-regulatory mechanisms, and some commenters provided ideas and recommendations for consideration, which NOAA will evaluate as additional management plan activities are considered. In response to these comments, the revised draft management plan includes additional information about NOAA's intent to better assess sanctuary carrying capacity, evaluate regulatory and non-regulatory tools to manage use and use numbers in the sanctuary, and consider how existing regulations and management activities can be more strategically applied to better manage use and impacts from use (
NOAA has revised the draft management plan that was published along with the 2019 DEIS. While NOAA received very few direct comments on the specific content in that draft plan, public comments did highlight several management issues of interest including: (1) water quality, (2) enforcement, (3) education, (4) mooring and marker buoys and signage, (5) better understanding of carrying capacity and managing high and conflicting uses, (6) habitat restoration, (7) artificial habitats and artificial reefs, and (8) management effectiveness monitoring and the ability to be more flexible in responding to outcomes of such monitoring.
The revised draft management plan, which includes the non-regulatory actions, complements and further supports this notice of proposed rulemaking. The revised draft management plan actions are largely focused on understanding and improving the condition of sanctuary resources through reducing threats and addressing emerging issues. Actions also include the need to engage with and strengthen partnerships to address issues and impacts that occur outside the sanctuary boundary and fall within the jurisdiction or authority of partner federal or state agencies. For example, a priority is strengthening the NOAA partnership with the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force to ensure Florida Keys water quality, habitat, living marine resource conditions, and community interests are considered and integrated into regional restoration and management plans.
NOAA has revised the draft management plan to provide more detail on these and other topics identified in this Notice. A copy of this revised draft management plan is available at the address and website listed in the
Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA requires that the terms of designation for national marine sanctuaries include: (1) the geographic area of the sanctuary; (2) the characteristics of the area that give it conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, research, educational, or aesthetic value; and (3) the types of activities subject to regulation by NOAA to protect those characteristics. This section also specifies that the terms of designation may be modified only by the same procedures by which the original designation was made, including public notice and comment, and preparation of an EIS. Terms of designation include the geographic area of the sanctuary, characteristics of the area that give it value, and the types of activities that will be subject to regulation. Therefore, through the proposed rule, the revised FKNMS terms of designation would:
1. Modify Article I (“Designation and Effect”) to include the expanded sanctuary boundary;
2. Modify Article II (“Description of the Area”) by changing the geographic description and size of the sanctuary;
3. Modify Article III (“Characteristics of the Area That Give it Particular Value”) by updating the size of the sanctuary and the description of the special resources contained within it;
4. Modify Article IV (“Scope of Regulation”) by simplifying descriptions of the categories of activities that may be subject to regulation. As originally drafted, the Terms of Designation contain a level of detail similar to, if not the same, as the regulations. Instead, NOAA proposes to provide broad categories of activities to be more consistent with the legislative intent of section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA to merely identify the “types of activities,” and rely instead on the regulations themselves to provide the specific regulatory details. Otherwise, the “Scope of Regulation” section would be duplicative of the regulations and serve no purpose. By simplifying the activity descriptions, NOAA is not broadening in any way the scope of the regulations and is not adding any new or different activities to be subject to regulation. The regulations themselves contain the operative language and only the regulations are enforceable;
5. Modify Article V (“Effect on Leases, Permits, Licenses, and Rights”) by modifying language to be consistent with section 304(c) of the NMSA related to any valid lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization or right in existence prior to the effective date of the revised terms of designation, and to cite the correct section of Office of National Marine Sanctuaries regulations for certifying such valid rights;
6. Modify the “Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Boundary Coordinates” to include the expanded sanctuary boundary.
For the proposed modified FKNMS Designation Document, please refer to appendix J.
Section 301(b) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1431) provides authority for comprehensive and coordinated conservation and management of national marine sanctuaries in coordination with other resource management authorities. Section 304(a)(4) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434) requires that the procedures specified in Section 304 for designating a national marine sanctuary be followed for modifying any terms of designation. This action is revising the terms of designation (
In accordance with Section 304(a)(2) of the NMSA (16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(2)), and the provisions of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370), NOAA has prepared a DEIS to evaluate the impacts of this action. For more information on the DEIS and steps leading to the action, please refer above to part II,
NOAA has determined that a supplemental NEPA analysis is not required for this proposed rule because the DEIS presented the public with a comprehensive analysis of the spectrum of environmental impacts among several alternative scenarios from which this proposed rule was derived. Any changes reflected in the proposed action are insubstantial in that they do not differ from the impacts already analyzed in the DEIS. The specific combination of elements from the alternatives analyzed in the DEIS and reflected in the proposed rulemaking will not have any synergistic or cumulative impacts not already analyzed in the DEIS. Based on the evaluation of the alternatives, NOAA determined that no significant adverse impacts to resources and the human environment are expected if any of the alternatives are adopted, and this conclusion applies to this proposed action. Copies of the DEIS are available at the address and website listed in the
OMB has determined this rule is significant as that term is defined under Executive Order 12866. NOAA anticipates the associated costs with this proposed rule will be
NOAA has concluded this regulatory action does not have federalism implications sufficient to warrant preparation of a federalism assessment under Executive Order 13132. This proposed rule will not have a substantial or direct effect on states or local governments. NOAA has coordinated closely with state partners throughout the development of this proposed rule and, where applicable and practicable, aligns with and/or defers to existing state regulations for proposals within State waters of the sanctuary. NOAA has aimed for consistent regulations throughout
Executive Order 13175 reaffirms the Federal government's commitment to tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and self-government. Its purpose is to ensure that all Executive departments and agencies consult with Indian tribes and respect tribal sovereignty as they develop policies on issues that impact Indian communities. This proposed action is not anticipated to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibility between the Federal government and Indian tribes. The Seminole Tribe of Florida Tribal Historic Preservation Office provided comments on the DEIS specific to the
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires Federal agencies to prepare an analysis of a rule's impact on small entities whenever the agency is required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking, unless the agency can certify, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), that the action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. NOAA has prepared a Socioeconomic Report, in which Chapter 6 serves as the factual basis for certification. A copy of this report is available as a supporting document to this rule (see
This section evaluates the quantitative potential effects of marine zone boundary changes on small entities. There are three primary industries considered in this section; commercial fishing, recreational for-hire fishing and dive/snorkeling for-hire operations. Based upon quantitative and qualitative analysis, the quantitative assessment provided here is an overestimate of the negative potential impacts of the proposed rule. We conclude that the economic impacts are expected to be much smaller because, based on other studies of marine protected areas, fishers are anticipated to be able to relocate their effort to other areas or other species.
The RFA requires agencies to consider the effects of rules on small entities. The RFA does not require the agency to necessarily minimize a rule's impact on small entities. There are no decision criteria in the RFA. Instead, the goal of the RFA is to inform the agency and public of expected economic effects of the proposed rule contained within the regulatory action and to ensure the agency considers alternatives that minimize the expected economic effects on small entities while meeting the goals and objectives of the applicable statutes.
This analysis supports NOAA's decision to certify that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities, and, therefore, no further analysis is needed under the RFA (US EEOC, 2021). The analysis provided here supports NOAA's decision to certify that there will not be a significant economic impact on a substantial number of entities.
Small entities are defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA). The definition of the relevant small businesses are presented here and are from the most recent size standards published by the SBA in 2019 (US SBA, 2019). Size standards are based upon the average annual receipts (all revenue) or the average employment of a firm. The commercial size standards for finfish fishing (NAICS code—114111) is $22.0 million, shellfish fishing (NAICS code—114112) is $6.0 million and other marine fishing (NAICS code—114119) is $8.0 million. Scenic and sightseeing transportation, water-based businesses such as for-hire recreational fishing operations, and dive/snorkeling for-hire operations (NAICS code—487210) have size standards of $8.0 million.
All data presented in this chapter uses the five-year average (2015-2019). The data was provided by FWC. The data set requested by ONMS only includes data for landings that occur within the statistical areas and subareas described in Chapter 4 of the Socioeconomic Report. It is possible that some of the vessels with landings in the evaluated statistical areas have additional landings outside of the data requested from the State. This means that some of the vessels evaluated may not be classified as small businesses as defined by the SBA if their landings within Monroe County-associated statistical areas in addition to those outside Monroe County surpass the SBA size standards. Additionally, complete ownership and cost data for businesses and vessels that participate in commercial fishing and other industries is not available.
Consequently, NOAA is not able to determine affiliations between multiple vessels and businesses. As a result, NOAA assumes that each of the vessels are independently owned by a single business. Either one of these two factors alone could result in an overestimate of the actual number of small businesses directly impacted by the proposed regulatory action. Additionally, the spatial data provided is for the statistical subareas and data are not available related to the specific catch or number of businesses that operate within the proposed marine zones. In this regard, there is a spatial mismatch between the data available and the size of the marine zones, which are likely to affect commercial and recreational activity. Chapter 4 of the Socioeconomic Report documents the assumptions made with regards to how affects to these specific industries are estimated.
NOAA has calculated the potential number of vessels that may be impacted by this proposed rule. If a vessel operates in a statistical subarea that has a proposed zone or zone change that would impact commercial fishing, these vessels were considered. Unless otherwise stated, the supporting Socioeconomic Report (see Table 4 in Chapter 2) shows the statistical areas associated with the Gulf of Mexico or South Atlantic regions and which statistical areas include proposed rule zone changes that would restrict commercial fishing. In total, there are six statistical areas that have zone changes within habitat that the species analyzed are likely to be associated with. Impacts are considered by fish groups below. It is possible, and likely, that vessels may target multiple species and thus would be accounted for in several of the individual fish groupings provided below.
The reef fish analyzed here include red grouper, grunts, hogfish (hog snapper), mutton snapper, grey (mangrove) snapper, lane snapper, black grouper (carberita), gag grouper, and yellowtail snapper. Please see Chapter 4 of the Socioeconomic Report for a more detailed explanation of why the analysis of reef fish focused on these nine specific reef associated species. The analysis for reef associated species is provided for the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic fisheries. The five-year
Commercial vessels that fished pink, brown, white, royal red, rock, and “other” shrimp species (as reported in FWC trip tickets) were considered in this analysis. The number of vessels engaged in the shrimp fishery was estimated for the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic regions. Statistical subarea 2.8 (Federal Waters Gulf of Mexico) is the only statistical subarea in which the shrimp fishery may be affected by the proposed rule; thus, no South Atlantic region vessels engaged in the shrimp fishery would be affected. From 2015-2019, an average of 108 vessels per year reported at least $1 or more of harvest revenue in statistical subarea 2.8. The SBA commercial size standard for shell fishing is $6.0 million. From 2011-2014, the maximum annual average revenue for a single vessel harvesting shrimp in the Gulf of Mexico was $2.0 million (GMFMC, 2017b). Consequently, all vessels potentially affected by the proposed rule were considered small entities.
The five-year average of the number of vessels that reported at least $1 or more of harvest revenue for lobster in statistical areas affected by the proposed rule are presented here. The analysis for lobster is not differentiated by South Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico regions and 521 vessels on average (2015-2019) were identified as harvesting $1 or more in lobster revenue. The maximum annual average revenue (2012-2016) from all species reported by a single vessel that harvested lobster was $2.0 million (GMFMC, 2018). The SBA commercial size standard for shell fishing is $6.0 million, all vessels that have $1 or more of lobster harvest revenue do not surpass this threshold. Consequently, the vessels potentially affected by this proposed rule are considered small entities.
The five-year average of the number of vessels that reported at least $1 or more of harvest revenue for stone crab in statistical subareas affected by the proposed rule are presented here. The analysis for stone crab is not differentiated by region and only considered harvesters in the State of Florida. An annual average of 282 vessels were identified as harvesting $1 or more in stone crab revenue within the statistical subareas where there are proposed zone changes. The SBA commercial size standard for shell fishing is $6.0 million, all vessels that have $1 or more of stone crab harvest revenue do not surpass this threshold. Consequently, the vessels affected by this proposed rule are considered small entities.
The proposed rule is likely to impact those that fish within the statistical areas affected by the proposed rule zone changes. On average (2011-2015), there were 585 vessels that landed at least one pound within the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery (both Individual Fishing Quota (IFQ) and non-IFQ species) managed under the Gulf reef fish fishery management plan (GMFMC, 2017). The maximum average annual gross revenue earned by a single vessel was approximately $4.9 million (GMFMC, 2017). There is an average of 39 vessels that were identified (annually from 2015-2019) that may be affected by the proposed rule within the Gulf of Mexico.
The number of vessels that used their commercial permits annually for harvesting purposes on average between 2012 and 2016 was 584 vessels in the South Atlantic Snapper Grouper Fishery (SAFMC, 2019). In the South Atlantic, the maximum average annual gross revenue from 2012-2016 for a single vessel within the snapper grouper fishery was about $1.7 million (SAFMC, 2019 F-3). Within the South Atlantic region, an average of 231 vessels were identified (annually from 2015-2019) that used the statistical areas likely to be affected by the proposed rule. Based upon the maximum average gross revenue all these commercial reef fishing businesses are believed to be small entities. Consequently, this action would affect a substantial number of small entities within the reef fishery in the South Atlantic region (39.6 percent), but not the Gulf of Mexico (3.8 percent).
The maximum potential average annual loss of harvest revenue across all vessels within the South Atlantic Snapper Grouper Fishery is estimated to be $19,900 and the estimated maximum potential loss within the Gulf of Mexico Reef Fish Fishery is roughly $1,400 for the reef species analyzed. (The above estimates are totals across the fisheries and not per vessel maximum potential losses.) Although profit loss is not analyzed here, the loss in profit would be smaller than the loss of harvest revenue. The loss of profit considers the avoided costs of not spending the time and effort to catch the fish, where the harvest revenue does not. It is unknown how this loss would be distributed across individual vessels. However, the areas where fishing is prohibited are a small fraction of the overall sanctuary. The targeted zones, of which 95 percent are less than 5 square kilometers and 90 percent are less than 1 square kilometer, are spread throughout the sanctuary. Consistent with previous studies that analyze the impact of marine zone changes, it is likely that fishers would not experience the maximum potential loss and would be able to substitute places within the proposed zones for areas just outside or elsewhere (CDFG, 2008, Hackett et al., 2017, Jeffrey, et al., 2012, Murray & Hee, 2019, and PISCO, 2013). Further, each spatial zone is small and it is likely that commercial harvesters will, in the long-run, find replacement areas and/or benefit from spillover from improvements to reefs and fish communities within closed areas. Because of the above information, a significant reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected from the proposed rule to these reef fish fisheries.
On average (2012-2016), there were 770 commercial fishing businesses with recorded landings of spiny lobster in the State of Florida (GMFMC, 2018). During this time, these businesses earned an average annual revenue of approximately $84,000 ($2017) and
The maximum potential total loss of lobster harvest revenue per year (for the 2015-2019 average) was estimated to be $966,000. The average harvest revenue per year in the Monroe County statistical areas was roughly $42.0 million. This represents a maximum potential loss of 2.3 percent of harvest revenue when compared to the harvest revenue in Monroe County statistical areas. If this potential loss of harvest revenue is evenly distributed across the 521 vessels, the average annual loss per vessel would be $1,900. Although profit loss is not analyzed here, the loss in profit would be smaller than the loss of harvest revenue. The loss of profit considers the avoided costs of not spending effort (time and money) to catch the fish, where the harvest revenue does not. Further, as stated earlier, most targeted zones are small, and it is unlikely that the maximum potential loss would occur. A significant reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected from the proposed rule in the lobster fishery.
On average (2011-2014), there were 1,140 vessels with valid permits that actively fished (had landings) in the Gulf of Mexico Shrimp Fishery. From 2011-2014 the average annual gross revenue was about $413,900 for vessels with a shrimp moratorium permit (GMFMC, 2019). There are 108 vessels on average (from 2015-2019) that may be affected by this proposed rule.
From 2014-2018, the average number of vessels with a valid permit that actively fished (had landings) in the South Atlantic Shrimp Fishery was 262 (SAFMC, 2020). However, in the South Atlantic fishery, zero vessels that reported shrimp landings would be affected by the proposed rule.
These commercial fishing businesses are believed to be small entities. However, it is assumed that this proposed rule would not affect a substantial number of small entities. Less than 10 percent of vessels in the Gulf of Mexico fishery and zero percent of vessels in the South Atlantic fishery would be affected.
The proposed zone changes in the proposed rule are not expected to affect the South Atlantic shrimp fishery. Within the Gulf of Mexico shrimp fishery, there is a de minimis effect that is expected. Small marginal areas of existing zones that were previously closed to shrimping will be opened, while other areas that have been closed may see minor increases in size due to slight boundary changes. Although the analysis found the resulting estimated benefit of $5 of harvest revenue occurring across the fishery, it is likely that these small boundary changes will have no economic impact or alter the location of effort. Consequently, a significant reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected from the proposed rule in the shrimp fishery.
This proposed rule would apply to all commercial fishing businesses that harvest stone crab in sanctuary waters. On average (2015-2019), there were 754 commercial fishing vessels with recorded landings of stone crab in Florida, but on average 282 of these vessels (2015-2019) harvested stone crab in the statistical areas that contain marine zones that are affected by the proposed rule. In the absence of more specific data, it is assumed that a maximum of 282 vessels may be affected within the stone crab fishery. The stone crab commercial fishing vessels are believed to be small entities, it is assumed that this proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities.
The maximum potential loss of harvest revenue across all vessels from the proposed rule is roughly $37,700. Within Monroe County statistical subareas, the average annual total harvest revenue was $20.2 million. The maximum potential loss represents a potential loss of 0.2 percent of harvest revenue from the Monroe County statistical areas. Given the information above, a significant reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected from the proposed rule. Although profit loss is not analyzed here, the loss in profit would be smaller than the loss of harvest revenue. The loss of profit considers the avoided costs of not spending effort (time and money) to catch the fish, where the harvest revenue does not.
Table 3 provides a summary of the maximum average harvest revenue and maximum average revenue to the various fisheries provided in this section based upon their total catch. These numbers include total catch, regardless of targeted species. Additionally, the estimated loss of harvest revenue because of the proposed zone changes are provided, along with the loss of revenue on average to each vessel that reported fishing in the affected statistical areas. The last column provides information on the percent of total average annual harvest revenue lost per vessel. Except for the lobster fishery, losses are expected to be less than one percent. The lobster fishery vessels may experience a loss of roughly two percent. The losses are assumed to be evenly distributed across vessels operating in the statistical subareas affected by the proposed zone changes. Data on the costs, harvest revenues, and profits to individual businesses are not available to NOAA.
This estimate of losses is considered the maximum potential loss (MPL). This MPL is not expected to occur. First, the MPL is based on gross revenue, which does not consider a reduction in costs (
Most targeted zones are small, and it is unlikely that the maximum potential loss would occur. The Restoration Areas—Nursery, a new type of zone, are all roughly a half square kilometer or less in size. This new zone type results in an additional 2.4 square kilometers being added as transit only areas. Wildlife Management Areas may vary in regulations from idle speed, no wake, no motor, and no entry. In total, 4.0 square kilometers of area will be converted or expanded to Wildlife Management Areas. The smallest zone change proposed is 0.001 square kilometers and
For hire recreational fishing includes both charter and headboats. Charter boats, generally, are fishing vessels that are hired to take up to six anglers on a fishing trip. Typically, the charge is on a per-trip basis. Headboats usually operate on a schedule, and may provide several trips in a single day, taking many different fishing parties at a time. The charge is on a per-person basis. Headboats are usually larger and able to accommodate more anglers than a charter boat. Headboats are defined in Souza & Liese, 2019 as vessels with a passenger capacity of 18 or more individuals or were included in the Southeast Region Headboat Survey, and make up less than ten percent of permit holders (This definition differs from the NMFS definition.) There were 172 headboats identified, of which 51 percent (or 87 vessels) operated within Florida (Souza & Liese, 2019).
The summary provided here is for federally permitted for-hire vessels. In 2017 (from September to October) 1,166 charter vessels were identified to have active permits in the South Atlantic of which 29 percent reported they had not taken a trip within the past year, yielding 828 active charter vessels in the South Atlantic. Within the Gulf of Mexico, 956 charter vessels were identified with 24 percent of vessels reporting they were not active within the last year. Only active vessels would be affected by this proposed rule (Souza & Liese, 2019). There are 828 charter vessels associated with the South Atlantic that may be affected and 727 charter vessels that may be affected within the Gulf of Mexico.
The maximum average annual gross revenue for a headboat in the South Atlantic in 2017 was about $779,100. On average, annual gross revenue for charter vessels is less than half of that for headboats, so it is assumed that the maximum annual gross revenue for charter vessels in the South Atlantic is less than $779,100 (85 FR 43135; July 16, 2020). As of 2018, annual average gross revenue was estimated to be approximately $89,600 for for-hire charter vessels in the Gulf of Mexico (85 FR 43135; July 16, 2020). In 2017, the maximum annual gross revenue for a single headboat in the Gulf of Mexico was about $1.3 million, so it was assumed that the maximum annual gross revenue for a single charter vessel was less than $1.3 million (85 FR 45363; July 28, 2020). The annual average revenue for headboats in the southeast region (
The average trip revenue including labor for South Atlantic charters is $554, for Gulf of Mexico charters it is $781 and for the southeast headboat it is $1,815. The average number of passengers are 4.7, 5.5 and 28.2, respectively (Souza & Liese, 2019). However, the proposed zones are small and headboat fishing is not dependent upon specific species being harvested, even if passengers may have a target in mind.
