Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Farm Service Agency
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Engineers Corps
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Western Area Power Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Children and Families Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Indian Affairs Bureau
Antitrust Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Final rule.
We are amending our regulations governing the user fees charged for certain Agricultural Quarantine and Inspection (AQI) services. We are reducing the fees charged to remove surcharges that were intended to fund a reserve. This action is necessary in order to ensure the regulations reflect an operational reduction of AQI fees that was announced through a November 1, 2022, Stakeholder Registry announcement, issued to comply with a September 15, 2022, judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and which took effect on December 1, 2022.
Effective March 17, 2023.
Mr. George Balady, Senior Regulatory Policy Specialist, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 131, Riverdale, MD 20737 1231; (301) 851-2338; email:
The Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade (FACT) Act of 1990 (21 U.S.C. 136a) authorizes the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture to collect user fees to fully fund its agricultural quarantine and inspection (AQI) services program. These user fees must be sufficient to cover the costs of:
• Providing AQI services in connection with the arrival, at a port in the customs territory of the United States, of an international passenger, commercial vessel, commercial aircraft, commercial truck, or railroad car (21 U.S.C. 136a(a)(1)(A));
• Providing preclearance or preinspection at a site outside the customs territory of the United States of an international passenger, commercial vessel, commercial aircraft, commercial truck, or railroad car (21 U.S.C. 136a(a)(1)(A));
• Administering the AQI Program (21 U.S.C. 136a(a)(1)(B)); and
• Through fiscal year 2002, maintaining a reasonable balance in the AQI User Fee Account also established by the Act (21 U.S.C. 136a(a)(1)(C)).
In the April 25, 2014,
Following a comment period and review of public comments, on October 29, 2015, we issued a final rule in the
On May 13, 2016, the Air Transport Association of America and the International Air Transport Association filed suit against APHIS, claiming the final rule updating the fees for its AQI program violated the FACT Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. On June 21, 2022, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued an opinion that rejected the bulk of the challenges to APHIS's fee-setting.
Consistent with this September 15, 2022, final judgment, on November 1, 2022, APHIS issued a Stakeholder Registry
This rule codifies that change in operational policy by revising the regulations to reflect the new fee rates.
The Court held that APHIS' authority to collect fees sufficient to maintain a reserve expired after fiscal year 2002 and, therefore, the 2015 final rule violated the FACT Act to the extent it set user fees at a level sufficient to maintain a reasonable balance in the AQI user fee account (
In the announcement, APHIS indicated that we would “publish a final rule in the
This final rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Animal diseases, Exports, Government employees, Imports, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Travel and transportation expenses.
Accordingly, we are amending 7 CFR part 354 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 49 U.S.C. 80503; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.3.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(f)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule; extension.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is extending, for a fourth time, the effective date (for 180 days) of its temporary final rule that modified certain regulatory requirements to help ensure that USCIS may continue with affirmative asylum adjudications during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This temporary final rule is effective from March 16, 2023 through September 12, 2023. As of March 16, 2023, the expiration date of the temporary final rule published at 85 FR 59655 (Sept. 23, 2020), which was extended at 86 FR 15072 (Mar. 22, 2021), at 86 FR 51781 (Sept. 17, 2021), and at 87 FR 14757 (Mar. 16, 2022), is further extended from March 16, 2023 through September 12, 2023.
Rená Cutlip-Mason, Chief, Division of Humanitarian Affairs, Office of Policy and Strategy, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security, 5900 Capital Gateway Drive, Camp Springs, MD 20588-0009; telephone (240) 721-3000 (not a toll-free call).
Individuals with hearing or speech impairments may access the telephone numbers above via TTY by calling the toll-free Federal Information Relay Service at 1-877-889-5627 (TTY/TDD).
The Secretary of Homeland Security (Secretary) takes this action pursuant to his authorities concerning asylum determinations. The Homeland Security Act of 2002 (HSA), Public Law 107-296, as amended, transferred many functions related to the execution of Federal immigration law to the newly created DHS. The HSA amended the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA or the Act), charging the Secretary “with the administration and enforcement of this chapter and all other laws relating to the immigration and naturalization of aliens,” INA 103(a)(1), 8 U.S.C.
Asylum is a discretionary benefit that generally can be granted to eligible noncitizens who are physically present or who arrive in the United States, irrespective of their status, subject to the requirements in section 208 of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158, and implementing regulations,
Section 208(d)(5) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(5), imposes several mandates and procedural requirements for the consideration of asylum applications. Congress also specified that the Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security “may provide by regulation for any other conditions or limitations on the consideration of an application for asylum,” so long as those conditions or limitations are “not inconsistent with this chapter.” INA 208(d)(5)(B), 8 U.S.C. 1158(d)(5)(B). Thus, the current statutory framework leaves the Attorney General (and, after the HSA, also the Secretary) significant discretion to regulate consideration of asylum applications. USCIS regulations promulgated under this authority set agency procedures for asylum interviews and require that applicants unable to communicate in English “must provide, at no expense to the USCIS, a competent interpreter fluent in both English and the applicant's native language or any other language in which the applicant is fluent.” 8 CFR 208.9(g)(1). This requirement means that all asylum applicants who cannot communicate in English must bring an interpreter to their interview. However, doing so, as required by the regulation, has posed a serious health risk because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Accordingly, this temporary final rule extends the rule published at 85 FR 59655, for a fourth time, to continue to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 by seeking to slow the transmission and spread of the disease during asylum interviews before USCIS asylum officers while the COVID-19 national emergency and public health emergency (PHE) are still in effect. On January 30, 2023, the Administration announced its plan to extend the emergency declarations to May 11, 2023, and then end both emergencies on that date.
On January 31, 2020, the Secretary of Health and Human Services declared a public health emergency under section 319 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d), in response to COVID-19, which is caused by SARS-CoV-2.
Since publication of the original temporary final rule, variants of the virus that causes COVID-19 have been reported in the United States.
USCIS continues its efforts to protect the health and safety of its employees and the public by requiring all federal employees, on-site contractors, and visitors to follow local USCIS guidance on physical distancing and workplace protection consistent with updated Federal guidance.
USCIS conducted 32,012 total asylum interviews between September 23, 2020 and March 7, 2022. While maintaining public safety measures pursuant to its response to COVID-19,
DHS has determined that it is in the best interest of the public and USCIS employees and contractors to extend the temporary final rule for 180 days. This period includes the time until May 11, 2023, while the emergency declarations remain in effect, and a period thereafter to allow USCIS a sufficient period to properly operationalize the return to the requirement that asylum applicants provide interpreters at their asylum interviews. Providing for a 180-day extension also gives sufficient notice to the public of the expiration of this temporary final rule and reversion to past practice.
Under this fourth extension, USCIS will continue requiring asylum applicants who are unable to proceed with the interview in English to use government-provided telephonic contract interpreters if the applicants speak one of the 47 languages found on the Required Languages for Interpreter Services Blanket Purchase Agreement/U.S. General Services Administration Language Schedule (GSA Schedule). If the applicant does not speak a language on the GSA Schedule or elects to speak a language that is not on the GSA Schedule, the applicant will be required to bring their own interpreter to the interview who is fluent in English and the elected language not on the GSA schedule. In the second extension of the temporary final rule, published at 85 FR 59655, DHS also amended 8 CFR 208.9(h)(1) by allowing, in USCIS' discretion, an applicant for asylum to provide an interpreter when a USCIS interpreter is unavailable.
DHS incorporates into this fourth extension, the justifications from the original temporary final rule and all subsequent extensions. The measures implemented since the original temporary final rule to protect employees, asylum applicants, and other members of the public, continue to be a priority for USCIS. Additionally, the modification to the second extension (
DHS has determined that there are reasonable grounds for considering potential exposure to SARS-CoV-2, including any emerging variants, as a public health concern and that these grounds are sufficient to extend the temporary final rule modifying the interpreter requirements for asylum applicants in order to lower the number of in-person attendees at asylum interviews. Additionally, this extension of this temporary final rule provides additional time following the expiration of the national and public health emergencies to allow USCIS to properly operationalize the return to the requirement that asylum applicants provide interpreters at their asylum interviews while also giving sufficient notice to the public of the expiration of this temporary final rule and reversion to past practice. For 180 days following publication of this temporary final rule, DHS will continue to require non-English speaking asylum applicants appearing before USCIS to proceed with the asylum interview using USCIS' interpreter services if they are fluent in one of the 47 languages as discussed in the temporary final rule at 85 FR at 59657.