It was estimated that the average annual mean effort of person-trips from charter vessels from 2014-2018 is 117,119 (MRIP, 2020). As a result of the proposed rule, up to 424 days of person activity (or 0.36 percent) may be lost. The trips lost are associated with the South Atlantic, and may result in a total of roughly $50,000 revenue lost on average each year (average trip revenue*number of lost person-days/average number of people per trip in the South Atlantic). The distribution of this loss is not known. It is likely that both charter operations and passengers will adapt to locations outside of the targeted marine zones with the targeted fish or catch other species. A significant reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected from the proposed rule.
This section considers the number of small businesses operating within the non-consumptive recreation industry and the potential effects on those businesses. Businesses considered within this industry include dive and snorkeling operations, rental equipment operations, wildlife viewing operations and other businesses that either utilize or whose customers utilize sanctuary resources, but do not take resources.
There are currently thirty recognized Blue Star dive/snorkeling operators (M. Tumolo, Pers. Comm. 2021). However, this number should be viewed as a minimum and it regularly changes as operations close and other operators sign up for the program. The exact number of dive and snorkeling operations is not known as many of these small businesses do not operate from brick and mortar locations. Further, using Trip Advisor, there were several operations identified for other watersports (Table 5). The table does not reflect the unique number of businesses, as those that provide multiple services may be identified in multiple rows. Utilizing NAICS code 487210 (scenic and sightseeing transportation), the U.S. Census identifies 73 establishments in 2017 in Monroe County, Florida (U.S. Census, 2021b).
Based upon site knowledge, these non-consumptive businesses are believed to be small entities, it is assumed that this proposed rule would affect a substantial number of small entities.
Although some of the proposed marine zone boundary changes will affect activity, the majority of zones that limit activity are small. The Conservation Areas will see an increase of 49.3 square kilometers being converted to transit only areas. Ecological Reserves and Special Use Areas under current regulations will be renamed Conservation Areas under the proposed rule. Further, 46.5 square kilometers are located in the Tortugas South Conservation Area, and are not frequented often by operations because the area only allows transit, this means only 2.8 square kilometers of Conservation Areas are likely to affect non-consumptive recreation businesses. Tortugas North Conservation Area allows activity if the user has an access permit.
The Restoration Areas—Nursery, a new type of zone, are all roughly a half square kilometer or less in size. This new zone type results in an additional 2.4 square kilometers being added as transit only areas. Lastly, Wildlife Management Areas may vary in regulations from idle speed, no wake, no motor, and no entry. In total, 4.0 square kilometers of area will be converted or expanded to Wildlife Management Areas. The smallest zone proposed is 0.001 square kilometers and the largest zone change was 0.56 square kilometers in size.
Estimates on revenue, costs and profitability of non-consumptive business are not available. However, the zone changes being proposed, except for Tortugas South Conservation Area (46.5 sq. km) and Tennessee Reef Conservation Area (1.8 sq. km) are all roughly a half square kilometer or less. Further, these additional protections will help to conserve and sustain resources to ensure the future health of the individual reefs and consequently the larger reef tract to ensure its existence and use of FKNMS to support businesses.
Further, some of the zones and/or expanded areas of the zones are proposed to be no anchor. This may affect small businesses if there is not a sufficient number of mooring buoys available. In addition to the marine zone boundary changes, the proposed sanctuary wide regulation requires vessels 65 feet in length or greater to use a large vessel mooring buoy may affect non-consumptive recreation entities. However, as part of the management action, the site plans to work with the Sanctuary Advisory Council to determine the number and locations where large vessel moorings are needed. The intent of these regulations is primarily to protect sensitive reef habitat by building better infrastructure to support access to these areas. As a result of the information above, a significant reduction in profits for a substantial number of small entities is not expected as a result of the proposed rule.
Due to the lack of quantitative data on the number of businesses directly affected by the proposed rule and their levels of revenues, costs, and profits from their activities within the sanctuary, the analysis provided here is qualitative. The types of small entities that may be impacted by the proposed rule include cruise lines, non-consumptive and consumptive recreational charter businesses, and commercial fishing businesses.
In this analysis, NOAA concluded that the impacts to small business entities that were analyzed would be no effect or negligible. No effect means that the proposed action would have no impact to small entities, and negligible means that the proposed rule would cause less than 1 percent change to small businesses and no likely impact to revenue, costs, and profits.
The costs to cruise ship businesses are minimal to non-existent since they can discharge once outside sanctuary boundaries. Additionally, cruise ships are limited to the Key West ship channel and spend little time transiting the sanctuary. Any costs associated with the discharge regulations would be minor compared to overall costs of operating a cruise ship.
Temporary regulations allow the sanctuary to prevent or minimize the destruction of, loss of, or injury to sanctuary resources or the quality of the resources upon which many small businesses (
The revised historical resources permitting system would eliminate deaccession/transfer permits, thereby removing the ability of individuals to take private possession of historic resources. This will not have any economic effects because the sanctuary has never issued any such permits. This proposed rule would have no effect on small entities.
The fish feeding regulation would not apply to feeding for the purpose of harvesting marine species during traditional fishing. There are very few non-consumptive recreational operations in FKNMS that conduct fish feeding activities. There is a lack of data on how fish feeding activities generate revenue for small businesses. Existing eco-tour operators may seek an ONMS permit for fish feeding if they are able to satisfy all general permit application requirements and review criteria, which would serve to mitigate any costs associated with the proposed rule. This proposed rule would have negligible effects on small entities.
The grounding or desertion of vessels is not essential to the operations of any type of small entity in the sanctuary. Additionally, any costs to small entities to remove derelict and/or abandoned vessels are minimal compared to their liability if the derelict or abandoned vessel damages sanctuary resources or damage assessment cases are brought against those who damage sanctuary resources. The proposed rule would have negligible effects on small entities.
In conjunction with this regulation, NOAA will work with user groups to ensure that an adequate number of large vessel mooring buoys are available and sited at appropriate locations. Accordingly, this proposed rule would have no effect on small entities.
The proposed regulation only applies to catch and release fishing, so commercial fishing operations would not be impacted. Isolating the effects of the regulation to specific charter fishing businesses is not possible given the spatial limitations of the data available. However, the spatial extent of the SPAs where this activity is currently allowed is small and any costs to small entities are likely to be offset by spatial substitution to similar areas nearby. Accordingly, costs to small entities would be negligible.
The FKNMS baitfish permit database does not contain information on businesses affiliated with permit holders. However, it is assumed that some of these permit holders use baitfish catch for either commercial fishing operations or charter fishing operations. Estimated average annual replacement costs per active permit holder (
This proposed regulation is an administrative change that would result in no costs to small entities.
The proposed regulatory action would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements.
No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting federal rules have been identified.
This proposed rule, if implemented, is not expected to reduce the profits of any small businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule. This is in part due to the potential for substitution of location for activities and that the proposed rule is informed by and responsive to comments from the potentially impacted user groups (
This proposed regulatory action, if implemented, is not expected to reduce the profits of any small businesses directly regulated by this proposed rule. As a result, the issue of significant alternatives is not relevant. The proposed regulatory action would not establish any new reporting or record-keeping requirements. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting federal rules have been identified. The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The existing FKNMS regulations contain a collection-of-information requirement for persons making an application for a permit. This collection of information is subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA), approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), under control number 0648-0141 (expires November 30, 2024), for collection-of-information for reporting and recordkeeping requirements under 15 CFR part 922. This proposed rule would not increase or otherwise revise the existing paperwork burdens.
The public reporting burden for national marine sanctuary general permit applications is estimated to average 1 hour 30 minutes per application, including the time for reviewing the application instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. For special use permits, a collection-of-
NOAA does not expect that this proposed rule would appreciably change the average annual number of respondents or the reporting burden for the information requirements supporting general or special use permits, authorization permits, or certification permits because sanctuary boundaries, marine zones, and regulations are not being modified in such a way that a significant number of new permits would be expected or required. Uses that require permits are anticipated to continue with similar frequencies as current operations. NOAA believes that the proposed regulations do not necessitate a modification to its information collection approval by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act. However, an increase in the number of ONMS permit requests would require a change to the reporting burden certified for OMB control number 0648-0141. While not expected, if such permit requests do increase, an update to this control number for the processing of ONMS permits would be requested.
Comments regarding this burden estimate, or any other aspect of this data collection, including suggestions for reducing the burden, may be sent to NOAA (see
(i) 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;
(ii) 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;
(iii) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(iv) 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,
The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA; 54 U.S.C. 300101
In coordinating its responsibilities under Section 106 of the NHPA with release of the 2019 DEIS, NOAA solicited for and identified potential consulting parties, identified historic properties in the area of potential effects, and assessed the effects of the undertaking on such properties in consultations with those identified parties. NOAA received official comment letters from the Florida State Historic Preservation Officer, the Seminole Tribe of Florida, non-governmental organizations, associations, sanctuary historical resource permittees, and other interested members of the public. Pursuant to
Once this rule is final, NOAA will continue coordination with SHPO, ACHP, and other consulting parties to finalize the draft
Section 307 of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA; 16 U.S.C. 1456) requires Federal agencies to conduct their activities in a manner that is consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of a state's coastal management program if such activities will affect any coastal uses or resources of the State. NOAA provided copies of the DEIS to the State of Florida and requested that the State identify any enforceable policies of its coastal management program applicable to the proposed action. In compliance with the CZMA, NOAA will prepare a consistency determination and submit it to the State of Florida before publishing the final rule.
Comments are welcome on any and all aspects of the proposed rule, and we request any data that may further inform impacts of the proposed action.
Administrative practice and procedure, Coastal zone, Fishing gear, Incorporation by reference, Marine
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, NOAA is proposing to amend 15 CFR part 922 (as amended by 87 FR 29606, May 13, 2002; delayed at 87 FR 37729, June 24, 2022) as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1431
Subpart P also issued under Public Law 101-605.
(a) The purpose of the regulations in this subpart is to implement the comprehensive management plan for the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary by regulating activities affecting the resources of the sanctuary or any of the qualities, values, or purposes for which the sanctuary is designated, in order to protect, preserve, and manage the conservation, ecological, recreational, research, educational, historical, and aesthetic resources and qualities of the area. In particular, the regulations in this subpart are intended to protect, restore, and enhance the living resources of the sanctuary, contribute to the maintenance of natural assemblages of living resources for future generations, provide places for species dependent on such living resources to survive and propagate, facilitate to the extent compatible with the primary objective of resource protection all public and private uses of the resources of the sanctuary not prohibited under other authorities, reduce conflicts between such compatible uses, and achieve the other policies and purposes of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act and the National Marine Sanctuaries Act.
(b) Section 304(e) of the NMSA requires the Secretary to review management plans and regulations every five years, and make necessary revisions. Upon completion of the five-year review of the sanctuary management plan and regulations, the Secretary will re-propose the regulations in their entirety with any proposed changes thereto. The Governor of the State of Florida will have the opportunity to review the re-proposed regulations before they take effect and if the Governor certifies any such regulation as unacceptable, it will not take effect in State waters of the sanctuary.
The sanctuary consists of an area of approximately 3622 square nautical miles (nmi2) (4797 sq. mi.) of coastal and ocean waters, and the submerged lands thereunder, surrounding the Florida Keys in Florida. Appendix A to this subpart sets forth the precise sanctuary boundary.
(a) The following definitions apply to the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary regulations. Other terms appearing in the regulations in this part are defined at 15 CFR 922.11, and/or in the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MRPSA), as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1401
(1) The vessel is taking on or has taken on water without an effective means to dewater;
(2) Spaces on the vessel that are designed to be enclosed are incapable of being sealed off or remain open to the elements;
(3) The vessel has broken loose or is in danger of breaking loose from its anchor or mooring;
(4) The vessel is left or stored aground unattended in such a state that would prevent the vessel from getting underway, is listing due to water intrusion, or is sunk or partially sunk; or
(5) The vessel does not have an effective means of propulsion for safe navigation within 72 hours after the vessel owner or operator receives telephonic or written notice, which may be provided by facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic means, stating such from the Director, and the vessel owner or operator is unable to provide a receipt, proof of purchase, or other documentation of having arranged for vessel repair.
(1) Is a vessel of the United States;
(2) Operates on the navigable waters of the United States; or
(3) Transfers oil or hazardous material in a port or place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (46 U.S.C. 2101).
(a) Except as specified in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, the following activities are prohibited and thus are unlawful for any person to conduct or to cause to be conducted:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) Anchoring vessels in a manner not otherwise prohibited by this subpart;
(ii) Traditional fishing activities not otherwise prohibited by this subpart;
(iii) Installation and maintenance of navigational aids by, or pursuant to valid authorization by, any Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction;
(iv) Dredging within Key West Harbor, its approach channels, and turning basins, only in Federally dredged areas in existence as of July 1, 1997;
(v) Construction, repair, replacement, or rehabilitation of minor structures including docks, swim/observation platforms, floating vessel platforms, boat ramps, boat notches, boat lifts, mooring piles, seawalls, rip rap revetments, culverts, bulkheads, piers, or marinas with less than ten slips authorized by any valid lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization issued by any Federal, State, or local authority of competent jurisdiction; or
(vi) Placement of approved rock material pursuant to the terms and conditions of an aquaculture live rock permit issued by the National Marine Fisheries Service or a Florida Sovereignty Submerged Land Live Rock Aquaculture Lease issued by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services.
(4)
(ii) Within the boundary of the sanctuary, discharging or depositing any material or other matter from a vessel other than a cruise ship, except:
(A) Fish, fish parts, chumming materials, or bait used or generated incidental to and while conducting traditional fishing in the sanctuary;
(B) Cooling water, deck washdown, and graywater, discharged in compliance with 33 U.S.C. 1322
(iii) Beyond the boundary of the sanctuary, discharging or depositing any material or other matter that subsequently enters the sanctuary and injures a sanctuary resource or quality, except:
(A) Those listed in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of this section;
(B) Sewage from a vessel in compliance with United States Coast Guard regulations at 33 CFR 159.7;
(C) Those authorized under Monroe County land use permits; or
(D) Those authorized under State of Florida permits.
(5)
(A) The owner and/or operator of any vessel that has been operated in a manner described in paragraph (a)(5)(i) introductory text of this section must notify the Director of such an event within 24 hours after its occurrence. Unless otherwise prohibited or restricted by the United States Coast Guard, the owner and/or operator must remove or cause the removal of the vessel within 72 hours after the initial incident unless the Director agrees that extenuating circumstances such as weather or marine hazards would prevent safe removal of the vessel. The owner and/or operator must remove or cause the removal of the vessel in a manner that avoids injury to sanctuary resources and shall consult with the Director in accomplishing this task.
(B) [Reserved].
(ii) Anchoring a vessel on living coral.
(iii) Except in officially marked channels, operating a vessel at a speed greater than idle speed no wake within:
(A) An area designated as idle speed no wake;
(B) 300 feet (100 yards) of navigational aids indicating emergent or shallow reefs (international diamond warning symbol);
(C) 300 feet (100 yards) of residential shorelines; or
(D) 300 feet (100 yards) of a stationary vessel.
(iv) Operating a vessel at a speed greater than idle speed no wake less than 100 feet (33.3 yards) from a divers‐down flag on an inlet or navigation channel; or less than 300 feet (100 yards) from a divers-down flag on all waters other than inlets and navigation channels.
(v) Operating a vessel in such a manner as to injure wading, roosting, or nesting birds, or marine mammals.
(vi) Operating a vessel in a manner that endangers life, limb, marine resources, or property.
(vii) Having a marine sanitation device that is not secured in a manner that prevents discharges or deposits of treated or untreated sewage. Acceptable methods include, but are not limited to, all methods that have been approved by the United States Coast Guard.
(viii) Anchoring, mooring, or occupying a vessel at risk of becoming derelict, or deserting a vessel aground, at anchor, moored, or adrift in the sanctuary.
(ix) Leaving harmful matter aboard a grounded or deserted vessel in the sanctuary.
(x) Tying a large vessel to a mooring buoy not specifically designated for large vessels, or tying a vessel other than a large vessel to a mooring buoy specifically designated for large vessels.
(6)
(i) Divers must stay within 100 feet (33.3 yards) of the divers‐down flag on inlets and navigation channels.
(ii) Divers must stay within 300 feet (100 yards) of the divers‐down flag on all waters in the sanctuary other than rivers, inlets, and navigation channels.
(7)
(8)
(9)
(10)
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(b)
(2) In the event of threatened or actual destruction of, loss of, or injury to a sanctuary resource or quality, including but not limited to spills and groundings caused by the Department of Defense, the cognizant component of the Department of Defense shall promptly coordinate with the Director for the purpose of taking appropriate actions to prevent, respond to, or mitigate the harm and, if possible, restore or replace the sanctuary resource or quality.
(c)
(1) Those contained in paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(5), and (a)(8) through (a)(12) of this section;
(2) Those contained in paragraph (a)(4), except that all discharges of sewage must be in compliance with United States Coast Guard regulations at 33 CFR 159.7;
(3) Those contained in § 922.164(b)(1), (2) and (4); and
(4) Those contained in § 922.164(d) through (h).
(d) In no event may the Director issue a permit, including a certification or authorization, under § 922.10, subpart D of this part, § 922.166, or § 922.167 authorizing, or otherwise approving, the exploration for, leasing, development, or production of minerals or hydrocarbons within the sanctuary, the disposal of dredged material within the sanctuary other than in connection with beach renourishment or sanctuary restoration projects, or the discharge of untreated or primary treated sewage, and any purported authorizations issued by other authorities for any of these activities within the sanctuary shall be invalid.
In addition to the prohibitions set forth in § 922.163, which apply throughout the sanctuary, the following regulations apply with respect to activities conducted within the sanctuary areas described in this section and in appendices B through I to this subpart.
(a)
(b)
(1) Removing, collecting, damaging, harming, breaking, cutting, spearing, or similarly injuring, or possessing, in or from the management area, any coral or other marine invertebrate, or any plant, soil, rock, or other material, except that commercial harvesting of spiny lobster and stone crab by trap and recreational harvesting of spiny lobster by hand or by hand gear is allowed if consistent with the regulations in this part and regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
(2) Collecting or harvesting tropical fish.
(3) Fishing with wire fish traps, bottom trawls, dredges, fish sleds, or similar vessel-towed or anchored bottom fishing gear or nets.
(4) Fishing with, carrying, or possessing pole spears, air rifles, bows and arrows, slings, Hawaiian slings, rubber powered arbaletes, pneumatic and spring-loaded guns, or similar devices known as spearguns.
(c)
(d)
(e)
(1) Discharging or depositing any material or other matter, except cooling water from vessels.
(2) Moving, harvesting, removing, collecting, damaging, disturbing, breaking, cutting, spearing, otherwise injuring, or possessing, in or from the area, any coral, marine invertebrate, fish, bottom formation, algae, seagrass or other living or dead organism, including shells, or attempting any of these activities. However, fish, invertebrates, and marine plants may be possessed aboard a vessel provided that the vessel remains in continuous transit without interruption.
(3) Anchoring a vessel.
(f)
(1) Conducting any activity prohibited at 922.164(e)(1) and 922.164(e)(2).
(2) Anchoring a vessel, except in the Western Sambo Conservation Area where anchoring is allowed landward of the line connecting the points 24.498774, -81.725441 and 24.504693, -81.693012.
(3) Entering a Conservation Area other than the Western Sambo Conservation Area, except for continuous transit without interruption.
(g)
(1) Conducting any activity prohibited at 922.164(e).
(h)
(1) Conducting any activity prohibited at 922.164(e).
(2) Entering any Restoration Area—Nursery, except for continuous transit without interruption.
(a) Any and all activities are subject to temporary regulation, including prohibition of any activity, restriction of access or uses, or designation or modification of any areas identified in §§ 922.164(d) through (h), subject to the limitations in this section.
(b) The Director may temporarily regulate activities in the sanctuary only if the Director determines, based on the best available information, that immediate action is reasonably necessary to:
(1) Prevent or minimize destruction of, loss of, or injury to sanctuary resources, or risk of the same, from any human-made or natural circumstances. These circumstances may include, but are not limited to, a concentration of human-use, change in migratory or habitat use patterns, vessel impacts, natural disaster or similar emergency, disease, or bleaching;
(2) Initiate restoration, recovery, or other activity to improve or repair living habitats and species where a delay in time would impair the ability of such activity to succeed; or
(3) Initiate research where an unforeseen event produces an opportunity for scientific research that may be lost if research is not initiated immediately.
(c) Any temporary regulation issued under this section shall be subject to the following procedure:
(1) No temporary regulation issued under this section will take effect until the Director:
(i) Files the proposed temporary regulation for public inspection with the Office of the Federal Register; and,
(ii) Finds for good cause that notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553, is impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
(2) The Director shall receive public comments on the necessity for, and extent of, the temporary regulation for a period of 15 days after the effective date of notification.
(3) Notification of temporary regulation issued by the Director under this section will include the following information:
(i) A description of the regulation;
(ii) Reason(s) for the regulation under paragraph (b) of this section, and the good cause determinations required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
(iii) The effective date and any termination date of such regulation.
(d) Any temporary regulation may be in effect for up to six months (180 days), with one six-month (additional 186-day) extension. Any extension requires the same procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) to (c)(3) of this section. Additional or extended action beyond 365 days will require notice and comment rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553.
(e) Temporary regulations under this section shall not take effect in Florida State waters until approved by the Governor of the State of Florida.
(f) It is prohibited for any person to violate any temporary regulation imposed under this section.
(a)
(2) The Director, at his or her discretion, may issue a general permit under this section subject to such terms and conditions as he or she deems appropriate, if the Director finds that the activity falls within one of the general permit categories at § 922.30(b) or one of the following categories:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(b)
(2) Applications for general permits for Tortugas North Conservation Area shall be requested via telephone to FKNMS at (305) 809-4700 or by email to
(i) Vessel name;
(ii) Name, address, and telephone number of owner and operator;
(iii) Name, address, and telephone number of applicant;
(iv) USCG documentation, state license, or registration number;
(v) Home port;
(vi) Length of vessel and propulsion type (
(vii) Number of divers; and
(viii) Requested effective date (date of ingress) and date of egress. General permits for Tortugas North Conservation Area Access shall be issued for a period not exceeding two weeks.
(c)
(2)
(i) The applicant is a supervising archaeologist responsible for project planning, field operations, research analysis, and reporting, and who will directly supervise and be on site for any excavation and/or historical resource recovery operations. A supervising archaeologist shall have underwater archaeological experience related to the research proposed and shall meet the requirements for prehistoric or historic archaeology in the “Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Archaeology and Historic Preservation,” which are:
(A) A graduate degree in archaeology, anthropology, or closely related field;
(B) At least one year of full-time professional experience or equivalent specialized training in archaeological research, administration, or management;
(C) At least four months of supervised field and analytic experience in general North American archaeology;
(D) Demonstrated ability to carry research to completion; and
(E) A professional in prehistoric archaeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of prehistoric period archaeological resources. A professional in historic archaeology shall have at least one year of full-time professional experience at a supervisory level in the study of historic period archaeological resources;
(ii) The applicant commits to following an explicit statement of objectives and methods that respond to needs identified in the planning process;
(iii) The methods and techniques of the proposed activity are selected to obtain the information required by the statement of objectives; and
(iv) The applicant commits to assess the results against the statement of objectives and integrate them into the planning process.
(3)
(d)
(i) Except for Tortugas North Conservation Area Access Permits, the signed permit or a copy thereof shall be maintained in legible condition on board all vessels or aircraft used in the conduct of the permitted activity and be displayed for inspection upon the request of any authorized officer;
(ii) All permitted activities shall be conducted in a manner that does not destroy, cause the loss of, or injure sanctuary resources or qualities, except to the extent that such may be specifically authorized;
(iii) The permittee agrees to hold the United States harmless against any claims arising out of the conduct of the permitted activities; and
(iv) All necessary Federal, State, and/or local leases, permits, licenses, approvals, or other authorizations from all agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed activities shall be secured before commencing any activities authorized pursuant to a sanctuary permit.
(2) General permits for archaeological research shall be subject to the terms and conditions in paragraph (d)(1) of
(i) An agreement with a conservation laboratory shall be in place before historical resource recovery operations begin, where a qualified marine archaeological materials conservator shall be in charge of planning, conducting, and supervising the conservation of any historical resources and other materials recovered. To be considered a qualified marine archaeological materials conservator, the individual shall have a graduate degree in archaeology, history, anthropology, or science with experience conserving archaeological materials recovered from the marine environment documented in a Curriculum Vitae and professional references; and
(ii) A curation agreement with a museum or facility for curation, public access, periodic public display, and maintenance of the recovered historical resources shall be in place before commencing field operations involving historical resource recovery. The curation facility shall meet the requirements of 36 CFR part 79.
(3) The Director, at his or her discretion, may subject a general permit, special use permit, or authorization issued under this section of subpart D of this part to such additional terms and conditions as he or she deems appropriate. These may include but are not limited to the following:
(i) Any data, information, or results obtained pursuant to the permit shall be made available to NOAA and the public;
(ii) A NOAA official shall be allowed to observe any activity conducted pursuant to the permit;
(iii) The permittee shall submit to NOAA one or more reports on the status, progress, or results of any activity authorized by the permit, including all revenues derived from such activities during the year and/or term of the permit, as applicable; and
(iv) The permittee shall purchase and maintain general liability insurance or other acceptable security against potential claims for destruction, loss of, or injury to sanctuary resources arising out of the permitted activities. The amount of insurance or security should be commensurate with an estimated value of the sanctuary resources in the permitted area. A copy of the insurance policy or security instrument shall be submitted to the Director.
(a) Except as noted at § 922.163(d), a person may conduct an activity prohibited by § 922.163 or 922.164 within the sanctuary expansion area, or an activity within the sanctuary or expansion area that is newly regulated by this subpart, if such activity is specifically authorized by a valid Federal, State, or local lease, permit, license, or right of subsistence use or of access that is in existence on the effective date of the revised terms of designation, provided that the holder of the lease, permit, license, or right of subsistence use or of access complies with § 922.10 and provided that:
(1) The holder of such authorization or right notifies the Director, in writing, within 90 days of the effective date of the revised terms of designation of the existence and location of such authorization or right and requests certification of such authorization or right; and
(2) The holder complies with any terms and conditions on the exercise of such authorization or right imposed as a condition of certification, by the Director, to achieve the purposes for which the sanctuary was designated.
(b) Requests for certifications shall be addressed to the Superintendent, Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, 33 East Quay Road, Key West, FL 33040 or sent by electronic means as defined in the instructions for the ONMS permit application. A copy of the lease, permit, license, or right of subsistence use or of access must accompany the request.
(c) A certification requester with an authorization or right described in paragraph (a) of this section authorizing an activity prohibited by § 922.163 or 922.164 may continue to conduct the activity without being in violation of applicable provisions of § 922.163 or 922.164, pending the Director's review of and decision regarding his or her certification request.
(d) The Director may request additional information from the certification requester as the Director deems reasonably necessary to condition appropriately the exercise of the certified authorization or right to achieve the purposes for which the sanctuary was designated. The Director must receive the information requested within 45 days of the date of the Director's request for information. Failure to provide the requested information within this time frame may be grounds for denial by the Director of the certification request.
(e) In considering whether to issue a certification, the Director may seek and consider the views of any other person or entity, within or outside the Federal government, and may hold a public hearing as deemed appropriate by the Director.
(f) Upon completion of review of the authorization or right and information received with respect thereto, the Director shall communicate, in writing, any decision on a certification request or any action taken with respect to any certification made under this section, in writing, to both the holder of the certified lease, permit, license, approval, other authorization, or right, and the issuing agency, and shall set forth the reason(s) for the decision or action taken.
(g) The Director may amend, suspend, or revoke any certification issued under this section whenever continued operation would otherwise be inconsistent with any terms or conditions of the certification. Any such action shall be forwarded in writing to both the certification holder and the agency that issued the underlying lease, permit, license, or right of subsistence use or of access, and shall set forth reason(s) for the action taken.
(h) The Director may amend any certification issued under this section whenever additional information becomes available that he or she determines justifies such an amendment.
(i) Any time limit prescribed in or established under this section may be extended by the Director for good cause.
(j) It is unlawful for any person to violate any terms and conditions in a certification issued under this section.
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. All approved incorporation by reference (IBR) material is available for inspection at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). Contact NOAA at: the Office of National Marine Sanctuaries (ONMS), 1305 East-West Highway, Silver Spring, MD 20910; phone (301) 713-3125; website:
(a)
(1) 1996 FL Keys NMS FMP/EIS (Vol. II). Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Final Management Plan/Environment Impact Statement, Volume II of III—Development of the Management Plan: Environmental Impact Statement, 1996; IBR into § 922.162.
(2) [Reserved]
(b)
(1)
(2)
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (sanctuary) encompasses an area of 3,622 square nautical miles (4,797 square miles) of coastal, ocean, and Gulf of Mexico waters and the submerged lands thereunder from the boundary to the shoreline as defined by the mean high water tidal datum surrounding the Florida Keys in southern Florida.
The sanctuary boundary begins approximately 4 miles east of the northern extent of Key Biscayne at Point 1 and continues roughly south and then southwest and west in numerical order to Point 15 approximately 27 miles SW of Loggerhead Key. From Point 15 the sanctuary boundary continues north to Point 17 which is approximately 18 miles NW of Loggerhead Key and then continues roughly east in numerical order to Point 23 just north of Sprigger Bank. From Point 23 the boundary continues in numerical order roughly SE to Point 26 just north of Old Dan Bank. From Point 26 the boundary continues NE in numerical order through Bowlegs Cut and Steamboat Channel to Point 42 near the southern entrance to Cowpens Cut west of Plantation Key.
From Point 42 the boundary continues towards Point 43 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly NNE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 44 and Point 45.
From this intersection the boundary continues NNE to Point 45 and then roughly NE in numerical order to Point 61 just west of Hammer Point in Tavernier, FL. From Point 61 the boundary continues in numerical order roughly north and then NW to Point 64 just west of Pigeon Key. From Point 64 the boundary continues in numerical order roughly NE then NNE through Baker Cut to Point 69. From Point 69 the boundary continues in numerical order roughly NE through Buttonwood Sound to Point 73.
From Point 73 the boundary continues towards Point 74 until it intersects the shoreline near the southern entrance to Grouper Creek west of Key Largo, FL. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NE along Grouper Creek until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 75 and Point 76. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 76 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 77 and Point 78.
From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 78 and then roughly ESE in numerical order through Tarpon Basin to Point 85. From Point 85 the boundary continues NE and then NW to Point 92.
From Point 92 the boundary continues towards Point 93 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly north along Dusenberry Creek until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 94 and Point 95.
From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 95 and then NE in numerical order through Blackwater Sound to Point 102 south of the entrance to Jewfish Creek.
From Point 102 the boundary continues towards Point 103 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly NNE and then NW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 104 and Point 105. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 105 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly NNE and then roughly west along southwestern Barnes Sound and around Division Point until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 106 and Point 107 near Manatee Creek east of Long Sound. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 107 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly NNW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 108 and Point 109. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 109 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 109 and 110. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 110 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly north and then NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 111 and Point 112. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 112 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly east and then north around Bay Point and then west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 113 and Point 114. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 114 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north along the western side of Manatee Bay until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 115 and Point 116. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 116 until it intersects the shoreline.
From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline around northern Manatee Bay and Barnes Sound until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 117 and Point 118. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 118 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly to the SE south of FL State Route 905A—Card Sound Road then NW and roughly north along western Little Card Sound and then Card Sound cutting off the mouths of canals and drainage ditches until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 119 and Point 120 south of Midnight Pass. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 120 and then roughly SE to each successive point in numerical order approximating the southern boundary of Biscayne National Park to Point 142 approximately 3 miles ENE of Turtle Rocks. From Point 142 the boundary continues roughly N to each successive point in numerical order ending at Point 158.
The inner landward sanctuary boundary is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified in the description above.
Pulley Ridge, located along the southwest Florida Shelf in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, is included as a part of the FKNMS, and the sanctuary boundary for this area begins approximately 52 miles NW of Loggerhead Key at Point PR1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order ending at Point PR9.
Dry Tortugas National Park is not included within the FKNMS and the inner sanctuary boundary in this area is coterminous with this national park boundary and begins at Point DT1 and continues in numerical order counterclockwise around the national park ending at Point DT10.
Coordinates listed in this appendix are unprojected (Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983.
Coordinates listed in this appendix are unprojected (Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983.
The boundary for the following Area to be Avoided zones begins at Point 1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order until ending at the zone's last point as listed in its specific coordinate table.
Coordinates listed in this appendix are unprojected (Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983.
The boundary for the following Management Area zones begins at each individual zone's Point 1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order until ending at that same zone's last point as listed in its specific coordinate table.
Coordinates listed in this appendix are unprojected (Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983.
The seaward boundary for the Key West National Wildlife Refuge begins at Point 1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order until ending at Point 5. The inner landward boundary for Key West National Wildlife Refuge is defined by and follows the shoreline at mean high water.
The boundary description below only represents the marine portions of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge that fall within the sanctuary. The full Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge boundary was established by Executive Order 7993 in 1938, with additional islands acquired under the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C., S. 715).
The Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge boundary begins approximately 1.6 miles south of Cocoanut Key at Point 1 and continues west to Point 2 and then south to Point 3. From Point 3 the boundary continues west towards Point 4 until it intersects the shoreline at No Name Key. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 6 and then south towards Point 7 until it intersects the shoreline at Big Pine Key. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally north and then around to the south and then east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 8 and Point 9. From this intersection the boundary continues south to Point 9 and then west towards Point 10 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west and then north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 11 and Point 12. From this intersection the boundary continues north to Point 12 and then west towards Point 13 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 14 and Point 15. From this intersection the boundary continues north to Point 15 and then west towards Point 16 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north around the northern end of Big Pine Key and then generally south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 17 and Point 18. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 18 until it intersects
Personal watercraft are allowed within the following area inside Key West National Wildlife Refuge. The boundary for PWC Exception Area 1 begins at Point 1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order until ending at Point 4 in the following coordinate table:
Personal watercraft are allowed within the following area inside Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. The area begins just north of No Name Key at Point 1 and continues west towards Point 2 until it intersects the shoreline at No Name Key. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 3 and Point 4. From this intersection the boundary continues west to Point 4 then south towards Point 5 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NW then south and then east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 6 and Point 7. From this intersection the boundary continues south to Point 7 and then west towards Point 8 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 9 and Point 10. From this intersection the boundary continues north to Point 10 then east to Point 11 and then south to Point 12 where it ends. The inner landward boundary of this zone is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified.
Personal watercraft are allowed within the following area inside the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. This area begins on Howe Key at the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed by Point 1 and Point 2. From this intersection the boundary continues east towards Point 2 until it intersects the shoreline at Big Pine Key. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 3 and Point 4. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 4 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west and south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6. From this intersection the boundary continues west to Point 6 and then north towards Point 7 until it intersects the shoreline at Howe Key. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally south and east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 8 and Point 9 where it ends. The inner landward boundary of this zone is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified.
Personal watercraft are allowed within the following area inside the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. This area begins just west of Big Torch Key at Point 1 and continues west to Point 2 and then north towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 3 and Point 4. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 4 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary continues north to Point 5 and then east towards Point 6 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment between Point 6 and Point 7. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 7 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 7 and Point 8. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 8 until it intersects the shoreline at Big Torch Key. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 9 and Point 10. From this intersection the boundary continues south towards Point 10 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 11 and Point 12. From this intersection the boundary continues south to Point 12 where it ends. The inner landward boundary of this zone is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified.
Personal watercraft are allowed within the following area inside the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. This area begins just NW of Halfmoon Key at Point 1 and continues south to Point 2 and then west towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline at Big Coppitt Key. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary continues west to Point 5 and then north towards Point 6 until it intersects the shoreline at Duck Key. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline SW and then NW around Duck Key until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 7 and Point 8. From this intersection the boundary continues east to Point 8 where it ends. The inner landward boundary of this zone is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified.
Personal watercraft are allowed within the following area inside the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge. This area begins just north of Rockland Key at Point 1. From Point 1 the boundary continues south towards Point 2 until it intersects the shoreline at Rockland Key. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally south and west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 3 and Point 4. From this intersection the boundary continues west towards Point 4 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6. From this intersection the boundary continues north to Point 6 and then east to Point 7 where it ends. The inner landward boundary of this zone is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified.
Coordinates listed in this appendix are unprojected (Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983.
The access and use restriction for each zone is listed under the zone name and set forth at 15 CFR 922.164(d).
The boundary for the following Wildlife Management Areas begins at each individual zone's Point 1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order until ending at that same zone's last point as listed in its specific coordinate table.
The seaward boundary for the following Wildlife Management Areas begins at each individual zone's Point 1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order until ending at that same zone's last point as listed in its specific coordinate table. The inner landward boundary for each individual zone below is defined by and follows the shoreline at mean high water.
The wildlife management area boundary begins SW of Middle Key in the NW corner of Barnes Sound at the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 1 and Point 2. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally around to the NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 3 and Point 4. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 4 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary continues to follow the shoreline generally to the SW and then to the east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6. From this intersection the boundary continues SW to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 7 and Point 8 on Middle Key. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline around the western side of Middle Key until it intersects the line segment between Point 9 and Point 10. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 11 and Point 12 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 1 and Point 2 on Bay Keys. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 2 and then to the south and back generally to the north to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 29. From Point 29 the boundary continues towards Point 30 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary continues around the eastern side of Bay Keys until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 31 and Point 32. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 32 and to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 38. From Point 38 the boundary continues towards Point 39 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary continues around the western side of Bay Keys until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 40 and Point 41 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins just south of Boca Grande Key at Point 1. From Point 1 the boundary continues generally to the west and then north to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 29. From Point 29 the boundary continues towards Point 30 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline to the south and then east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 31 and Point 32. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 32 and then to each successive point in numerical order ending at Point 34.
The wildlife management area boundary begins just north of the mouth of Steamboat Creek on the Card Sound side North Key Largo at the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 1 and Point 2. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 2 and then generally NE to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 36. From Point 36 the boundary continues towards Point 37 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally to the SW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 38 and Point 39 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins just SW of the mouth of Steamboat Creek on the Barnes Sound side North Key Largo at the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 1 and Point 2. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 2 and then generally to the NW in Barnes Sound to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 158. From Point 158 the boundary continues generally to the east in Card Sound to Point 262 at the mouth of Steamboat Creek. From Point 262 the boundary continues towards Point 263 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally south along the western side of Steamboat Creek until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 264 and Point 265 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins just SW of the mouth of Steamboat Creek on the Barnes Sound side North Key Largo at the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 1 and Point 2. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 2 and then generally to the NW in Barnes Sound to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 8. From Point 8 the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 9 and Point 10. From this intersection the boundary follows the western shoreline around generally to the SE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 11 and Point 12 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins just SW of the mouth of Steamboat Creek on the Barnes Sound side North Key Largo at Point 1. From Point 1 the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 2 and Point 3. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally to the south and then SW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5 at the northern mouth of Jewfish Creek on Key Largo. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 5 in Barnes Sound and then generally to the NE and then north to each successive point in numerical order ending at Point 298.
The wildlife management area boundary begins in Lake Surprise on North Key Largo at Point 1. From Point 1 the boundary continues towards Point 2 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south around eastern Lake Surprise until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 3 and Point 4. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 4 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally SW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 6 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary continues generally NW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 7 and Point 8. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 9 and Point 10. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 10 and then generally NE to the successive points in numerical order until it reaches Point 65 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins in eastern Lake Surprise on North Key Largo at the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 1 and Point 2. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally to the SE and then to the NW until it intersects with the line segment formed between Point 2 and Point 3. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 3 until it ends at the intersection with the shoreline.
The wildlife management area boundary begins in northeastern Lake Surprise on North Key Largo at the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 1 and Point 2. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 2 and then generally SW to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 57. From Point 57 the boundary continues towards Point 58 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline of northwestern Lake Surprise generally NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 59 and Point 60 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 just north of Lower Harbor Keys. From Point 1 the boundary continues to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 9. From Point 9 the boundary continues towards Point 10 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline to the east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 11 and Point 12. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 12 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 13 and Point 14. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 14 and then to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 22. From Point 22 the boundary continues towards Point 23 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline to the SE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 23 and Point 24. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 24 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 24 and Point 25. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 25 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west and south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 26 and Point 27. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 27 and then to each successive point in numerical order until it ends at Point 41.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at the intersection of the southern shoreline and the line segment formed by Point 1 and Point 2. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 2 until it intersects the northern shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 3 and Point 4. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 4 and then to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 35. From Point 35 the boundary continues towards Point 36 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 37 and Point 38. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 38 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary continues NE and then NW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 39 and Point 40. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 40 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 41 and Point 42. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 42 and then generally south to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 58. From Point 58 the boundary continues towards Point 59 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 60 and Point 61 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at the intersection of the southeastern shoreline and the line segment formed by Point 1 and Point 2. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 2 until it intersects the southwestern shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 3 and Point 4. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 4 until it intersects the northeastern shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally SW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 just south of Vaca Key and continues south to Point 2. From Point 2 the boundary continues towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline west and then north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 5 and then east and south to each successive point in numerical order ending at Point 12.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues towards Point 2 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 2 and Point 3. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 3 and then to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 20. From Point 20 the boundary continues towards Point 21 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 22 and Point 23. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 23 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 24 and Point 25. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 25 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues to Point 2 and then to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 11. From Point 11 the boundary continues towards Point 12 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 13 and Point 14. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 15 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues to Point 2 and then to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 4. From Point 4 the boundary continues towards Point 5 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 6 and Point 7. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 7 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues to Point 2 and then to Point 3.