Additionally, as provided in 8 CFR 208.9(h)(1)(i), DHS will continue to allow, in USCIS' discretion, an applicant for asylum to provide an interpreter when a USCIS interpreter is unavailable. The reasons for this are in large part due to the increase in the affirmative asylum caseload that USCIS has experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic. That, in turn, has created challenges in accommodating the interpretation needs of asylum applicants while balancing workplace health and safety concerns. In order to best serve applicants while keeping employees and the public safe, USCIS has set limits on the number of people allowed in each individual interview space, inclusive of the asylum officer. Requiring applicants to use USCIS contract interpreters assists the agency in adhering to evolving COVID-19 health and safety standards. While USCIS continues to increase scheduling of affirmative asylum interviews, surges in other case types have also required USCIS to divert contract interpreter resources away from affirmative asylum. For this reason, allowing USCIS the continued discretion to permit an applicant to bring their own interpreter to the asylum interview assists the agency in balancing needs. These ongoing challenges require USCIS to keep the interpreter procedures in place for an additional 180 days.
In these circumstances, if a USCIS interpreter is unavailable, USCIS will either reschedule the interview and attribute the interview delay to USCIS for the purposes of employment authorization pursuant to 8 CFR 208.7, or USCIS may, in its discretion, allow the applicant to provide an interpreter.
Once this temporary final rule is no longer in effect, asylum applicants unable to proceed in English with an affirmative asylum interview based on a Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, before a USCIS asylum officer will be required to provide their own interpreters under 8 CFR 208.9(g).
Given the unique nature of the pandemic and the multiple challenges it has presented in the context of USCIS operations, the agency has had to modify its policies and procedures to adapt. Through the original temporary final rule and the first, second and third extensions, USCIS has and continues to adapt and modify its procedures to keep the workforce and public safe while also striving to serve its customers.
DHS noted in the original temporary final rule and prior extensions that it would evaluate the public health concerns and resource allocations to determine whether to extend the rule. DHS has determined that extending this temporary final rule is necessary for public safety. Accordingly, DHS is extending this temporary final rule for 180 days for a fourth time through the anticipated end of the national and public health emergencies. This temporary final rule continues to apply to all affirmative asylum interviews conducted by USCIS across the nation. USCIS has determined that an extension of 180 days is appropriate given present conditions: emergency declarations remain in effect and there were 3,950 average daily new hospital admissions of patients with confirmed COVID-19 from January 24, 2023, to January 30, 2023.
USCIS first published this temporary final rule on September 23, 2020, and subsequently found it necessary to publish three extensions to continue its mitigation efforts because of the ongoing pandemic.
Recognizing that the circumstances of COVID-19 continue to evolve, DHS continues to constantly evaluate the public health concerns and its mitigation efforts. As conditions improve and the health concerns posed by COVID-19 continue to ease during the time period of this fourth extension of the temporary final rule, DHS will use the remaining time following the end of the declared COVID-19 emergencies to operationalize a return to the prior practice of applicants providing their own interpreter at their asylum interview while also ensuring the public is aware of this change. USCIS recognizes that for many applicants, hiring an interpreter for the asylum interview may be a costly expense and often requires travel and early scheduling. By extending the temporary final rule beyond the expiration of the national and public health emergencies, USCIS aims to provide the public with enough time to make necessary interpreter arrangements for an asylum interview if their interview is scheduled after the expiration of this temporary final rule. During this time, USCIS will analyze the practice of USCIS providing contract interpreters at affirmative asylum interviews to determine whether there may be a future need for USCIS to provide contract interpreters and in which circumstances this would be most beneficial to the government and the public. USCIS will also use the time after expiration of the national and public health emergencies to operationalize the changes. Given the significant length of time that USCIS has required applicants to use contracted interpreters under the previous iterations of the temporary final rule, USCIS believes this additional time for the winding down of operations is necessary to provide the public adequate notice of the return to previous practice. In order to operationalize these changes, USCIS will provide notice to the public by updating the USCIS website and modifying interview notices and any other related correspondence sent to applicants and attorneys. USCIS will notify field office staff of the reversion to prior practice by providing updated guidance, sending internal communications with updated messaging to the asylum offices, and modifying existing procedures. USCIS will also conduct outreach to stakeholders, including nonprofits, legal representatives, and community organizations, to ensure that asylum