From Point 3 the boundary continues north towards Point 4 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline to the NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 6 and Point 7. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues to Point 2. From Point 2 the boundary continues north towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 5 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 6 and Point 7. From this intersection the boundary continues south to Point 7 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues to Point 2. From Point 2 the boundary continues north towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 5 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues to Point 2. From Point 2 the boundary continues north towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 6 and Point 7. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 8 and Point 9. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 9 and Point 10. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 11 and Point 12. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 13 and Point 14. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 15 and Point 16. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 17 and Point 18. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 19 and 20. From this intersection the boundary continues south to Point 20 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues to Point 2. From Point 2 the boundary continues north towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 7 and Point 8. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 8 and Point 9. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects with the line segment formed between Point 10 and Point 11. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 11 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues to Point 2. From Point 2 the boundary continues north towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline SE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 7 and Point 8. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 8 and Point 9. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 10 and Point 11. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 11 and Point 12. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 13 and Point 14. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 14 and Point 15. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NE until it intersects with the line segment formed between Point 16 and Point 17. From this intersection the boundary continues south to Point 17 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues north towards Point 2 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 3 and Point 4. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 6 and Point 7. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 7 and Point 8. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 9 and Point 10. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 10 and Point 11. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 12 and Point 13. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 13 and Point 14. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 15 and Point 16. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 17 and Point 18. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 19 and Point 20. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 20 and Point 21. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 22 and Point 23. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 23 and Point 24. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 25 and Point 26. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 26 and Point 27. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 28 and Point 29. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 30 and 31. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects with the line segment formed between Point 32 and Point 33. From this intersection the boundary continues south to Point 33 and then to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 43 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues west to Point 2. From Point 2 the boundary continues towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary continues east to Point 5. From Point 5 the boundary continues towards Point 6 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 7 and Point 8. From this intersection the boundary continues west to Point 8 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues north to Point 2 and Point 3. From Point 3 the boundary continues towards Point 4 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally east until it intersects the segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6. From this intersection the boundary continues south to Point 6 and then to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 14 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues generally west to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 9. From Point 9 the boundary continues towards Point 10 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 11 and Point 12. From this intersection the boundary continues south to Point 12 and ends at Point 13.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues generally south and then west to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 6. From Point 6 the boundary continues towards Point 7 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline to the east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 8 and Point 9. From this intersection the boundary continues east to Point 9 and then generally NE to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 23 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 and continues west towards Point 2 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 3 and Point 4. From this intersection the boundary continues east to Point 4 and then south to Point 5. From Point 5 the boundary continues towards Point 6 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 6 and Point 7. From this intersection the boundary continues SW to Point 7. From Point 7 the boundary continues towards Point 8 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 9 and Point 10. From this intersection the boundary continues south to Point 10 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 1 and Point 2. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 3 and Point 4. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 4 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 6 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east and then south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 7 and the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 8 and Point 9. From this intersection the boundary continues west to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 8 and Point 9 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 east of Key Largo and continues to Point 2, Point 3, and then Point 4. From Point 4 the boundary continues west towards Point 5 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 6 and Point 7. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 7 and Point 8. From Point 8 the boundary continues north towards Point 9 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 10 and Point 11. From this intersection the boundary continues east to Point 11 and then to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 14 where it ends.
The wildlife management area boundary begins at Point 1 SE of Woman Key and continues west to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 24. From Point 24 the boundary continues north towards Point 25 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 26 and Point 27. From this intersection the boundary continues east to Point 27 then south to Point 28 and Point 29 where it ends.
The wildlife management area seaward boundary begins just east of Barracuda Keys at Point 1 and continues SW to Point 2. From Point 2 the seaward boundary continues towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline to the NE and then generally SW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary continues SW to Point 5 and then to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 8 where it ends. The inner landward boundary is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified.
The wildlife management area seaward boundary begins in northern Cayo Agua Keys at the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 1 and Point 2. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 3 and Point 4. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 4 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline SE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 6 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 7 and Point 8. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 8 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 8 and Point 9. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 9 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 10 and Point 11. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 11 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west and then north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 12 and Point 13. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 13 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 14 and Point 15. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 15 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally east and then north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 16 and Point 17. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 17 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 18 and Point 19. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 19 and then to point 20 and to Point 21. From Point 21 the boundary continues towards Point 22 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 23 and Point 24. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 24 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 25 and Point 26. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 27 and Point 28 where it ends. The inner landward boundary is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified.
The wildlife management area seaward boundary begins just north of Cotton Key at Point 1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 13. From Point 13 the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed by Point 14 and Point 15. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 16 and Point 17. From this intersection the boundary continues south to Point 17 and then to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 34 where it ends. The inner landward boundary is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified.
The wildlife management area seaward boundary begins just NE of Upper Harbor Key at Point 1 and continues generally SW and then NW to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 9. From Point 9 the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 10 and Point 11. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 12 and Point 13. From this intersection the boundary continues north to Point 14 and then Point 15. From Point 15 the boundary continues towards Point 16 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline SW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 17 and Point 18. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 18 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 19 and Point 20. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 20 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally south and then west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 21 and Point 22. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 22 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 23 and Point 24. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 24 and then to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 25 and Point 26. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally north and then NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 27 and Point 28. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 28 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 29 and Point 30. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 30 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline to the east and north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 30 and Point 31. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 31 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 31 and Point 32. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 32 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 33 and Point 34. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 34 and then to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 38 where it ends. The inner landward boundary is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified.
In addition, the inner boundary of this zone is also defined by the East Content Keys and Upper Harbor Key Flats Wildlife Management Area 1 (no entry zone around
The wildlife management area seaward boundary begins just NE of East Harbor Key at Point 1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 8. From Point 8 the boundary continues towards Point 9 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline to the north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 10 and Point 11. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 11 and then to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 36 where it ends. The inner landward boundary is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified.
The wildlife management area seaward boundary begins on the eastern side of Mud Keys at the intersection of the shoreline with the line segment formed between Point 1 and Point 2. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 2 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 3 and Point 4. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 4 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 6 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 7 and Point 8. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 8 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 9 and Point 10. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 10 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 11 and Point 12. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 12 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 13 and Point 14. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 14 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 15 and Point 16. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 16 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 17 and Point 18. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 18 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 19 and Point 20. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 20 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally east and then north and then west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 21 and Point 22. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 22 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally east and then north and then west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 23 and Point 24. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 24 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 25 and Point 26. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 26 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 27 and Point 28. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 28 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally north and then east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 29 and Point 30. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 30 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 31 and Point 32. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 32 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 33 and Point 34. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 35 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 36 and Point 37 where it ends. The inner landward boundary is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified.
The wildlife management area seaward boundary begins at Point 1 and continues west to Point 2. From Point 2 the boundary continues west towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline SW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 5 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline SW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 6 and the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 7 and Point 8. From this intersection the boundary continues SW to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 7 and Point 8. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 9 and Point 10. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 10 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 10 and Point 11. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally north and then east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 12 and Point 13. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 13 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 14 and Point 15. From this intersection the boundary continues south to Point 16 where it ends. The inner landward boundary is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified.
The wildlife management area seaward boundary begins at the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 1 and Point 2. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 5 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 6 and Point 7. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 7 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 8 and Point 9. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 9 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 10 and Point 11. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 11 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NW until it
The wildlife management area seaward boundary begins at Point 1 at Snipe Keys and continues towards Point 2 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline SE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 2 and Point 3. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 3 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 4 and Point 5. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 5 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 6 and Point 7. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 7 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 7 and Point 8. From this intersection the boundary continues east to Point 8 and then to Point 9. From Point 9 the boundary continues towards Point 10 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 11 and Point 12. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 12 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 12 and Point 13. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 13 and then Point 14. From Point 14 the boundary continues towards Point 15 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 15 and Point 16. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 16 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline SE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 17 and Point 18. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 18 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 19 and Point 20. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 21 and Point 22. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 22 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NE and then east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 23 and Point 24. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 24 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline east and then south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 25 and Point 26. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 26 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south and then west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 27 and 28. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 28 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 29 and Point 30. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 30 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 30 and Point 31. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 31 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 31 and Point 33. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 33 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 34 and Point 35. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 35 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 36 and the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 37 and Point 38. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 37 and Point 38. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 39 and Point 40. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 41 and Point 42. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 43 and Point 44. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 45 and Point 46. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 47 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 48 and Point 49. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 49 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 50 and Point 51. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 51 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline south until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 52 and Point 53. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 53 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 54 and Point 55. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 55 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally west and then north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 56 and Point 57. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 57 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 58 and the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 59 and Point 60. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 59 and Point 60. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 61 and Point 62. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline generally NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 63 and the intersection formed between the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 64 and Point 65. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 64 and Point 65. From this intersection the boundary continues to the intersection of the shoreline and the line segment formed between Point 66 and Point 67. From this intersection the boundary continues NE to Point 67. From Point 67 the boundary continues east towards Point 68 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 69 and Point 70. From this intersection the boundary continues north to Point 70 and Point 71 and then generally east to each successive point in numerical order until it reaches Point 83. From Point 83 the boundary continues towards Point 84 until it intersects the shoreline where it ends. The inner landward boundary is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified.
Coordinates listed in this appendix are unprojected (Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983.
The boundary for the following Sanctuary Preservation Areas (SPA) begins at each individual zone's Point 1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order until ending at that same zone's last point as listed in its specific coordinate table.
Coordinates listed in this appendix are unprojected (Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983.
The boundary for the following Conservation Areas begins at each individual zone's Point 1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order until ending at that same zone's last point as listed in its specific coordinate table.
The Western Sambo Conservation Area boundary begins approximately 6 miles south of Boca Chica Key at Point 1. From Point 1 the boundary continues to Point 2 and Point 3. From Point 3 the boundary continues towards Point 4 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary continues east following the shoreline until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 5 and Point 6. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 6 and ends at Point 7.
Within the Western Sambo Conservation Area, an additional no anchor zone surrounds the offshore reef tract. The boundary for the Western Sambo Conservation Area No Anchor zone begins at Point 1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order until ending at Point 5.
Coordinates listed in this appendix are unprojected (Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983.
The boundary for the following Restoration Areas—Habitat zones begins at each individual zone's Point 1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order until ending at that same zone's last point as listed in its specific coordinate table.
Coordinates listed in this appendix are unprojected (Geographic) and based on the North American Datum of 1983.
The boundary for the following Restoration Areas—Nursery zones begins at each individual zone's Point 1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order until ending at that same zone's last point as listed in its specific coordinate table.
On November 16, 1990, the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act, Public Law 101-605 (16 U.S.C. 1433 note), became law. That Act designated an area of waters and submerged lands, including the living and nonliving resources within those waters, as described therein, as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (sanctuary). In 2001, the boundary of the sanctuary was expanded to include important coral reefs and other resources in two areas west of the Dry Tortugas National Park, including Sherwood Forest and Riley's Hump. By this revised Designation Document, the boundary of the sanctuary is further expanded to include areas: (a) north of the existing northern extent of the sanctuary, offshore of Miami-Dade County, to align with the Area To Be Avoided, (b) seaward of the existing southern boundary of the sanctuary to align with the Area To Be Avoided, (c) at the far western end of the existing sanctuary boundary, to extend by approximately one mile westward and encompass the outer boundaries of the Tortugas South Conservation Area (formerly the Tortugas South Ecological Reserve) and square off the sanctuary boundary in its northwestern corner, and (d) encompassing Pulley Ridge, north and west of the westernmost boundary and as a distinct segment of the sanctuary.
Section 304 of the National Marine Sanctuaries Act (NMSA), 16 U.S.C. 1434, authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue such regulations as are necessary and reasonable to implement the designation, including managing and protecting the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, educational, cultural, archaeological or aesthetic resources and qualities of a national marine sanctuary. Section 1 of Article IV of this Designation Document lists activities of the type that are presently being regulated or may have to be regulated in the future, in order to protect sanctuary resources and qualities. Listing in section 1 does not mean that a type of activity will be regulated in the future, however, if a type of activity is not listed, it may not be regulated, except on an emergency basis, unless section 1 is amended, following the procedures for designation of a sanctuary set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 304 of the NMSA, to include the type of activity.
Nothing in this Designation Document is intended to restrict activities that do not cause an adverse effect on the resources or qualities of the sanctuary or on sanctuary property or that do not pose a threat of harm to users of the sanctuary.
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary boundary encompasses a total of approximately 3,622 square nautical miles (4,797 square statute miles) of coastal, ocean, and Gulf of Mexico waters, and the submerged lands thereunder, surrounding the Florida Keys in south Florida. The northernmost point of the sanctuary lies just east of Miami and Key Biscayne, and the westernmost point is approximately 60 miles to the west of the western boundary of Dry Tortugas National Park at Pulley Ridge, a linear, arcing distance of approximately 290 miles. The contiguous area boundary on the Atlantic Ocean side of the Florida Keys runs south from just north of Biscayne National Park generally curving in a southwesterly direction along the Florida Keys archipelago until southwest of the Dry Tortugas and Loggerhead Key. The contiguous area boundary on the Gulf of Mexico side of the Florida Keys continues from this southwestern point to the north approximately 32 miles until it reaches a point northwest of Loggerhead Key and the Dry Tortugas. The boundary then continues east to approximately 8 miles north of Cottrell Key, and then from there it continues generally to the northeast to just north of Sprigger Bank. The boundary then generally approximates the southeastern Everglades National Park boundary until it continues along the western shore of Manatee Bay, Barnes Sound, and Card Sound. The boundary then generally approximates the southern boundary of Biscayne National Park and continues to do so north along the park's eastern boundary until it reaches the sanctuary's northeastern most point.
In addition, the sanctuary boundary includes a non-contiguous section encompassing Pulley Ridge and the Gulf of Mexico waters and lands thereunder to the west of the contiguous boundary area. Pulley Ridge is a carbonate ridge that extends nearly 186 miles along the southwest Florida Shelf in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, approximately 41 miles west of the Dry Tortugas and is entirely oceanic with no landward boundary.
The landward boundary of the contiguous sanctuary area is the shoreline as defined by the mean high-water line. The Dry Tortugas National Park is not included within the sanctuary and the inner sanctuary boundary in this location is coterminous with this national park boundary. The sanctuary boundary encompasses the entire Florida coral reef tract, all of the mangrove islands of the Florida Keys, and some of the seagrass meadows of the Florida Keys. The precise boundary of the sanctuary is set forth at the end of this Designation Document.
The Florida Keys extend approximately 223 miles southwest from the southern tip of the Florida peninsula. Adjacent to the Florida Keys land mass are located spectacular unique, nationally significant marine environments, including seagrass meadows, mangrove islands, and extensive living coral reefs. These marine environments support rich biological communities possessing extensive conservation, recreational, commercial, ecological, historical, research, educational, and aesthetic values which give this area special national significance. These environments are the marine equivalent of tropical rain forests in that they support high levels of biodiversity, are fragile and easily susceptible to damage from human activities, and possess high value to humans if properly conserved. These marine environments are subject to damage and loss of their ecological integrity from a variety of sources of disturbance.
The Florida Keys are a limestone island archipelago. The Keys are located at the southern edge of the Florida Plateau, a large
The more than three million-acre sanctuary contains one of North America's most diverse assemblages of terrestrial, estuarine, and marine fauna and flora. In addition to the Florida reef tract, the sanctuary includes thousands of patch reefs, various hardbottom habitats, mangrove fringed shorelines and mangrove islands, and a substantial portion of one of the world's largest seagrass communities that covers 3.6 million acres of the nearshore marine environment in south Florida. The sanctuary area at Pulley Ridge supports the deepest known photosynthetic coral reef off the continental United States. These diverse habitats provide shelter and food for thousands of species of marine plants and animals, including more than 50 species of animals identified under Federal or State law, as endangered or threatened. The Keys were at one time a major seafaring center for European and American trade routes to the Caribbean, and the submerged cultural and historic resources (
The uniqueness of the marine environment draws multitudes of visitors to the Keys. The major industry in the Florida Keys is tourism, including activities related to the Keys' marine resources, such as dive shops, charter fishing and dive boats and marinas, as well as hotels and restaurants. The abundance of the resources also supports a large commercial fishing employment sector.
The number of visitors to the Keys grows each year, with a concomitant increase in the number of residents, homes, jobs, and businesses. As population grows and the Keys accommodate ever-increasing resource use pressures, the quality and quantity of sanctuary resources are increasingly threatened. These pressures require coordinated and comprehensive monitoring and researching of the Florida Keys' region.
The following activities are subject to regulation under the NMSA, either throughout the entire sanctuary or within identified portions of it or, as indicated, in areas beyond the boundary of the sanctuary, to the extent necessary and reasonable. Such regulation may include prohibitions to ensure the protection and management of the conservation, recreational, ecological, historical, scientific, educational, cultural, archaeological or aesthetic resources and qualities of the area. Because an activity is listed here does not mean that such activity is being or will be regulated. Listing an activity here means that Secretary of Commerce can regulate the activity, after complying with all applicable regulatory laws, without going through the designation procedures required by paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 304 of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(a) and (b). Further, no regulation issued under the authority of the NMSA except an emergency and/or temporary regulation issued with the approval of the Governor of the State of Florida may take effect in Florida State waters within the sanctuary if the Governor of the State of Florida certifies to the Secretary of Commerce that such regulation is unacceptable within the forty-five day review period specified in NMSA.
Activities Subject to Regulation:
1. Mineral or hydrocarbon exploration, development, or production;
2. Destroying, causing the loss of, or injuring coral or live rock or attempting to do so;
3. Altering or placing any structure, object, or other material on the seabed, except as authorized by appropriate permits or as part of lawful fishing;
4. Discharging or depositing any material, or discharging or depositing any material beyond the sanctuary that then enters the sanctuary and injures a sanctuary resource or quality;
5. Operating a vessel, including anchoring, in a manner that may destroy, cause the loss of, or injure sanctuary resources or property; or in a manner that may injure or endanger the life of sanctuary users;
6. Diving in a manner that could harm sanctuary resources, sanctuary property, or other users of the sanctuary;
7. Stocking within the sanctuary or releasing within or from beyond the boundary of the sanctuary, any non-native or exotic species;
8. Defacing, marking, or damaging in any way or displacing, removing, or tampering with any markers, signs, notices, placards, navigational aids, monuments, stakes, posts, mooring buoys, boundary buoys, trap buoys, or scientific equipment;
9. Moving, removing, injuring, preserving, curating, and managing historic resources;
10. Taking, removing, moving, catching, collecting, harvesting, feeding, attracting, injuring, destroying, or causing the loss of, or attempting to take, remove, move, catch, collect, harvest, feed, attract, injure, destroy, or cause the loss of any sanctuary resource;
11. Conducting or attempting to conduct any manner of activities within specially designated marine areas, including removing, injuring or disturbing any living or dead organism or bottom formation; possessing or using certain fishing gear; operating or anchoring vessels; entering areas; and diving;
12. Harvesting marine life species except as regulated by the State of Florida;
13. Possessing or using explosives, electrical charges, or toxic substances within the sanctuary, or using explosives, electrical charges, or toxic substances beyond the sanctuary that then enter the sanctuary and injure a sanctuary resource or quality;
14. Abandoning fishing gear or vessels; and removing (including salvaging) fishing gear and grounded, derelict, or abandoned vessels;
15. Maintaining or deserting a derelict vessel or vessel at risk of becoming derelict; and leaving harmful matter aboard a grounded or deserted vessel; and,
16. Interfering with any enforcement action.
Any and all activities are subject to immediate emergency and/or temporary regulation, including any not listed in Section 1 of this article. However, no such regulation may take effect in Florida State waters within the sanctuary without the approval of the Governor of the State of Florida.
Pursuant to paragraph (c)(1) of section 304 of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(c)(1), a person may conduct an activity prohibited by sanctuary regulations if such activity is specifically authorized by a valid Federal, State, or local lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization or right in existence prior to the effective date of these revised terms of designation, provided that the holder of the lease, permit, license, approval, or other authorization complies with the procedures outlined in this subpart and subpart E.
However, in no event may the Secretary of Commerce or his or her designee issue any form of approval for the: (1) exploration, leasing, development, or production of minerals or hydrocarbons; (2) disposal of dredged material within the sanctuary other than in connection with beach renourishment or sanctuary restoration projects; or (3) discharge of untreated or primary treated sewage. Any purported authorizations issued by other authorities for any of these activities within the sanctuary shall be invalid.
The terms of designation, as defined in paragraph (a) of section 304 of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(a), may be modified only by the procedures outlined in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 304 of the NMSA, 16 U.S.C. 1434(a) and (b), including public hearings, consultation with interested federal, state, and local government agencies, review by the appropriate Congressional committees, review by the Governor of the State of Florida, and approval by the Secretary of Commerce, or his or her designee. No designation, term of designation, or implementing regulation may take effect in Florida State waters within the sanctuary if the Governor of the State of Florida certifies to the Secretary of Commerce that such designation or term of designation regulation is unacceptable within the forty-five day review period specified in NMSA.