applicants are aware of the reversion to prior practice as early as possible. USCIS recognizes that for many applicants, hiring an interpreter for the asylum interview may be a costly expense and often requires travel and early scheduling, especially where the applicant speaks a less common language. A winddown period past the end of the emergency declarations will allow asylum applicants and representatives time to prepare, make alternate arrangements, and gather the necessary funds to pay for interpreter services. The winddown period will consequently help reduce the likelihood of interview reschedules when an applicant is unable to bring their own interpreter, and thus also minimize the potential impact on an applicant's eligibility for employment authorization. This is because the reversion to prior practice will require that when the applicant does not provide their own interpreter, the interview delay is attributed to the applicant for purposes of employment authorization under 8 CFR 208.7. Interview delays attributed to the applicant slow the time before the applicant is eligible to apply for work authorization. By extending the temporary final rule beyond the end of the national emergencies, USCIS can facilitate an orderly and efficient return to prior practice and alleviate the burden these changes may place on applicants and contracted interpreter services.
DHS is issuing this extension as a temporary final rule pursuant to the APA's “good cause” exception. DHS may forgo notice-and-comment rulemaking and a delayed effective date because the APA provides an exception from those requirements when an agency “for good cause finds . . . that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B);
The good cause exception for forgoing notice-and-comment rulemaking “excuses notice and comment in emergency situations, or where delay could result in serious harm.”
As of February 1, 2023, there have been over 753 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 identified globally, resulting in more than 6.8 million deaths.
As of January 24, 2023, USCIS had 697,290 asylum applications pending final adjudication. The vast majority of these pending applications are awaiting an interview by an asylum officer. The USCIS backlog will continue to increase at a faster pace if USCIS is unable to safely and efficiently conduct asylum interviews.
Upon the Administration's January 2023 announcement of its plan to extend the emergency declarations through May 11, 2023, it became clear to USCIS that another extension of this temporary final rule, which otherwise would expire in March 2023, would be warranted. However, that did not leave DHS with sufficient time to provide notice and receive comment before the expiration of the third extension of this rule. DHS is thus publishing this fourth extension as a temporary final rule. As discussed more thoroughly above, given the continuing national emergency caused by COVID-19, and the extension of the emergency declarations through May 11, 2023, there are still urgent and compelling reasons to extend and continue this temporary final rule. The temporary final rule is limited in application to only those asylum applicants who cannot proceed with the interview in English and narrowly tailored to mitigate the spread of COVID-19. Extending the temporary final rule will allow USCIS to better manage how many people attend asylum interviews and the precautions used during those interviews, thereby reducing the likelihood of COVID-19 transmission and protecting the health and safety of USCIS employees and asylum applicants. To not extend this measure could cause serious detriment to public safety and health.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601
This temporary final rule extension will not result in the expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995.
OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this action is not a major rule as defined by Subtitle E of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (also known as the Congressional Review Act). 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic and export markets.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. This rule is designated a significant regulatory action under E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this regulation. DHS, however, is proceeding under the emergency provision of Executive Order 12866 Section 6(a)(3)(D) based on the need to move expeditiously during the current public health emergency which has been extended past the expiration of the third temporary final rule extension until May 11, 2023.
This action will continue to help asylum applicants proceed with their interviews in a safe manner, while protecting agency staff throughout the next year or until the health concerns posed by COVID-19 are resolved. As a result of the temporary final rule and subsequent extensions, USCIS conducted 32,012 total asylum interviews between September 23, 2020 and March 7, 2022 and an additional 27,405 asylum interviews between March 7, 2022 and January 24, 2023. This fourth extension is not expected to result in any additional costs to the government. In addition, even with the provision that permits, at USCIS' discretion, an applicant for asylum to provide an interpreter when a contract interpreter is unavailable, there are no additional costs to the applicant relative to what would be the requirements if the temporary final rule were not extended. In those limited circumstances, the interpreter will still be required to follow USCIS COVID-19 protocols in place at the time of the interview. Following those COVID-19 protocols will not result in any additional costs for either the applicant or the interpreter.