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (sanctuary) encompasses an area of 3,622 square nautical miles (4,797 square miles) of coastal, ocean, and Gulf of Mexico
The sanctuary boundary begins approximately 4 miles east of the northern extent of Key Biscayne at Point 1 and continues roughly south and then southwest and west in numerical order to Point 15 approximately 27 miles SW of Loggerhead Key. From Point 15 the sanctuary boundary continues north to Point 17 which is approximately 18 miles NW of Loggerhead Key and then continues roughly east in numerical order to Point 23 just north of Sprigger Bank. From Point 23 the boundary continues in numerical order roughly SE to Point 26 just north of Old Dan Bank. From Point 26 the boundary continues NE in numerical order through Bowlegs Cut and Steamboat Channel to Point 42 near the southern entrance to Cowpens Cut west of Plantation Key.
From Point 42 the boundary continues towards Point 43 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly NNE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 44 and Point 45.
From this intersection the boundary continues NNE to Point 45 and then roughly NE in numerical order to Point 61 just west of Hammer Point in Tavernier, FL. From Point 61 the boundary continues in numerical order roughly north and then NW to Point 64 just west of Pigeon Key. From Point 64 the boundary continues in numerical order roughly NE then NNE through Baker Cut to Point 69. From Point 69 the boundary continues in numerical order roughly NE through Buttonwood Sound to Point 73.
From Point 73 the boundary continues towards Point 74 until it intersects the shoreline near the southern entrance to Grouper Creek west of Key Largo, FL. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline NE along Grouper Creek until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 75 and Point 76. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 76 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 77 and Point 78.
From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 78 and then roughly ESE in numerical order through Tarpon Basin to Point 85. From Point 85 the boundary continues NE and then NW to Point 92.
From Point 92 the boundary continues towards Point 93 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly north along Dusenberry Creek until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 94 and Point 95.
From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 95 and then NE in numerical order through Blackwater Sound to Point 102 south of the entrance to Jewfish Creek.
From Point 102 the boundary continues towards Point 103 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly NNE and then NW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 104 and Point 105. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 105 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly NNE and then roughly west along southwestern Barnes Sound and around Division Point until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 106 and Point 107 near Manatee Creek east of Long Sound. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 107 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly NNW until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 108 and Point 109. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 109 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly east until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 109 and 110. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 110 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly north and then NE until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 111 and Point 112. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 112 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly east and then north around Bay Point and then west until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 113 and Point 114. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 114 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline north along the western side of Manatee Bay until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 115 and Point 116. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 116 until it intersects the shoreline.
From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline around northern Manatee Bay and Barnes Sound until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 117 and Point 118. From this intersection the boundary continues towards Point 118 until it intersects the shoreline. From this intersection the boundary follows the shoreline roughly to the SE south of FL State Route 905A—Card Sound Road then NW and roughly north along western Little Card Sound and then Card Sound cutting off the mouths of canals and drainage ditches until it intersects the line segment formed between Point 119 and Point 120 south of Midnight Pass. From this intersection the boundary continues to Point 120 and then roughly SE to each successive point in numerical order approximating the southern boundary of Biscayne National Park to Point 142 approximately 3 miles ENE of Turtle Rocks. From Point 142 the boundary continues roughly N to each successive point in numerical order ending at Point 158.
The inner landward sanctuary boundary is defined by and follows the shoreline where not already specified in the description above.
Pulley Ridge, located along the southwest Florida Shelf in the eastern Gulf of Mexico, is included as a part of the FKNMS, and the sanctuary boundary for this area begins approximately 52 miles NW of Loggerhead Key at Point PR1 and continues to each successive point in numerical order ending at Point PR9.
Dry Tortugas National Park is not included within the FKNMS and the inner sanctuary boundary in this area is coterminous with this national park boundary and begins at Point DT1 and continues in numerical order counterclockwise around the national park ending at Point DT10.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission or FCC) takes further steps to stem the tide of foreign-originated illegal robocalls by placing new obligations on the gateway providers that are the entry point or foreign calls into the United States by requiring them to play a more active role in the fight.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Jonathan Lechter, Competition Policy Division, Wireline Competition Bureau, at (202) 418-0984,
This is a summary of the Commission's
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to
1. In this document, the Commission takes steps to protect consumers from foreign-originated illegal robocalls. Gateway providers' networks are the key entry point for foreign-originated robocalls, and the authentication and mitigation requirements the Commission adopts will ensure that American consumers are protected. The Commission defines the term “gateway provider,” requires such providers to authenticate all unauthenticated Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) calls in the internet Protocol (IP) portions of their networks, and adopts mitigation requirements specific to such providers, including requirements related to the Robocall Mitigation Database. As explained below, the Commission finds that the benefits of these new requirements, particularly to American consumers deluged by illegal calls originating in other countries, will far outweigh the short-term implementation costs imposed on gateway providers.
2.
3. Commenters overwhelmingly support additional action to stop the flood of foreign-originated illegal calls. For example, Comcast agrees with the Commission that the current rules “are not sufficient to resolve the problem of foreign-originated illegal robocalls” and that the robocall landscape “warrants consideration of further regulatory efforts targeting gateway providers.” The State attorneys general also support steps to stop the “continued deluge of illegal foreign-based robocalls that use spoofed, U.S.-based phone numbers.”
4. Foreign robocallers use U.S. North American Numbering Plan (NANP) numbers in myriad ways to reach U.S. end users. In some cases, the foreign robocallers utilize spoofed U.S. numbers, while in other cases they have obtained U.S. NANP numbers from providers who have themselves obtained numbers on the secondary market or directly from the North American Numbering Plan Administrator (NANPA).
5. Commenting parties agree that foreign-originated calls are a significant portion, if not the majority, of illegal robocalls. The latest data from the Industry Traceback Group support the conclusion that many providers facilitating illegal robocalls are gateway providers and the upstream foreign originating and intermediate providers from whom they receive foreign-originating calls. Of the 347 providers identified in the Industry Traceback Group's 2021 report as responsible for transmitting illegal robocalls, 111 were gateway providers that brought the traffic into the U.S. network, and 115 were foreign providers originating illegal robocalls. According to the Industry Traceback Group, 10% of all providers that are not responsive to traceback requests constitute 48% of all non-responsive traceback requests. Of that 10%, over two-thirds are foreign providers. Recent action after the release of the
6.
7.
8. In the
9. The Commission clarifies that foreign affiliates of a U.S.-based provider or other U.S.-licensed entities that receive traffic in another country and transmit that traffic to another provider to bring across the boundary of the U.S. network are not gateway providers. As proposed, the Commission does not include in the definition providers that also terminate the call because they are then acting as terminating providers and are subject to the existing rules applicable to such providers. In their capacity as terminating providers, these providers have existing obligations to prevent their own end users from receiving illegal robocalls. (A terminating provider is a voice service provider for purposes of section 4 of the TRACED Act and the Commission's caller ID authentication rules. A voice service provider is required to, among other things, verify caller ID information pursuant to STIR/SHAKEN for traffic it terminates, 47 CFR 64.6301(a)(3), and submit a certification to the Robocall Mitigation Database.)
10. Because the TRACED Act defines “voice service” in a manner that excludes intermediate providers, the authentication and Robocall Mitigation Database rules use “voice service provider” in this manner. The Commission's call blocking rules, many of which the Commission adopted prior to adoption of the TRACED Act, use a definition of “voice service provider” that includes intermediate providers. In that context, use of the TRACED Act definition of “voice service” would create inconsistency with the existing rules. To avoid confusion, for purposes of this item, the Commission uses the term “voice service provider” consistent with the TRACED Act definition and where discussing caller ID authentication or the Robocall Mitigation Database. In all other instances, the Commission uses “provider” and specifies the type of provider as appropriate. Unless otherwise specified, the Commission means any provider, regardless of its position in the call path.
11.
12. As the Commission noted in the
13. Moreover, a call-by-call approach will have a limited practical burden for several reasons. As an initial matter, several of the obligations the Commission adopts do not require a gateway provider or providers downstream from the gateway provider to determine, in real time, whether or not the relevant provider is acting as a gateway provider for a particular call. First, the 24-hour traceback requirement and know-your-upstream provider requirements do not involve any real-time action on the part of a gateway provider when it receives the call. Second, the obligation to block traffic upon notification by the Commission applies only to those entities identified by the Commission, so that providers need not identify relevant traffic in real-time in the first instance. Third, if a provider acts as a gateway provider for
14. The Commission notes that many providers already operate under multiple sets of obligations—for example, as intermediate providers and voice service providers under the Commission's caller ID authentication rules—and no party has indicated why a call-by-call approach for gateway providers would be more burdensome. Moreover, no commenter proposed an alternative approach for imposing unique obligations on gateway providers. (Many commenters assert that the Commission should not impose unique obligations on gateway providers. The Commission addresses that argument in Section I.E.4
15.
16.
17. The Commission adopts its proposal to require gateway providers to submit a certification and mitigation plan to the Robocall Mitigation Database. As explained below, the Commission requires gateway providers to take “reasonable steps” to mitigate robocall traffic regardless of whether they have fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN. Gateway providers' robocall mitigation plans must describe their robocall mitigation practices and state that they are adhering to those practices, regardless of whether they have fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN. The Commission also adopts a modified version of its proposal for downstream domestic providers receiving traffic from gateway providers to block traffic from such a provider if the gateway provider has not submitted a certification in the Robocall Mitigation Database or if the gateway provider has been de-listed from the Robocall Mitigation Database pursuant to enforcement action. The vast majority of commenters supported these proposals.
18.
19. These rules the Commission adopts require gateway providers to submit the same information to the Robocall Mitigation Database that voice service providers must submit under existing Commission rules, except for the limited areas described below. Specifically, gateway providers must certify to the status of STIR/SHAKEN implementation and robocall mitigation on their networks; submit contact information for a person responsible for addressing robocall mitigation-related issues; and describe in detail their robocall mitigation practices. Gateway providers may make confidential submissions consistent with the
20. Consistent with voice service providers' current obligations, the Commission does not require gateway providers to describe their mitigation program in a particular manner, with the exception of clearly explaining how they are complying with the know-your-upstream-provider obligation adopted in this document. The Commission concludes that it and the public will benefit from understanding how each provider chooses to comply with the know-your-upstream provider duty, both because compliance is critical to stopping the illegal carrying or processing of robocalls and because providers may choose to comply with this duty in different ways. (In several legal settlements with gateway providers, the gateway providers were required to comply with extremely detailed, and public, know-your-customer obligations.) As USTelecom argues, “providers' robocall mitigation programs should reflect at least a basic level of vetting of the providers from whom they directly accept traffic—beyond ensuring that they are registered in the [Robocall Mitigation Database].”
21. The Commission also clarifies that, consistent with existing Commission filing requirements in other contexts, all mitigation plans must be submitted in English or with a certified English translation. To remove any ambiguity, the Commission also codifies that requirement with respect to its STIR/SHAKEN rules. Plans that were not submitted in English or with a certified English translation must be updated no later than 10 business days following the effective date of this document, consistent with the Commission's existing requirement for updating information in the Robocall Mitigation Database.
22. The Commission delegates to the Wireline Competition Bureau the authority to specify the form and format of any submissions, and it directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to comply with any requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act attendant upon such action. This includes whether gateway providers that are also voice service providers may either submit a separate certification and plan as a gateway provider or amend their current certification and any plan. A gateway provider that is also a voice service provider should explain the mitigation steps it undertakes as a gateway provider and the mitigation steps it undertakes as a voice service provider, to the extent those mitigation steps are different for each role. And as with voice service providers, and consistent with the Commission's proposal, the Commission requires gateway providers to update their certifications within ten business days of “any change in the information” submitted, ensuring that the information is kept up to date.
23. The Commission also notes that it may take the same enforcement actions against a gateway provider whose certification is deficient or who fails to meet the standards of its certifications as is the case for voice service providers. This includes, but is not limited to, delisting the gateway provider from the Robocall Mitigation Database. In the
24. Gateway providers must submit a certification to the Robocall Mitigation Database by 30 days following publication in the
25. The Commission does not at this time adopt a requirement for gateway providers to inform the Commission through an update to the Robocall Mitigation Database filing if the gateway provider is subject to a Commission, law enforcement, or regulatory agency action, investigation, or inquiry due to its robocall mitigation plan being deemed insufficient or problematic, or due to suspected unlawful robocalling or spoofing. Similarly, the Commission does not at this time require all or a subset of Robocall Mitigation Database filers to include additional identifying information. While the Commission concludes that taking these steps may have merit, it finds the record is insufficient to support taking action at this time. Instead, the Commission seeks comment in the accompanying
26. The Commission also does not at this time extend this certification obligation to domestic intermediate providers other than gateway providers or require voice service providers that have already implemented STIR/SHAKEN to meet the “reasonable steps” standard and submit a robocall mitigation plan. However, the Commission seeks comment on doing so in the accompanying
27.
28. As a result of gateway providers' affirmative obligation to submit a certification in the Robocall Mitigation Database, the Commission concludes that downstream providers will no longer be able to rely upon any gateway provider database registration imported from the intermediate provider registry when making blocking determinations. (Previously, all intermediate providers were imported into the Robocall Mitigation Database from the rural call completion database's Intermediate Provider Registry so that all intermediate providers would be represented therein, giving voice service providers “confidence that any provider not listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database” was not in compliance with the Commission's rules.) In the
29. For the purpose of the downstream providers' call blocking duty, the Commission does not require the downstream provider to determine if a specific call was sent from a provider acting as a voice service provider or gateway provider for that call. Nevertheless, the Commission recognizes that it may not always be possible for the downstream provider to know whether the upstream provider is (1) a voice service provider or gateway provider whose traffic must be blocked if the provider did not make an affirmative certification in the Robocall Mitigation Database and has not been de-listed; or (2) an intermediate provider that is not a gateway provider, whose traffic should not be blocked. The Commission therefore only requires the downstream provider to block calls if they have a reasonable basis to believe that the upstream provider acts,
30.
31. Commenters disagreed whether intermediate providers' imported data should be deleted from the database. Consistent with the Commission's direction to the Wireline Competition Bureau to make the necessary changes to the portal to effectuate the rules, the Commission directs the Bureau to determine how to manage the imported data of gateway providers and to announce its determination as part of its guidance described in the paragraph above.
32.
33. The Commission also sought comment in the
34. To combat foreign-originated robocalls, and to further the long-standing Commission goal and benefits of ubiquitous STIR/SHAKEN authentication, the Commission requires gateway providers, consistent with its proposal, to implement STIR/SHAKEN to authenticate SIP calls that are carrying a U.S. number in the caller ID field. The Commission concludes based on the record that authentication, as well as the additional data sent to downstream providers along with the authentication, will reduce the incentive and ability of foreign providers to send illegal robocalls into the U.S. market, as well as provide downstream intermediate and terminating providers and their call analytics partners with additional data to protect their customers, and therefore will provide a significant benefit. Attestation information will facilitate analytics and promote traceback and enforcement efforts. Speeding traceback efforts is also consistent with the underlying goal of the Commission's 24-hour traceback requirement. The Commission finds those benefits outweigh the implementation costs. Additionally, certain commenters support requiring gateway providers to authenticate calls.
35. As the Commission has previously explained, application of caller ID authentication by intermediate—including gateway—providers “will provide significant benefits in facilitating analytics, blocking, and traceback by offering all parties in the call ecosystem more information.” At the time the Commission reached this conclusion, given the concerns that an authentication requirement on all intermediate providers “was unduly burdensome in some cases,” the Commission determined that intermediate providers could, instead of authenticating unauthenticated calls, “register and participate with the industry traceback consortium as an alternative means of complying with our rules.” Since that time, the Commission imposed on all domestic providers the requirement to respond to all traceback requests from the Commission, law enforcement, or the industry traceback consortium, fully and in a timely manner. Because evidence shows that foreign-originated robocalls are a significant and increasing problem and that the benefits of a gateway authentication requirement outweigh the burdens, the Commission thus adopts a gateway provider authentication obligation to address this problem. The Commission believes gateway provider authentication will address a significant risk to American consumers and enhance their trust in this country's telecommunications network.
36.
37. In addition, in line with the rule applicable to intermediate providers generally and the Commission's proposal, gateway providers have the flexibility in implementing call authentication to assign the level of attestation appropriate to the call based on the call information available to the gateway provider. Gateway providers are not limited to assigning “gateway” (C-level) attestation, and one commenter notes that there are significant benefits to be gained from gateway providers appropriately applying higher attestation levels consistent with the standard. Stakeholders support this approach.
38.
39. Those commenters asserting such a requirement will cost significant time and resources to implement do not provide detailed support for their claims. Indeed, to the extent a gateway provider also serves as a voice service provider, it will have already implemented STIR/SHAKEN in at least some portion of its network, likely lowering its compliance costs to meet the requirement the Commission adopts. Given the real and significant benefits to providers and American consumers in the form of billions in savings and increased trust in the voice network that will flow from the reduction in foreign-originated illegal robocalls, the Commission concludes that requiring authentication is in the public interest even if it credits those arguing that there are substantial implementation costs.
40. While gateway providers are likely to authenticate most calls with only C-level attestation at least initially, the
41. Expanding the scope of providers subject to the STIR/SHAKEN regime will increase the overall benefits of the standard and its future reach. As many parties and the NANC note, STIR/SHAKEN has beneficial network effects, and the more steps the Commission takes to increase its use, the greater the overall benefit for those providers that have already implemented the standard and those providers' customers. (For the same reasons, the Commission does not adopt USTelecom's alternative proposal to only impose a gateway provider authentication obligation on smaller, non-facilities-based providers.) Indeed, the Commission's expansion of the STIR/SHAKEN regime may spur other countries and regulators to also develop and adopt STIR/SHAKEN, further increasing the standards' benefit. (While the i3forum opposes an attestation obligation, it notes that cross-border adoption of STIR/SHAKEN and voluntary agreements can lead to “situations in which [the gateway provider] has access to information that would enable it to provide an A-level or B-level attestation.”) In the interim, gateway provider authentication is the only way to ensure that all foreign-originated calls with U.S. numbers in the caller ID field are authenticated. The Commission acknowledges that at least some of the benefits that will flow from gateway provider authentication are based on its reasoned predictions arising from disputed record evidence. Nevertheless, in adopting its rule, the Commission is persuaded by the available evidence that the benefits will be significant, and the sooner the Commission acts, the sooner the public will obtain these benefits. For these reasons, the Commission disagrees with CTIA-The Wireless Association that it would be “premature” for the Commission to require gateway authentication while foreign regulators consider mandating STIR/SHAKEN or that the Commission should wait for the recommendations of outside third parties, or possible future rule changes, before acting.
42.
43. The Commission also believes that a June 30, 2023, deadline is reasonable because the industry has much more experience with implementation than when the Commission originally required voice service providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN, there is evidence that STIR/SHAKEN implementation costs have dropped since it first adopted the requirement for voice service providers and because the authentication requirement applies only to the IP portions of the gateway providers' networks. Finally, to facilitate uniformity, simplify compliance, and consistent with comments in the record, the Commission does not adopt an earlier deadline for those providers that have, in their role as voice service providers, already implemented STIR/SHAKEN, nor do it adopt a longer deadline for certain providers or classes of provider, or a specific process for the grant of extensions or exemptions from this requirement, with the exception of two extensions regarding token access and non-IP networks described below. (Parties are, of course, free to file a request for waiver. The Commission may grant such requests where the particular facts at issue make strict compliance with the rule at issue inconsistent with the public interest. In considering whether to grant a waiver, the Commission may take into account factors such as hardship, equity, or more effective implementation of overall policy. This extension will be similar to the one already in place for voice service providers.) As noted above, once a gateway provider has fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN, it must update its filing in the Robocall Mitigation Database.
44.
45.
46. The Commission asked in the
47. The Commission adopts several of its robocall mitigation proposals from the
48. The Commission adopts its proposal to require gateway providers to fully respond to traceback requests from the Commission, civil and criminal law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium within 24 hours of receipt of such a request. (To be clear, the 24-hour clock does not start outside of the business hours of the local time for the responding office. Requests received outside of business hours as defined in the Commission's rules are deemed received at 8 a.m. on the next business day. Similarly, if the 24-hour response period would end on a non-business day, either a weekend or a Federal legal holiday, the 24-hour clock does not run for the weekend or holiday in question, and restarts at 12:01 a.m. on the next business day following when the request would otherwise be due. “Business day” for these purposes is Monday through Friday, excluding Federal legal holidays, and “business hours” are 8 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. on a business day, consistent with the definition of office hours in the Commission's rules. By way of example, a request received at 3 p.m. on a Friday will be due at 3 p.m. on the following Monday, assuming that Monday is not a Federal legal holiday. The Commission believes that this clarification resolves concerns raised by some parties about the burden of a strict 24-hour requirement.) This is an enhancement of the Commission's existing rule, which requires all domestic providers, including gateway providers, to respond to traceback requests “fully and in a timely manner.” The Commission takes this step recognizing the critical role that gateway providers play in stopping the deluge of illegal foreign-originated robocalls, which continue to increase despite its previous efforts to stem the tide.
49. The Commission finds that a mandatory 24-hour response requirement best serves to protect consumers from foreign-originated illegal robocalls, which are a prevalent source of illegal robocalls aimed at U.S. consumers. As the Commission has repeatedly made clear, traceback is an essential part of both identifying and stopping illegal calls, and rapid traceback is key to its success. The process used by the Industry Traceback Group, which is the currently designated industry traceback consortium, is semi-automated, allowing the process to continue very quickly when a provider responds to a traceback request. While time is always of the essence in traceback, time is particularly important in the case of foreign-originated calls. In such cases, reaching the origination point of the call may require working with foreign providers and foreign governments, which could significantly increase the total time for the traceback process. As the 51 State AGs have argued, time is of the essence for traceback of foreign-originated calls because law enforcement may need to work with international regulators to obtain information from providers outside of U.S. jurisdiction. As a result, any unnecessary delay increases the risk that this essential information may become impossible to obtain.