Such contract interpreters will continue to be provided at no cost to the applicant. USCIS has an existing contract to provide telephonic interpretation and monitoring in interviews for all of its case types. USCIS has provided contract monitors for many years at interviews where the applicant brings an interpreter. In other words, almost all interviews that utilize a USCIS provided interpreter under this temporary final rule would have required instead a contracted monitor during asylum interviews conducted pre-pandemic. Additionally, the cost of monitoring and interpretation are identical under the current contract and monitors are no longer needed for interviews conducted through a USCIS-provided contract interpreter. Therefore, the continued extension of the temporary final rule is projected to be cost neutral or negligible for the government because USCIS is already paying for these services even without this rule.
In the limited circumstances where a contract interpreter is unavailable, USCIS will either reschedule the interview and attribute the interview delay to USCIS for the purposes of
DHS recognizes there are both quantitative and qualitative benefits that could be realized by providing an applicant for asylum the opportunity to bring their own interpreter when a contract interpreter is unavailable, such as the costs avoided that would otherwise be incurred due to rescheduling if a contract interpreter is unavailable—both for the applicant and USCIS—and the overall positive effect on applicants of having their asylum application timely adjudicated. Once this rule is no longer in effect, asylum applicants unable to proceed with an affirmative asylum interview before a USCIS asylum officer in English will again be required to provide their own interpreters under 8 CFR 208.9(g). By extending the temporary final rule beyond the end of the national emergencies, USCIS can facilitate an orderly and efficient return to prior practice and alleviate the burden these changes may place on applicants, contracted interpreter services, and USCIS offices scheduling affirmative asylum interviews.
This rule 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. Therefore, in accordance with section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement.
This rule meets the applicable standards set forth in section 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
This rule does not propose new, or revisions to existing, “collection[s] of information” as that term is defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320. As this would only span 180 days, USCIS does not anticipate a need to update the Form I-589, Application for Asylum and for Withholding of Removal, despite the existing language on the form instructions regarding interpreters. USCIS will continue to post updates on its Form I-589 website,
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Secretary of Homeland Security amends 8 CFR part 208 as follows:
8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1158, 1226, 1252, 1282; Title VII of Pub. L. 110-229; 8 CFR part 2; Pub. L. 115-218.
(h)
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone for a fireworks display at The Wharf DC on April 1, 2023, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the safety zone for this event in Washington, DC. During the enforcement period, vessels may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized to do so by the COTP or his representative, and vessels in the vicinity must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulation in 33 CFR 165.506 will be enforced for the location identified in line no. 1 of table 2 to 33 CFR 165.506(h)(2) from 7:30 p.m. until 9:30 p.m. on April 1, 2023.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email MST2 Courtney Perry, Sector Maryland-NCR, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard: telephone 410-576-2596, email
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone regulation for a fireworks display at The Wharf DC from 7:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. on April 1, 2023. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for Fireworks Displays within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 165.506, specifies the location of the safety zone for the fireworks show, which encompasses portions of the Washington Channel in the Upper Potomac River. During the enforcement period, as reflected in § 165.506(d), if you are the operator of a vessel in the vicinity of the safety zone, you may not enter, remain in, or transit through the safety zone unless authorized to do so by the COTP or his representative, and you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
This regulation establishes an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for residues of paraffin waxes and hydrocarbon waxes, carboxypolymethylene resin, and paraffin waxes and hydrocarbon, oxidized, lithium salts when used as inert ingredients (flow aid, surface protectant, binder, carrier, coating agent or adjuvant) on growing crops and raw agricultural commodities pre- and post-harvest, applied in/on animals, and in antimicrobial formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils. Spring Regulatory Sciences, on behalf of Sasol Chemicals (USA) LLC, submitted a petition to EPA under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), requesting establishment of an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance. This regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level for residues of paraffin waxes and hydrocarbon waxes, carboxypolymethylene resin oxidized paraffin wax, and paraffin waxes and hydrocarbon, oxidized, lithium salts, when used in accordance with the terms of those exemptions.