50. The Commission therefore disagrees with commenters that do not support its enhanced 24-hour requirement. First, the Commission disagrees with commenters that argue that a stricter requirement is not warranted here. The Commission acknowledges the work industry has done on improving the traceback process, and recognizes that many, if not most, providers that receive traceback requests already respond in under 24 hours. However, the Commission finds that it is important to act aggressively in the international calling context. The gateway provider's response to a traceback request is often the first step in a process where the entity conducting the traceback must work with multiple foreign providers to trace a call back to the originating foreign provider and caller. The longer this process takes, the higher the risk that a foreign provider will no longer have the information necessary to respond—if they are even willing to do so—or that other factors will change, reducing the ability to fully trace the call. Therefore, this process must both begin and be completed as soon as possible. Many, if not most, providers that receive traceback requests are already responding within 24 hours, and the Commission believes this
51. The Commission also disagrees with commenters who argue that 24 hours is too short a time frame. (One commenter incorrectly indicated that the “current deadline” is 36 hours, without indicating the source of that figure.) The Commission notes that, in the
52. The Commission makes clear that it does not require the gateway provider to identify the caller or originating provider within this 24-hour response period except in the case where the originating provider is the provider from which the gateway provider received the call. Some commenters appear concerned that this rule would require them to trace a call back to the point of origination, or, at least, through several hops. One commenter points to the “need to obtain information from several other carriers located in foreign countries,” while another mentions the need for “detailed investigations.” The Commission requires the gateway provider to respond with information only about the provider from which it directly received the call. (An appropriate response would include the identity of the upstream provider, as well as, for example, the country, a complete address, contact information for the provider, and a link to that provider's Robocall Mitigation Database filing.)
53. The Commission also encourages gateway providers to determine whether their relationship with upstream providers should change to better facilitate traceback. (For example, a gateway provider may conduct such an investigation as part of compliance with the “know your upstream provider” obligation discussed below, which does not have a 24-hour requirement.) The Commission sees no reason that a gateway provider should not be able to identify the immediate upstream provider from its records and respond to the traceback request without further investigation. In fact, one commenter indicated that it currently automates response to traceback.
54.
55. The Commission adopts some, but not all, of the mandatory blocking proposals it sought comment on in the
56. The Commission find that the mandatory blocking requirements it adopts, along with the appropriate procedural safeguards described herein, strike an appropriate balance between the benefit of blocking calls likely to be illegal with the risk of blocking lawful calls. The Commission acknowledges that this represents a shift, at least in part, from the Commission's previous approach of permitting, rather than mandating, blocking. The Commission agrees that “[b]locking calls is a serious and complicated action that must be precisely and judiciously applied to avoid blocking lawful traffic.” However, the Commission disagrees with commenters that argue mandatory blocking requirements are generally inappropriate. The Commission's existing permissive blocking rules are still in effect; it encourages providers to make use of permissive blocking, where available, to protect American consumers from unwanted and illegal calls. The rules the Commission adopts narrowly target the most obvious foreign-originated illegal calls, including those calls that have already been determined to be illegal, and enlist gateway providers into the fight to block these calls before they enter the U.S. telephone network.
57. The Commission adopts two of its proposals from the
58.
59. The Commission agrees with commenters that this blocking will help protect American consumers by ensuring less illegal traffic reaches their phones. An affirmative obligation for gateway providers to block upon Commission notification ensures greater protection than an “effective mitigation” requirement. This is particularly true because gateway providers, by definition, are intermediate providers and are thus a step removed from the caller, limiting their available effective mitigation options.
60. The Commission therefore disagrees with commenters that urge it to rely on the existing requirement to effectively mitigate this traffic rather than to adopt this enhanced requirement. The Commission also disagrees with providers that a separate set of obligations when acting as a gateway provider complicates or increases the burden of compliance because providers cannot easily determine if they are acting as a gateway provider for a particular call. Here, per the process described below, the Enforcement Bureau makes the initial determination of whether the provider is acting as a gateway provider. (A provider determines whether it is a “gateway provider” on a call-by-call basis. A provider may be a gateway provider for some of the calls in the identified traffic and a non-gateway originating provider, non-gateway intermediate provider, or non-gateway terminating provider for other calls in the identified traffic. If the provider is the gateway provider for any of the calls in the traffic identified in the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic, the provider must block all traffic that is substantially similar to the identified traffic, regardless of whether the provider is a gateway provider for any particular call.) If the gateway provider is not directed to comply with 47 CFR 64.1200(n)(5), but rather with 47 CFR 64.1200(n)(2), then that provider will not be in violation of the Commission's rules for effectively mitigating, rather than blocking, illegal traffic, regardless of its position in the call path for a particular call.
61.
62. The Commission agrees with several commenters that support this requirement and disagree with the lone commenter that objects to this mandate. The Commission finds that this requirement is an appropriate and proportional response where a gateway provider actively and willfully refuses to be a good actor in the calling ecosystem. Blocking all traffic from a particular provider is a dramatic step that will likely also block some lawful traffic but is justified by the need to protect consumers from foreign-originated illegal robocalls. Lawful traffic can then be routed through other gateway providers that comply with the Commission's rules.
63.
64. The Enforcement Bureau's Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic shall specify a timeframe of no fewer than 14 days for an identified gateway provider to complete its investigation and report its results. Upon receiving such notice, the gateway provider must promptly investigate the traffic identified in the notice and begin blocking the identified traffic within the timeframe specified in the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic unless its investigation determines that the traffic is legal.
65. The Commission makes clear that the requirement to block on an ongoing basis is not tied to the number in the caller ID field or any other single criterion. Instead, the Commission requires the identified provider to block on a continuing basis any traffic that is substantially similar to the identified traffic and provide the Enforcement Bureau with a plan as to how it expects to do so. The Commission does not define “substantially similar traffic” in any detail here because that will be a case-specific determination based on the traffic at issue. The Commission declines to limit the scope of “substantially similar traffic” to only “traffic sent by the upstream entity that was responsible for sending the illegal robocall traffic that triggered the Commission's notification.” While gateway providers may propose such a limitation in the blocking plan they submit to the Enforcement Bureau, the Commission does not find that such a limitation is appropriate in all instances. In particular, such a limitation could make it easy for a bad actor to circumvent blocking by simply routing their traffic through multiple upstream providers. The Commission is also concerned that a detailed definition could allow bad actors to circumvent this blocking by providing a roadmap as to how to avoid detection. Additionally, the Commission notes that each calling campaign will have unique qualities that are better addressed on a case-by-case basis, where the analytics used can be tailored to the particular campaign at issue. The Commission nevertheless encourages gateway providers to consider common indicia of illegal calls such as call duration; call completion ratios; large bursts of calls in a short time frame; neighbor spoofing patterns; and sequential dialing patterns. The Commission makes clear that these are not the only criteria that the gateway provider may consider in developing its plan, and that not all criteria may be relevant in all situations. Gateway providers will have flexibility to determine the correct approach for each particular case, but a gateway provider must provide a detailed plan in its response to the Enforcement Bureau so that the Bureau can assess the plan's sufficiency. If the Enforcement Bureau determines that the plan is insufficient, it shall provide the gateway provider an opportunity to remedy the deficiencies prior to taking further action. The Commission will consider the identified provider to be in compliance with its mandatory blocking rule if it blocks traffic in accordance with its approved plan. However, the Commission makes clear that the Enforcement Bureau may require the identified provider to modify its approved plan if it determines that the identified provider is not blocking substantially similar traffic. Additionally, if the Enforcement Bureau finds, based on the evidence, that the identified provider continues to allow suspected illegal traffic onto the U.S. network, it may proceed to an Initial Determination Order or Final Determination Order, as appropriate. Finally, the Commission adopts a limited safe harbor from liability under the Communications Act or its rules for gateway providers that inadvertently block lawful traffic as part of the requirement to block substantially similar traffic in accordance with the gateway provider's approved plan. While the Commission agrees that a safe harbor for inadvertent over-blocking is warranted, it declines to provide a safe harbor for under-blocking within this rule. A gateway provider that is under-blocking and not fully cooperating with the Enforcement Bureau to address the issue should not be granted protection from liability under the very rule with which it fails to comply.
66.
67.
68.
69. Each Final Determination Order shall state the grounds for the Bureau's determination that the gateway provider has failed to comply with its obligation to block illegal traffic and direct downstream providers to initiate blocking 14 days from the release date of the Final Determination Order. A provider that chooses to initiate blocking sooner than 14 days from the release date may do so consistent with the Commission's existing safe harbor in 47 CFR 64.1200(k)(4).
70. The Commission further requires gateway providers to block calls based on a reasonable DNO list. A “DNO list” is a list of numbers that should never be used to originate calls, and therefore any calls that include a listed number in the caller ID field can be blocked. The Commission declines to mandate the use of a specific list, but allow gateway providers to use any DNO list so long as the list is reasonable. The Commission declines to mandate the use of a specific list, but gateway providers must use at least one DNO list, so long as the list is reasonable. Such a list may include only invalid, unallocated, and unused numbers, as well as numbers for which the subscriber to the number has requested blocking.
71. Reasonable DNO lists may include only the listed categories of numbers described in the preceding paragraph, but the Commission does not require that such DNO lists include all possible covered numbers in order to be reasonable. In particular, the Commission recognizes that unused numbers may be difficult to identify, and that a reasonable list may err on the side of caution. The Commission makes clear, however, that a list so limited in scope that it leaves out obvious numbers that could be included with little effort may be deemed unreasonable.
72. In the
73. The Commission agrees with commenters that support a DNO mandate. The Commission further agrees with one commenter that urged the Commission to look to existing DNO lists for this purpose. While the Commission do not endorse a specific list, it encourages industry to either make use of existing tools or develop new ones to serve this purpose. Gateway providers may choose the list that works best for their networks so long as that list is reasonable. Because the Commission finds that a single, centralized list is not the correct approach, it declines to develop a “high availability application or online tool” as one commenter suggests. The Commission is concerned that a centralized list could present security concerns and allow bad actors to circumvent blocking by providing a clear list of numbers to avoid spoofing. (In some instances, there is still value in a DNO list even when bad actors know what numbers are included. For example, consumer trust may increase when the caller cannot spoof a known number associated with the caller the bad actor is attempting to impersonate. A non-public list, at a minimum, slows bad actors in their efforts to switch numbers and prevents some calls from reaching consumers.)
74. The Commission disagrees with the commenter that argued the mandate is unnecessary because many providers already use a DNO list to block calls. The Commission recognizes that providers have used DNO lists to reduce the number of illegal calls that reach consumers, and the Commission applauds these industry efforts. The Commission finds that enlisting all gateway providers in this effort will further reduce the risk of illegal calls reaching consumers. There is no legitimate reason for the caller to use numbers that appear on a DNO list. Therefore, these calls, if they reach even a single consumer, cause harm. The Commission also declines to deem gateway providers in compliance with this requirement if they have implemented a reasonable DNO in some parts of their network but not at the gateway. The intent of this rule is to stop foreign-originated illegal calls from entering the U.S. network at all. If these calls are not stopped at the gateway, there is a risk that they will not be blocked at all and will therefore reach consumers.
75. The Commission declines at this time to require gateway providers to block calls that are highly likely to be illegal based on reasonable analytics. The Commission agrees with commenters' concerns regarding mandating such blocking. Additionally, the Commission finds that many of the arguments against mandatory blocking generally, while not persuasive in the context of other rules the Commission adopts, are persuasive in this context. An analytics-based blocking mandate would require the Commission to more strictly define “reasonable analytics” in order for gateway providers to be certain that they are in compliance with a mandatory blocking rule. To do so may be counter-productive and prevent providers from responding to evolving threats. The Commission is also concerned that providing a strict
76. Except as described above, the Commission declines to adopt a safe harbor for providers that block consistent with the rules the Commission adopts. Several comments addressing safe harbors focused on blocking based on reasonable analytics, and in some cases on extending the Commission's existing safe harbor instead of mandating blocking. The Commission does not adopt a reasonable analytics blocking mandate, and extending the existing safe harbor is outside of the scope of this document. Other comments did support a safe harbor more broadly, without tying the request to reasonable analytics. However, the Commission finds that the rules it adopts remove the need for such a safe harbor. In the case of blocking based on Commission notification, there is no need for a safe harbor where there is a clear Commission directive to block particular traffic directed at an individual provider. Nor is a safe harbor necessary for the downstream provider blocking requirement because the immediate downstream provider is required to block all traffic from the identified provider, regardless of whether that provider is a gateway provider for the particular traffic. There is no judgment call for a provider to make that could require a safe harbor. The Commission declines CTIA's request to establish a safe harbor is necessary for blocking based on a reasonable DNO list. First, providers have been permitted to engage in this type of blocking since 2017, and no commenter has pointed to any liability issues regarding over-blocking in this context. A gateway provider that is concerned about the possibility that they may not be able to keep a list containing unallocated or unused numbers fully up to date is not required to include those numbers on the list; while these numbers may be included, they are not mandatory. Providers that are concerned about possible under-blocking should take steps to ensure they are making use of a reasonable DNO list, and the Commission sees no reason to provide additional protection.
77. Consistent with the Commission's existing blocking rules, gateway providers must never block emergency calls to 911 and must make all reasonable efforts to ensure that calls from PSAPs and Government emergency numbers are not blocked. The Commission declines to adopt additional transparency and redress requirements at this time or extend any other existing requirements that would not already apply to the blocking mandates the Commission adopts. The new mandatory blocking rules either require the Commission to direct blocking, in which case the blocking provider is not in a position to provide redress, or target categories of calls that have been permissible to block since 2017. Some commenters expressed concerns about transparency and redress. The Commission recognizes some concerns regarding the potential for lawful calls to be blocked are valid, such as when a provider relies on analytics to make blocking decisions. These concerns do not apply here, however, where blocking is either at the direction of the Commission or based on a reasonable DNO list.
78. The Commission requires gateway and downstream providers to comply with the requirements to block upon Commission notification no later than 60 days after publication of this document in the
79. The Commission adopts a modified version of its proposal to require gateway providers to “know the customer.” Recognizing the difficulty posed by a requirement for gateway providers to know information about the caller, who is likely not their customer and with whom they have no relationship, the Commission instead requires gateway providers to “know” the immediate upstream foreign provider from which they receive traffic with U.S. numbers in the caller ID field. Specifically, the Commission requires gateway providers to take reasonable and effective steps to ensure that the immediate upstream foreign provider is not using the gateway provider to carry or process a high volume of illegal traffic onto the U.S. network.
80. The record supports deeming the immediate upstream foreign provider as “customer” for these purposes, rather than the caller. Though one commenter favored adopting its original proposal, the Commission agrees with other commenters that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for gateway providers to routinely confirm that a particular caller is authorized to use a U.S. number. By definition, a gateway provider is an intermediate provider and is thus at least one step removed from the caller. By contrast, the gateway provider must have a direct relationship with the upstream foreign provider from which it accepts traffic, which allows the gateway provider to “know” that upstream provider. This approach best balances the benefit of holding gateway providers responsible for calls they allow into the U.S. network with the difficulty of determining information about a caller that may be several hops away from the gateway.
81. The Commission agrees with the commenter that argues that the Commission's existing, flexible approach to know-your-customer requirements, rather than specific mandates, is appropriate in the gateway context. The Commission does not mandate the steps gateway providers must take in order to “know” the upstream foreign provider. Instead, the Commission allows gateway providers
82. The Commission recognizes concerns about the effectiveness of such a requirement, since the foreign provider upstream of the gateway may not be the source of the calls. The Commission agrees that the ideal approach would be for any obligation to fall to the originating provider, as in the Commission's existing rules. Unfortunately, in the case of foreign-originated calls, the Commission faces substantial difficulties in enforcing such an obligation on the foreign originating provider. (Due to this jurisdictional issue, the Commission imposes this obligation on the gateway provider as the first U.S.-based provider in the call path.) The Commission recognizes that gateway providers cannot prevent all instances of illegal calls from entering the U.S. network. In particular, a gateway provider's previously effective steps may become unexpectedly ineffective due to changes in factors outside of the gateway provider's control, particularly when the gateway provider is multiple hops from the call originator. (The Commission further acknowledges that, no matter how effective a gateway provider's methods are, some illegal calls may make up a portion of the traffic that it originates onto the U.S. network, and make clear that the fact that some illegal calls evade detection does not necessarily make a gateway provider's methods ineffective. The Commission therefore agrees with parties that asked it to clarify that “occasionally serving as a gateway provider for illegal robocalls, particularly where those illegal calls are an insignificant fraction of that provider's traffic, does not inherently make the provider's practices ineffective.” The Commission declines, however, to adopt the specific language proposed by the INCOMPAS et al. May 6 Ex Parte. The Commission makes clear, however, that a “high volume of illegal traffic” is a relative measure that is determined, in part, by what percentage of the traffic for which the provider is a gateway provider is illegal.) The Commission therefore reiterates that, as with its existing rule, it does not expect perfection. The Commission does require gateway providers to take reasonable steps, and it encourages gateway providers to regularly evaluate and adjust their approach so that they remain reasonable and effective. (Reasonable steps may include, but are not limited to, investigation of the practices of the upstream provider, modification of contracts to allow termination where issues arise, and/or monitoring incoming traffic for issues on an ongoing, proactive, basis.)
83. Because the Commission does not adopt the exact proposal in the
84.
85. In addition to the specific mitigation requirements that the Commission adopts above, it also requires gateway providers to meet a general obligation to mitigate illegal robocalls regardless of whether they have fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN on the IP portions of their network. The Commission takes this step now because of the unique and key role that gateway providers play in the call path. Specifically, the Commission now requires all gateway providers to take “reasonable steps to avoid carrying or processing illegal robocall traffic.” The Commission does not require that the gateway provider take specific steps to meet this standard, in line with the existing requirement for voice service providers. The majority of commenters support the adoption of a general mitigation standard for gateway providers.
86. As with voice service providers subject to the “reasonable steps” standard, gateway providers must also implement a robocall mitigation program and, as explained above, file that plan along with a certification in the Robocall Mitigation Database. The record reflects significant support for adopting, at a minimum, a mitigation duty for gateway providers in addition to requiring them to submit a certification to the Robocall Mitigation Database. The Commission therefore adopts, consistent with its proposal, a mitigation duty for gateway providers that closely tracks the analogous rule for voice service providers. Specifically, a gateway provider's plan is “sufficient if it includes detailed practices that can reasonably be expected to significantly reduce the [carrying or processing] of illegal robocalls.” Moreover, a gateway provider “must comply with the practices” that its plan requires, and its program is insufficient if the gateway provider “knowingly or through negligence [carries or processes calls] for unlawful robocall campaigns.”
87. The Commission requires gateway providers to mitigate traffic under the “reasonable steps” standard even if they have implemented STIR/SHAKEN for several reasons. First, the Commission notes the strong support in the record
88. Second, both the current record and the experience since the
89. Finally, the Commission anticipates that a general mitigation duty applicable to all gateway providers regardless of whether they have implemented STIR/SHAKEN will “provide a valuable backstop” to the other obligations the Commission adopts because call blocking, and traceback based on notice “cannot take the place of the
90. The Commission concludes that gateway providers' key role in facilitating the transmission of foreign-originated robocalls to U.S. consumers warrants imposing the “reasonable steps” mitigation duty on these providers without delay. While several commenters argue in the record for adopting more specific and broader duties on all domestic providers, the Commission leaves open for consideration such an expansion in the accompanying
91.
92. The Commission finds that the benefits of the rules it adopts will greatly outweigh the costs imposed on gateway providers. The Commission sought comment on its belief that the proposed rules, viewed collectively, would account for a large share of the annual $13.5 billion minimum benefit the Commission originally estimated in the
93. The Commission finds that the costs imposed on gateway providers are, in many instances, minimal and in all cases do not exceed the benefits. For example, a number of gateway providers are already required to implement STIR/SHAKEN in some portions of their networks because they do not solely act as gateway or intermediate providers, but may also serve as originating or terminating providers for some calls. In these cases, the additional burden to implement STIR/SHAKEN where a provider is acting as a gateway provider may be limited and has declined over time. Similarly, requiring gateway providers to block, rather than effectively mitigate, illegal traffic when notified by the Commission does not represent a burden increase, and in some cases may even be a burden decrease by eliminating the need to determine what mitigation is effective in a particular instance. As explained, the Commission disagrees with the burden estimates proffered by some commenters. However, even if the Commission does credit those claims, the expected minimum benefit is, as explained, so large that it will greatly outweigh the expected burden. (Contrary to USTelecom's assertion, the Commission does not take the position that it “can adopt any individual regulation to fight illegal robocalls, no matter the cost or benefit of that particular regulation, as long as the aggregate cost of requirements is less than $13.5 billion.” Rather, the Commission concludes that the requirements it adopts here will result in a “large share” of the $13.5 billion annual projected benefits from eliminating illegal robocalls, and no party has asserted that the purported costs of any or all of these regulations would cost either in one year or over several years a “large share” of $13.5 billion.)
94. Moreover, although the rules the Commission adopts will impose higher short-term costs on gateway providers
95. Consistent with its proposals, the Commission adopts the foregoing obligations pursuant to the legal authority the Commission relied on in prior caller ID authentication and call blocking orders. The Commission notes that no commenter questioned its proposed legal authority. (USTelecom suggests that because C-level attestations are “untethered to the call authentication goal,” the TRACED Act does not provide authority to adopt a gateway provider authentication requirement. But USTelecom's argument is inapposite because the Commission does not rely on the TRACED Act for its authority to impose this obligation, and USTelecom does not assert that the Commission otherwise lacks authority to impose a gateway provider authentication obligation.)
96.
97.
98. The Commission concludes that section 251(e) and the Truth in Caller ID Act authorizes it to prohibit intermediate providers and voice service providers from accepting traffic from gateway providers that do not appear in the Robocall Mitigation Database. In the
99. The Commission also concludes that sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(e) of the Act, as well as the Truth in Caller ID Act and its ancillary authority, support the mandatory mitigation and blocking obligations the Commission imposes on gateway providers here. In the
100. The Commission concluded that it had the authority to adopt these requirements pursuant to sections 201(b), 202(a), and 251(e) of the Act, as well as the Truth in Caller ID Act and its ancillary authority. Sections 201(b) and 202(a) provide the Commission with “broad authority to adopt rules governing just and reasonable practices of common carriers.” Accordingly, the Commission found that the new blocking rules were “clearly within the scope of our section 201(b) and 202(a) authority” and “that it is essential that the rules apply to all voice service providers,” applying its ancillary authority in section 4(i). The Commission also found that section 251(e) and the Truth in Caller ID Act provided the basis “to prescribe rules to prevent the unlawful spoofing of caller ID and abuse of NANP resources by all voice service providers,” a category that includes Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP) providers and, in the context of the Commission's call blocking orders, gateway providers. The Commission concludes that the same authority provides a basis to adopt the mitigation and blocking obligations on gateway providers the Commission adopts in this document to the extent that gateway providers are acting as common carriers.
101. While the Commission concludes that its direct sources of authority provide an ample basis to adopt its proposed rules on all gateway providers, its ancillary authority in section 4(i) provides an independent basis to do so with respect to gateway providers that have not been classified as common carriers. The Commission concludes that the regulations adopted in this document are “reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective performance of its . . . responsibilities” because gateway providers that interconnect with the public switched telephone network and exchange IP traffic clearly offer “communication by wire and radio.”
102. Requiring gateway providers to comply with the Commission's proposed rules is reasonably ancillary to the Commission's effective performance of its statutory responsibilities under sections 201(b), 202(a), 251(e), and the Truth in Caller ID Act as described above. With respect to sections 201(b) and 202(a), absent application of the Commission's proposed rules to gateway providers that are not classified as common carriers, originators of international robocalls could circumvent its proposed scheme by sending calls only to such gateway providers to reach the U.S. market.
103.
104. Several parties argue that foreign providers may not be able to file in the Robocall Mitigation Database because foreign legal obligations may prevent them from satisfying the traceback obligations imposed on all such filers. (The Commission notes that these obligations arise out of the prohibition established in the
105. In this document, the Commission expands the requirement that voice service providers only accept calls carrying U.S. NANP numbers from foreign-originating providers listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database so that domestic providers may only accept calls carrying U.S. NANP numbers sent directly from foreign-originating or intermediate providers that are listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database, including those that have not been de-listed through enforcement action. (The Commission adopts this change in response to both CTIA's and Voice on the Net Coalition's (VON) Petitions, as well as the
106. In response to the
107. Several commenters support this approach, including CTIA. In its comments, CTIA notes that industry stakeholders have made significant strides in encouraging their foreign partners to implement robocall mitigation programs so that they can register in the Robocall Mitigation Database, with many reporting that “all, or nearly all, of their foreign partners that originate traffic have now registered,” even absent enforcement of the requirement. Indeed, as of May 17, 2022, 875 foreign voice service providers have filed in the Robocall Mitigation Database, out of a total 6,285 voice service provider filings. To further enhance the effectiveness of the Robocall Mitigation Database in protecting against foreign-originated robocalls, CTIA argues that the Commission should clarify that foreign intermediate providers must also implement robocall mitigation programs and certify to such in the database in order for their traffic to be accepted by domestic providers. CTIA notes that promoting robocall mitigation by foreign intermediate providers in this fashion will promote use of the techniques by all entities in the call path and will help protect U.S. networks from illegal traffic.
108. The Commission agrees with CTIA's conclusions. Given the number of different entities that are typically involved in originating, carrying, processing, and terminating a call, a requirement that applies only to calls received directly from the foreign provider that originated them will capture only a small fraction of the total number of calls that domestic providers accept from foreign providers on a daily basis. To increase the effectiveness of the requirement and to better protect American consumers from foreign-originated illegal robocalls, it is necessary to expand the scope of the requirement to include all calls received directly from a foreign provider that originates, carries, or processes the call in question. This approach obviates the concerns of commenters that a gateway provider likely does not know which provider originated a particular call or where it was originated; it only knows the upstream foreign provider that handed off the call. Indeed, this is one of the reasons the Commission defines “gateway provider” in this document as the U.S.-based intermediate provider that receives a call directly from a foreign originating or foreign intermediate provider at its U.S.-based facilities before transmitting the call
109. To ensure that foreign providers have sufficient time to take steps in light of this expanded rule and to facilitate consistent obligations, the Commission will begin enforcing the requirement that providers accept only traffic received directly from foreign providers that originate, carry, or process calls that have filed a certification in the database on the deadline for gateway providers to block traffic sent from foreign providers that originate, carry, or process calls established in this document. That is, enforcement will begin 90 days following the deadline for gateway providers to submit a certification to the Robocall Mitigation Database. This same blocking deadline will also apply to providers to block traffic from foreign
110. Contrary to the dire outcomes contemplated in CTIA and VON's Petitions discussed below, the requirement that voice service providers only accept calls carrying U.S. NANP numbers from foreign voice service providers listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database has not resulted in mass confusion or a widespread failure on the part of foreign voice service providers to register in the Robocall Mitigation Database. In reality, a significant number of foreign voice service providers have been made aware of the requirement and have registered in the Robocall Mitigation Database. Now that the Commission has taken the time to ensure that the requirement can be implemented without causing significant disruptions to legitimate, legal traffic, it is time to ensure that the requirement adequately protects American consumers from as many foreign-originated illegal robocalls as possible, and not merely a tiny fraction of such calls. The Commission knows the requirement can work on a practical level, and the Commission finds that the expected benefits will far outweigh any minimal costs that may be imposed on gateway providers. While the rules the Commission adopts in this document provide some additional tools to domestic providers to combat illegal robocalls originating outside the U.S., the Commission must give domestic providers as many tools as it can to protect their customers from as wide a swathe of foreign-originated illegal robocalls as possible. (To quote T-Mobile, the tools the new gateway provider rules represent “may not be foolproof.”)
111. Several commenters have urged the Commission to reach out to its counterparts in foreign governments and inform them of its latest efforts to protect consumers from illegal robocalls while also encouraging regulators abroad to promote foreign provider participation in robocall mitigation and the Robocall Mitigation Database. The Commission takes this opportunity to reiterate its commitment to continue engaging actively with its international partners abroad to inform them of its latest efforts to combat illegal robocalls and to encourage robocall mitigation efforts on their part as well as participation in the Robocall Mitigation Database among their domestic providers. The Commission recognizes that it is only through active dialogue and cooperation with its international counterparts that it will be able to fully address the scourge of illegal robocalls here at home.
112.
113. The Commission additionally finds authority in the Truth in Caller ID Act. It finds that the rule the Commission adopts is necessary to enable voice service providers and intermediate providers to help prevent illegal spoofed robocalls and to protect
114. In expanding the scope of the requirement and concluding that domestic providers may only accept calls directly from a foreign provider that originates, carries, or processes a call if that foreign provider is registered in the Robocall Mitigation Database, the Commission plainly disagrees with the CTIA and VON Petitions for Reconsideration requesting that the Commission eliminate or otherwise curtail the requirement or asserting that the Commission violated the Administrative Procedure Act's (APA) notice-and-comment requirement when it adopted this rule in the
115. The Commission denies CTIA's Petition because the evidence in the record demonstrates that the requirement is unlikely to have the negative consequences CTIA fears, and the Commission has already followed CTIA's recommendations to focus on other mitigation efforts and to delay enforcement of the requirement while developing a more substantial record. In its Petition, CTIA raises three primary arguments against the requirement that domestic providers only accept calls carrying U.S. NANP numbers from foreign voice service providers listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database: (1) the requirement will cause issues with international roaming that will harm American mobile wireless consumers in the U.S. and abroad; (2) the Commission's other efforts enable providers to protect consumers from illegal and unwanted robocalls from overseas without the need for a requirement that domestic providers only accept calls carrying U.S. NANP numbers from foreign voice service providers listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database; and (3) reconsideration is necessary because evidence of the requirement's impact on American wireless consumers is now available. The Commission addresses each of these arguments in turn.
116. CTIA asserts in its Petition that wireless roaming is a “complex endeavor, which is more complicated internationally, as U.S. mobile network operators have roaming agreements with hundreds of overseas network operators to enable U.S. consumers to remain connected no matter where they travel or move.” When a mobile wireless consumer abroad uses a U.S. phone number to call a consumer in the U.S., “that call may be routed from an originating foreign provider's network over long distance routes that involve multiple foreign mobile network operators often on the basis of least cost routing to reach a U.S. intermediate or terminating provider for delivery to the intended recipient.” Because of this, there are a “number of hand-offs for a call on its way back to a U.S. consumer, and any one of hundreds of foreign providers could be chosen as the final foreign provider in the call path that interconnects with a U.S. intermediate or terminating provider.” CTIA asserts that, if that final foreign voice service provider fails to implement a robocall mitigation program and certify to such in the Robocall Mitigation Database, all of its traffic—including legal, legitimate traffic—would be “prohibited from reaching the intended recipients. . . .” Thus, CTIA claims that the requirement that domestic providers only accept calls carrying U.S. NANP numbers from foreign voice service providers listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database would risk “significant call completion issues for wireless calls from hundreds of foreign providers' networks, from any mobile wireless consumer using a U.S. phone number to make a call from abroad.” CTIA also claims that foreign voice service providers that interconnect with U.S. providers will “likely fail to register” with the Robocall Mitigation Database in a timely manner. (And BT Americas Inc. asserts in its comments in support of the CTIA Petition that “the certification process may place foreign carriers in the impossible situation of either having to violate their commitment to the FCC or violate the laws of their home country.” As the Commission states earlier in this document, to the extent that foreign providers face
117. The Commission believes that CTIA's concerns are overstated, and in any event the Commission does not find them sufficient to outweigh the benefits of the requirement. In light of the prevalence of foreign-originated illegal robocalls aimed at U.S. consumers, the requirement is a critical tool in combatting such calls. And far from resulting in a widespread failure to register with the Robocall Mitigation Database among foreign service providers, the requirement—along with the diligent and concerted efforts of U.S. providers—seems to have actively encouraged foreign voice service providers to institute robocall mitigation programs abroad and file certifications to be listed in the database and thus have their traffic continue to be accepted by domestic intermediate and terminating providers. As CTIA itself notes in its comments, since the establishment of the requirement in 2020, “U.S. providers have worked diligently to educate their foreign counterparts about call authentication, robocall mitigation, and registration expectations,” outreach that has included individual providers engaging directly with their foreign counterparts, as well as efforts to increase awareness of these changes through existing industry bodies such as the GSM Association (GSMA), the Communications Fraud Control Association, and the Messaging, Malware and Mobile Anti-Abuse Working Group (M3AAWG). According to CTIA, this work has produced results, with many foreign voice service providers implementing robocall mitigation plans and registering in the Robocall Mitigation Database even as the requirement has been held in abeyance. Based on the education and outreach efforts of CTIA members, 99% of AT&T's international traffic now comes from carriers registered in the Robocall Mitigation Database. Similarly, T-Mobile reports receiving all of its inbound international traffic from providers registered in the Robocall Mitigation Database, and Verizon states that approximately 99% of the traffic it receives from foreign voice service providers is from those registered in the Robocall Mitigation Database, thus mooting T-Mobile's arguments that the
118. Given the extraordinarily high levels at which foreign voice service providers have implemented robocall mitigation programs and registered with the Robocall Mitigation Database even absent enforcement of the requirement, the Commission finds CTIA's initial concerns that foreign voice service providers would fail to register with the database to no longer be an issue. (Nor has there been, as IDT feared, a rash of reciprocal registration and filing requirements for U.S. providers from foreign regulators. As for IDT's concern that the requirement would lead to “an unequal enforcement problem, as many small operators may turn a blind eye to the requirement of their customers' registration, yet will go undetected because of a low profile,” such a generalized risk could be said to apply equally to every regulation the Commission adopts and is not a valid reason to refrain from adopting a specific policy or regulation. Moreover, this argument imparts a heightened degree of malicious intent to small providers based purely upon the size of their operations. The Commission do not believe that small providers are any more or less likely to engage in illegal or malicious conduct than are large ones, and the Commission thus rejects the assumptions underpinning this argument.) Indeed, it appears that, much as CTIA intended, the Commission's decision to hold the requirement in abeyance has permitted domestic providers to interface with their foreign counterparts and encourage them to develop robocall mitigation implementation plans and register with the Robocall Mitigation Database. The Commission, therefore, concludes that the requirement should not result in significant call completion issues and that reconsideration based on this concern is unwarranted.
119. CTIA's second argument is that the Commission's other actions to prevent illegal and unwanted robocalls from outside the United States—including enforcement actions against VoIP providers facilitating illegal voice traffic, encouraging providers to protect international gateways from robocalls, and adopting a safe harbor for blocking traffic from bad actors—are more targeted and less disruptive than the requirement that domestic providers only accept calls carrying U.S. NANP numbers from foreign voice service providers listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database. Thus, the Commission “should continue to focus on these and similar efforts while developing the record” on the requirement.
120. After having developed a more fulsome record on the requirement in the wake of the
121. CTIA's final argument is that reconsideration is appropriate because the Commission did not, in the
122. As noted above, the Commission solicited a more robust record in response to the
123. For the forgoing reasons, the Commission denies CTIA's petition.
124. VON's Petition relies largely on a single argument in seeking reconsideration of the requirement that domestic providers only accept calls carrying U.S. NANP numbers from foreign providers listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database—that the requirement violates the APA because the Commission failed to solicit and consider public comment on it. Thus, VON contends that the Commission should seek additional comments on the proposal to “allow for a more thoughtful vetting of an otherwise very complicated issue.” The Commission denies the VON Petition on substantive grounds for the reasons stated below. The Commission alternatively dismisses the Petition as mooted by the Commission's decision to hold enforcement of the requirement in abeyance until a final decision was reached regarding whether to eliminate, retain, or enhance the requirement and the Commission's request for comments on the scope of the requirement in the
125. In the
126. In response to the
127. Courts have long held that the APA requires that the final rule that an agency adopts be a “logical outgrowth of the rule proposed.” While the Commission did not explicitly propose a rule in the
128. That this requirement is a logical outgrowth of such requests for comment is evident from the fact numerous entities filed comments in response to the
129. The Commission thus finds VON's claim that the adoption of the requirement violated the APA to be baseless and, accordingly, deny their Petition on substantive grounds.
130. Independently, and in the alternative, the Commission finds that the Commission's decision to hold enforcement of the requirement in abeyance until it reached a final decision regarding whether to eliminate, retain, or enhance the requirement, together with the Commission's request for comments on the scope of the requirement in the
131. Much like CTIA in its own Petition, VON did not call for the wholesale elimination of the requirement that domestic providers only accept calls carrying U.S. NANP numbers from foreign voice service providers listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database, but merely time to solicit additional comment and allow for further consideration of the requirement. Regardless of whether the
132. Because the Commission finds that adoption of the requirement that domestic voice service providers and domestic intermediate providers only accept calls carrying U.S. NANP numbers from foreign voice service providers listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database did not violate the APA's notice-and-comment requirements and that VON's Petition is mooted by the Commission's decision to hold enforcement of the requirement in abeyance while the Commission sought comment on whether to eliminate, retain, or enhance the requirement, the Commission denies VON's Petition on substantive grounds and independently, and in the alternative, dismiss it as moot.
133. In this document, the Commission makes a ministerial change to a codified rule required to correct an inadvertent typographical error and spell out an undefined acronym. The Commission revises § 64.6300(f) of its rules, which defines the term “intermediate provider,” to change the word “carriers” to “carries” and to change the reference to “PSTN” to “public switched telephone network.” The Commission finds that there is good cause for adopting this amendment here because the typographical error may confuse those seeking to understand how the Commission defines the term “intermediate provider” for purposes of complying with its rules governing caller ID authentication, and the use of undefined acronyms, even if well known, is not preferable.
134. Section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act permits the Commission to amend the Commission's rules without undergoing notice and comment where the Commission finds good cause that doing so is “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” The Commission has previously determined that notice and comment is not necessary for “editorial changes or corrections of typographical errors.” Consistent with Commission precedent, in this instance the Commission finds that notice and comment is unnecessary for adopting a ministerial revision to § 64.6300(f) to correct an inadvertent typographical error and spell out an undefined acronym in the definition of “intermediate provider.”
135. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), as amended, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated into the
136. First, this document takes important steps in the fight against foreign-originated illegal robocalls by holding gateway providers responsible for the calls they allow onto the U.S. network. Finally, the
137.
138. First, this document requires gateway providers to submit a certification and plan to the Robocall Mitigation Database describing their robocall mitigation practices and stating that they are adhering to those practices, regardless of whether they have fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN, and requires downstream domestic providers receiving traffic from gateway providers to block traffic from such a provider if the gateway provider has not submitted a certification in the Robocall Mitigation Database. Second, this document requires gateway providers to implement STIR/SHAKEN to authenticate SIP calls that are carrying a U.S. number in the caller ID field. Third, it requires gateway providers to fully respond to traceback requests from the Commission, civil and criminal law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium within 24 hours of receipt of such a request. Fourth, it requires gateway providers to block illegal traffic when notified of such traffic by the
139.
140. There were no comments raised that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies presented in the
141. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
142. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of, and where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted herein. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small-business concern” under the Small Business Act. (Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 601(3), the statutory definition of a small business applies “unless an agency, after consultation with the Office of Advocacy of the Small Business Administration and after opportunity for public comment, establishes one or more definitions of such term which are appropriate to the activities of the agency and publishes such definition(s) in the
143.
144. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. (The IRS benchmark is similar to the population of less than 50,000 benchmark in 5 U.S.C. 601(5) that is used to define a small governmental jurisdiction. Therefore, the IRS benchmark has been used to estimate the number small organizations in this small entity description. The Commission notes that the IRS data does not provide information on whether a small exempt organization is independently owned and operated or dominant in its field.) Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS. (The IRS Exempt Organization Business Master File (E.O. BMF) Extract provides information on all registered tax-exempt/non-profit organizations. The data utilized for purposes of this description was extracted from the IRS E.O. BMF data for businesses for the tax year 2020 with revenue less than or equal to $50,000, for Region 1—Northeast Area (58,577), Region 2—Mid-Atlantic and Great Lakes Areas (175,272), and Region 3—Gulf Coast and Pacific Coast Areas (213,840) which includes the continental U.S., Alaska, and Hawaii. This data does not include information for Puerto Rico.)
145. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments (the Census of Governments survey is conducted every five (5) years compiling data for years ending with “2” and “7”) indicates that there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. (Local governmental jurisdictions are made up of general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) and special purpose governments (special districts and independent school districts).) Of this number there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, municipal and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts with enrollment populations of less than 50,000. (There were 2,105 county governments with populations less than 50,000. This category does not include subcounty (municipal and township) governments. There were
146.
147. The SBA small business size standard for Wired Telecommunications Carriers classifies firms having 1,500 or fewer employees as small. U.S. Census Bureau data for 2017 show that there were 3,054 firms that operated in this industry for the entire year. Of this number, 2,964 firms operated with fewer than 250 employees. (The available U.S. Census Bureau data does not provide a more precise estimate of the number of firms that meet the SBA size standard.) Additionally, based on Commission data in the 2021 Universal Service Monitoring Report, as of December 31, 2020, there were 5,183 providers that reported they were engaged in the provision of fixed local services. Of these providers, the Commission estimates that 4,737 providers have 1,500 or fewer employees. Consequently, using the SBA's small business size standard, most of these providers can be considered small entities.
148.
149.
150.
151.
152.
153.
154.
155.
156.
157.
158.
159.
160. The
161.
162. A gateway provider must certify whether it has fully, partially, or not implemented STIR/SHAKEN, and include a statement in its certification that it commits to responding fully to all traceback requests from the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium and cooperate with such entities in investigating and stopping illegal robocalls. Submissions may be made confidentially consistent with the Commission's existing confidentiality rules. All information must be submitted in English or with a certified English translation and updated within 10 business days. Gateway providers must provide the same identifying information submitted by voice service providers.
163. Gateway providers must also implement STIR/SHAKEN to authenticate SIP calls that are carrying a U.S. number in the caller ID field. To comply with this requirement, a gateway provider must authenticate caller ID information for all SIP calls it receives for which the caller ID information has not been authenticated and which it will exchange with another provider as a SIP call consistent with the relevant ATIS standards. Gateway providers have the flexibility to assign the level of attestation appropriate to the call based on the current version of the standards and the call information available to the gateway provider. A gateway provider using non-IP network technology in all or a portion of its network must provide the Commission, upon request, with documented proof that it is participating, either on its own or through a representative, as a member of a working group, industry standards group, or consortium that is working to develop a non-IP solution, or actively testing such a solution. Under this rule, a gateway provider satisfies its obligations if it participates through a third-party representative, such as a trade association of which it is a member or vendor.
164. Gateway providers, and, in one case, any intermediate or terminating provider immediately downstream from the gateway, must also satisfy several robocall mitigation requirements. These requirements apply to any gateway provider, regardless of whether or not they have fully implemented STIR/SHAKEN on the IP portions of their network.
165. First, gateway providers must fully respond to traceback requests from the Commission, civil and criminal law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium within 24 hours of receipt of such a request. The gateway provider should respond with information about the provider from which it directly received the call.
166. Second, gateway providers, and in one case, any intermediate or terminating provider immediately downstream from the gateway, must block calls in certain instances. Specifically, the gateway provider must block illegal traffic once notified of such traffic by the Commission through its Enforcement Bureau. In order to comply with this requirement, gateway providers must block traffic that is substantially similar to the identified traffic on an ongoing basis. When a gateway provider fails to comply with this requirement, the Commission may require providers immediately downstream from a gateway provider to block all traffic from the identified provider when notified by the Commission. As part of this requirement, a notified gateway provider must promptly report the results of its investigation to the Enforcement Bureau, including, unless the gateway provider determines it is either not a gateway provider for any of the identified traffic or that the identified traffic is not illegal, both a certification that it is blocking the identified traffic and will continue to do so and a description of its plan to identify the traffic on an ongoing basis. In order to comply with the downstream provider blocking requirement, all providers must monitor EB Docket No. 22-174 and initiate blocking within 30 days of a Blocking Order being released. Gateway providers must also block based on a reasonable do-not-originate (DNO list). Gateway providers are allowed flexibility to select the list that works best for them, so long as it is reasonable and only includes invalid, unallocated, and unused numbers, as well as numbers for which the subscriber to the number has requested blocking.
167. Third, gateway providers must take reasonable and effective steps to ensure that the immediate upstream provider is not using the gateway provider to originate a high volume of illegal traffic onto the U.S. network. Gateway providers have flexibility to determine the exact measures to take, so long as those steps are effective. Finally, gateway providers must meet a general obligation to mitigate illegal robocalls. Gateway providers are not required to take specific steps to satisfy this obligation, but must implement “reasonable steps” to avoid carrying or processing illegal robocall traffic and must also implement a robocall mitigation program and, as explained below, file that plan along with a certification in the Robocall Mitigation Database.
168. The
169. The RFA requires an agency to describe any significant alternatives that it has considered in reaching its approach, which may include the following four alternatives, among others: (1) the establishment of differing compliance or reporting requirements or timetables that take into account the resources available to small entities; (2) the clarification, consolidation, or simplification of compliance or reporting requirements under the rule for small entities; (3) the use of performance, rather than design, standards; and (4) an exemption from coverage of the rule, or any part thereof, for small entities.
170. Generally, the decisions the Commission made in this document apply to all providers generally, and do not impose unique burdens or benefits on small providers. Small providers are as capable of being the entry-point onto the U.S. network for illegal calls as large providers, which necessitates equal treatment if the Commission is to protect consumers from these calls. However, the Commission did take steps to ensure that providers, including small providers, would not be unduly burdened by these requirements. Specifically, the Commission allowed flexibility where appropriate to ensure that providers, including small providers, can determine the best
171. The Commission will send a copy of the
172.
173.
174.
175. Accordingly, pursuant to sections 4(i), 4(j), 201, 202, 217, 227, 227b, 251(e), 303(r), and 403 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154(i), 154(j), 201, 202, 217, 227, 227b, 251(e), 303(r), and 403,
176.
177.
178.
179.
180.
181.
182.
183.
184.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Communications, Communications common carriers, Classified information, Freedom of information, Government publications, Infants and children, Organization and functions (Government agencies), Postal Service, Privacy, Reporting and
Carrier equipment, Communications common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Telecommunications, Telephone.
The Federal Communications Commission amends parts 0 and 64 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, and 409, unless otherwise noted.
(a) * * *
(27) Identify suspected illegal calls and provide written notice to voice service providers. The Enforcement Bureau shall:
(i) Identify with as much particularity as possible the suspected traffic;
(ii) Cite the statutory or regulatory provisions the suspected traffic appears to violate;
(iii) Provide the basis for the Enforcement Bureau's reasonable belief that the identified traffic is unlawful, including any relevant nonconfidential evidence from credible sources such as the industry traceback consortium or law enforcement agencies; and
(iv) Direct the voice service provider receiving the notice that it must comply with § 64.1200(n)(2) or (5) of this chapter.
(28) Take enforcement action, including de-listing from the Robocall Mitigation Database, against any provider:
(i) Whose certification described in § 64.6305(c) and (d) of this chapter is deficient after giving that provider notice and an opportunity to cure the deficiency; or
(ii) Who accepts calls directly from a domestic voice service provider, gateway provider, or foreign provider not listed in the Robocall Mitigation Database in violation of § 64.6305(e) of this chapter.
47 U.S.C. 151, 152, 154, 201, 202, 217, 218, 220, 222, 225, 226, 227, 227b, 228, 251(a), 251(e), 254(k), 255, 262, 276, 403(b)(2)(B), (c), 616, 620, 716, 1401-1473, unless otherwise noted; Pub. L. 115-141, Div. P, sec. 503, 132 Stat. 348, 1091.
The additions and revisions read as follows:
(f) * * *
(19) The term
(i)
(ii)
(k) * * *
(5) A provider may not block a voice call under paragraphs (k)(1) through (4), paragraph (k)(11), paragraphs (n)(5) and (6), or paragraph (o) of this section if the call is an emergency call placed to 911.
(6) When blocking consistent with paragraphs (k)(1) through (4), paragraph (k)(11), paragraphs (n)(5) and (6), or paragraph (o) of this section, a provider must making all reasonable efforts to ensure that calls from public safety answering points and government emergency numbers are not blocked.
(n) * * *
(1) Upon receipt of a traceback request from the Commission, civil law enforcement, criminal law enforcement, or the industry traceback consortium:
(i) If the provider is an originating, terminating, or non-gateway intermediate provider for all calls specified in the traceback request, the provider must respond fully and in a timely manner;
(ii) If the provider receiving a traceback request is the gateway provider for any calls specified in the traceback request, the provider must fully respond to the traceback request within 24 hours of receipt of the request. The 24-hour clock does not start outside of business hours, and requests received during that time are deemed received at 8 a.m. on the next business day. If the 24-hour response period would end on a non-business day, either a weekend or a Federal legal holiday, the 24-hour clock does not run for the weekend or holiday in question, and restarts at 12:01 a.m. on the next business day following when the request would otherwise be due. For example, a request received at 3 p.m. on a Friday will be due at 3 p.m. on the following Monday, assuming that Monday is not a Federal legal holiday. For purposes of this paragraph (n)(1)(ii),
(4) If the provider acts as a gateway provider, take reasonable and effective steps to ensure that any foreign originating provider or foreign intermediate provider from which it directly receives traffic is not using the gateway provider to carry or process a high volume of illegal traffic onto the U.S. network. Compliance with this paragraph (n)(4) will not be required until January 16, 2023.
(5) If the provider acts as a gateway provider, and is properly notified under this section, block identified illegal traffic and any substantially similar traffic on an ongoing basis (unless its investigation determines that the traffic is not illegal) when it receives actual written notice of such traffic by the Commission through its Enforcement Bureau. The gateway provider will not be held liable under the Communications Act or the Commission's rules in this chapter for gateway providers that inadvertently block lawful traffic as part of the requirement to block substantially similar traffic so long as it is blocking consistent with the requirements of this paragraph (n)(5). For purposes of this paragraph (n)(5),
(i)(A) The Enforcement Bureau will issue a Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic that identifies with as much particularity as possible the suspected illegal traffic; provides the basis for the Enforcement Bureau's reasonable belief that the identified traffic is unlawful; cites the statutory or regulatory provisions the identified traffic appears to violate; and directs the provider receiving the notice that it must comply with this section. The Enforcement Bureau's Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic shall give the identified provider a minimum of 14 days to comply with the notice. Each notified provider must promptly investigate the identified traffic and report the results of that investigation to the Enforcement Bureau within the timeframe specified in the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic. If the provider's investigation determines that it served as the gateway provider for the identified traffic, it must block the identified traffic within the timeframe specified in the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic and include in its report to the Enforcement Bureau:
(
(
(B) If the provider's investigation determines that the identified traffic is not illegal, it shall provide an explanation as to why the provider reasonably concluded that the identified traffic is not illegal and what steps it took to reach that conclusion. Absent such a showing, or if the Enforcement Bureau determines based on the evidence that the traffic is illegal despite the provider's assertions, the identified traffic will be deemed illegal. If the notified provider determines during this investigation that it did not serve as the gateway provider for any of the identified traffic, it shall provide an explanation as to how it reached that conclusion and, if it is a non-gateway intermediate or terminating provider for the identified traffic, it must identify the upstream provider(s) from which it received the identified traffic and, if possible, take lawful steps to mitigate this traffic. If the notified provider determines that it is the originating provider, or the traffic otherwise comes from a source that does not have direct access to the U.S. public switched telephone network, it must promptly comply with paragraph (n)(2) of this section by effectively mitigating the identified traffic and reporting to the Enforcement Bureau any steps it has taken to effectively mitigate the identified traffic. If the Enforcement Bureau finds that an approved plan is not blocking substantially similar traffic, the identified provider shall modify its plan to block such traffic. If the Enforcement Bureau finds, that the identified provider continues to allow suspected illegal traffic onto the U.S. network, it may proceed under paragraph (n)(5)(ii) or (iii) of this section as appropriate.
(ii) If the provider fails to respond to the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic, the Enforcement Bureau determines that the response is insufficient, the Enforcement Bureau determines that the gateway provider is continuing to allow substantially similar traffic onto the U.S. network after the timeframe specified in the Notification of Suspected Illegal Traffic, or the Enforcement Bureau determines based on the evidence that the traffic is illegal despite the provider's assertions, the Enforcement Bureau shall issue an Initial Determination Order to the gateway provider stating the Bureau's initial determination that the gateway provider is not in compliance with this section. The Initial Determination Order shall include the Enforcement Bureau's reasoning for its determination and give the gateway provider a minimum of 14 days to provide a final response prior to the Enforcement Bureau making a final determination on whether the provider is in compliance with this section.
(iii) If the gateway provider does not provide an adequate response to the Initial Determination Order within the timeframe permitted in that Order or continues to allow substantially similar traffic onto the U.S. network, the Enforcement Bureau shall issue a Final Determination Order finding that the gateway provider is not in compliance with this section. The Final Determination Orders shall be published in EB Docket No. 22-174 at
(6) When notified by the Commission through its Enforcement Bureau that a Final Determination Order has been issued finding that a gateway provider has failed to block as required under paragraph (n)(5) of this section, block and cease accepting all traffic received directly from the identified gateway provider beginning 30 days after the release date of the Final Determination Order. This paragraph (n)(6) applies to any provider immediately downstream from the gateway provider. The Enforcement Bureau shall provide notification by publishing the Final Determination Order in EB Docket No. 22-174 at
(o) A provider that serves as a gateway provider for particular calls must, with respect to those calls, block any calls purporting to originate from a number on a reasonable do-not-originate list. A list so limited in scope that it leaves out obvious numbers that could be included with little effort may be deemed unreasonable. The do-not-originate list may include only:
(1) Numbers for which the subscriber to which the number is assigned has requested that calls purporting to originate from that number be blocked because the number is used for inbound calls only;
(2) North American Numbering Plan numbers that are not valid;
(3) Valid North American Numbering Plan Numbers that are not allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator; and
(4) Valid North American Numbering Plan numbers that are allocated to a provider by the North American Numbering Plan Administrator, but are unused, so long as the provider blocking the calls is the allocatee of the number and confirms that the number is unused or has obtained verification from the allocatee that the number is unused at the time of blocking.
(p) Paragraphs (n)(1) and (o) of this section may contain an information-collection and/or recordkeeping requirement. Compliance with paragraphs (n)(1) and (o) will not be required until this paragraph (p) is removed or contains a compliance date, which will not occur until after the Office of Management and Budget completes review of such requirements pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act or until after the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau determines that such review is not required. The Commission directs the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau to announce a compliance date for paragraphs (n)(1) and (o) by subsequent Public Notice and
The addition and revision read as follows:
(d)
(1)
(2)
(g)
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section, a gateway provider must, not later than June 30, 2023, authenticate caller identification information for all calls it receives that use North American Numbering Plan resources that pertain to the United States in the caller ID field and for which the caller identification information has not been authenticated and which it will exchange with another provider as a SIP call, unless that gateway provider is subject to an applicable extension in § 64.6304.
(a) Except as provided in §§ 64.6304 and 64.6306, not later than June 30, 2021, a voice service provider shall either:
(1) Upgrade its entire network to allow for the initiation, maintenance, and termination of SIP calls and fully implement the STIR/SHAKEN framework as required in § 64.6301 throughout its network; or
(2) Maintain and be ready to provide the Commission on request with documented proof that it is participating, either on its own or through a representative, including third party representatives, as a member of a working group, industry standards group, or consortium that is working to develop a non-internet Protocol caller identification authentication solution, or actively testing such a solution.
(b) Except as provided in § 64.6304, not later than June 30, 2023, a gateway provider shall either:
(1) Upgrade its entire network to allow for the processing and carrying of SIP calls and fully implement the STIR/SHAKEN framework as required in § 64.6302(c) throughout its network; or
(2) Maintain and be ready to provide the Commission on request with documented proof that it is participating, either on its own or through a representative, including third party representatives, as a member of a working group, industry standards group, or consortium that is working to develop a non-internet Protocol caller identification authentication solution, or actively testing such a solution.
(3) Paragraph (b) of this section may contain an information collection and/or recordkeeping requirement. Compliance with paragraph (b) will not be required until this paragraph (b)(3) is removed or contains a compliance date, which will not occur until after the Office of Management and Budget completes review of such requirements pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act or until after the Wireline Competition Bureau determines that such review is not required. The Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to announce a compliance date for paragraph (b) by subsequent Public Notice and notification in the
(b)
(d)
(a)
(2) Any robocall mitigation program implemented pursuant to paragraph (a)(1) of this section shall include reasonable steps to avoid originating illegal robocall traffic and shall include a commitment to respond fully and in a timely manner to all traceback requests from the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium, and to cooperate with such entities in investigating and stopping any illegal robocallers that use its service to originate calls.
(b)
(2) Any robocall mitigation program implemented pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section shall include reasonable steps to avoid carrying or processing illegal robocall traffic and shall include a commitment to respond fully and within 24 hours to all traceback requests from the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium, and to cooperate with such entities in investigating and stopping any illegal robocallers that use its service to carry or process calls.
(3) Paragraph (b)(2) of this section may contain an information-collection and/or recordkeeping requirement. Compliance with paragraph (b)(2) will not be required until this paragraph (b)(3) is removed or contains a compliance date, which will not occur until after the Office of Management and Budget completes review of such requirements pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act or until after the Wireline Competition Bureau determines that such review is not required. The Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to announce a compliance date for paragraph (b) of this section by subsequent Public Notice and notification in the
(c)
(i) It has fully implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework across its entire network and all calls it originates are compliant with § 64.6301(a)(1) and (2);
(ii) It has implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework on a portion of its network and calls it originates on that portion of its network are compliant with § 64.6301(a)(1) and (2), and the remainder of the calls that originate on its network are subject to a robocall mitigation program consistent with paragraph (a) of this section; or
(iii) It has not implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework on any portion of its network, and all of the calls that originate on its network are subject to a robocall mitigation program consistent with paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) A voice service provider that certifies that some or all of the calls that originate on its network are subject to a robocall mitigation program consistent with paragraph (a) of this section shall include the following information in its certification in English or with a certified English translation:
(i) Identification of the type of extension or extensions the voice service provider received under § 64.6304, if the voice service provider is not a foreign voice service provider;
(ii) The specific reasonable steps the voice service provider has taken to avoid originating illegal robocall traffic as part of its robocall mitigation program; and
(iii) A statement of the voice service provider's commitment to respond fully and in a timely manner to all traceback requests from the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium, and to cooperate with such entities in investigating and stopping any illegal robocallers that use its service to originate calls.
(3) All certifications made pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this section shall:
(i) Be filed in the appropriate portal on the Commission's website; and
(ii) Be signed by an officer in conformity with 47 CFR 1.16.
(4) A voice service provider filing a certification shall submit the following information in the appropriate portal on the Commission's website:
(i) The voice service provider's business name(s) and primary address;
(ii) Other business names in use by the voice service provider;
(iii) All business names previously used by the voice service provider;
(iv) Whether the voice service provider is a foreign voice service provider; and
(v) The name, title, department, business address, telephone number, and email address of one person within the company responsible for addressing robocall mitigation-related issues.
(5) A voice service provider shall update its filings within 10 business days of any change to the information it must provide pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1) through (4) of this section.
(i) A voice service provider or intermediate provider that has been aggrieved by a Governance Authority decision to revoke that voice service provider's or intermediate provider's SPC token need not update its filing on the basis of that revocation until the sixty (60) day period to request Commission review, following completion of the Governance Authority's formal review process, pursuant to § 64.6308(b)(1) expires or, if the aggrieved voice service provider or intermediate provider files an appeal, until ten business days after the Wireline Competition Bureau releases a final decision pursuant to § 64.6308(d)(1).
(ii) If a voice service provider or intermediate provider elects not to file a formal appeal of the Governance Authority decision to revoke that voice service provider's or intermediate provider's SPC token, the provider need not update its filing on the basis of that revocation until the thirty (30) day period to file a formal appeal with the Governance Authority Board expires.
(6) Paragraph (c)(2) of this section may contain an information collection and/or recordkeeping requirement. Compliance with paragraph (c)(2) will not be required until this paragraph (c)(6) is removed or contains a compliance date, which will not occur until after the Office of Management and Budget completes review of such requirements pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act or until after the Wireline Competition Bureau determines that such review is not required. The Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to announce a compliance date for paragraph (c)(2) by subsequent Public Notice and notification in the
(d)
(i) It has fully implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework across its entire network and all calls it carries or processes are compliant with § 64.6302(b);
(ii) It has implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework on a portion of its network and calls it carries or processes on that portion of its network are compliant with § 64.6302(b); or
(iii) It has not implemented the STIR/SHAKEN authentication framework on any portion of its network for carrying or processing calls.
(2) A gateway provider shall include the following information in its certification made pursuant to paragraph (d)(1) of this section, in English or with a certified English translation:
(i) Identification of the type of extension or extensions the gateway provider received under § 64.6304;
(ii) The specific reasonable steps the gateway provider has taken to avoid carrying or processing illegal robocall traffic as part of its robocall mitigation program, including a description of how it has complied with the know-your-upstream provider requirement in § 64.1200(n)(4); and
(iii) A statement of the gateway provider's commitment to respond fully and within 24 hours to all traceback requests from the Commission, law enforcement, and the industry traceback consortium, and to cooperate with such entities in investigating and stopping any illegal robocallers that use its service to carry or process calls.
(3) All certifications made pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section shall:
(i) Be filed in the appropriate portal on the Commission's website; and
(ii) Be signed by an officer in conformity with 47 CFR 1.16.
(4) A gateway provider filing a certification shall submit the following information in the appropriate portal on the Commission's website:
(i) The gateway provider's business name(s) and primary address;
(ii) Other business names in use by the gateway provider;
(iii) All business names previously used by the gateway provider;
(iv) Whether the gateway provider or any affiliate is also a foreign voice service provider; and
(v) The name, title, department, business address, telephone number, and email address of one person within the company responsible for addressing robocall mitigation-related issues.
(5) A gateway provider shall update its filings within 10 business days of any change to the information it must provide pursuant to paragraphs (d)(1) through (4) of this section, subject to the conditions set forth in paragraphs (c)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
(6) Paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) of this section may contain an information collection and/or recordkeeping requirement. Compliance with paragraphs (d)(1) through (5) will not be required until this paragraph (d)(6) is removed or contains a compliance date, which will not occur until after the Office of Management and Budget completes review of such requirements pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act or until after the Wireline Competition Bureau determines that such review is not required. The Commission directs the Wireline Competition Bureau to announce a compliance date for paragraph (d) of this section by subsequent Public Notice and notification in the
(e)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(i) A provider may not block a voice call under any circumstances if the call is an emergency call placed to 911; and
(ii) A provider must make all reasonable efforts to ensure that it does not block any calls from public safety answering points and government emergency numbers.