This regulation is effective March 17, 2023. Objections and requests for hearings must be received on or before May 16, 2023 and must be filed in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178 (see also Unit I.C. of the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0190, is available at
Daniel Rosenblatt, Registration Division (7505T), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460-0001; main telephone number: (202) 566-2875; email address:
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are an agricultural producer, food manufacturer, or pesticide manufacturer. The following list of North American Industrial Classification System (NAICS) codes is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide to help readers determine whether this document applies to them. Potentially affected entities may include:
• Crop production (NAICS code 111).
• Animal production (NAICS code 112).
• Food manufacturing (NAICS code 311).
• Pesticide manufacturing (NAICS code 32532).
You may access a frequently updated electronic version of 40 CFR part 180 through the Office of the Federal Register's e-CFR site at
Under FFDCA section 408(g), 21 U.S.C. 346a(g), any person may file an objection to any aspect of this regulation and may also request a hearing on those objections. You must file your objection or request a hearing on this regulation in accordance with the instructions provided in 40 CFR part 178. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, you must identify docket ID number in the subject line on the first page of your submission. All objections and requests for a hearing must be in writing and must be received by the Hearing Clerk on or before May 16, 2023. Addresses for mail and hand delivery of objections and hearing requests are provided in 40 CFR 178.25(b).
In addition to filing an objection or hearing request with the Hearing Clerk as described in 40 CFR part 178, please submit a copy of the filing (excluding any Confidential Business Information (CBI)) for inclusion in the public docket. Information not marked confidential pursuant to 40 CFR part 2 may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. Submit the non-CBI copy of your objection or hearing request, identified by docket ID number EPA-HQ-OPP-2021-0190, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
Additional instructions on commenting or visiting the docket, along with more information about dockets generally, is available at
In the
Inert ingredients are all ingredients that are not active ingredients as defined in 40 CFR 153.125 and include, but are not limited to, the following types of ingredients (except when they have a pesticidal efficacy of their own): Solvents such as alcohols and hydrocarbons; surfactants such as polyoxyethylene polymers and fatty acids; carriers such as clay and diatomaceous earth; thickeners such as carrageenan and modified cellulose; wetting, spreading, and dispersing agents; propellants in aerosol dispensers; microencapsulating agents; and emulsifiers. The term “inert” is not intended to imply nontoxicity; the ingredient may or may not be chemically active. Generally, EPA has exempted inert ingredients from the requirement of a tolerance based on the low toxicity of the individual inert ingredients.
Section 408(c)(2)(A)(i) of FFDCA allows EPA to establish an exemption from the requirement for a tolerance (the legal limit for a pesticide chemical residue in or on a food) only if EPA determines that the tolerance is “safe.” Section 408(c)(2)(A)(ii) of FFDCA defines “safe” to mean that “there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other exposures for which there is reliable information.” This includes exposure through drinking water and in residential settings but does not include occupational exposure. When making a safety determination for an exemption for the requirement of a tolerance FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B) directs EPA to consider the considerations in section 408(b)(2)(C) and (D). Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA requires EPA to give special consideration to exposure of infants and children to the pesticide chemical residue in establishing a tolerance and to “ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to infants and children from aggregate exposure to the pesticide chemical residue. . . .” Section 408(b)(2)(D) lists other factors for EPA consideration making safety determinations,
EPA establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance only in those cases where it can be clearly demonstrated that the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide chemical residues under reasonably foreseeable circumstances will pose no harm to human health. In order to determine the risks from aggregate exposure to pesticide inert ingredients, the Agency considers the toxicity of the inert in conjunction with possible exposure to residues of the inert ingredient through food, drinking water, and through other exposures that occur as a result of pesticide use in residential settings. If EPA is able to determine that a finite tolerance is not necessary to ensure that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result from aggregate exposure to the inert ingredient, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance may be established.
Consistent with FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(A), and the factors specified in FFDCA section 408(c)(2)(B), EPA has reviewed the available scientific data and other relevant information in support of this action. EPA has sufficient data to assess the hazards of and to make a determination on aggregate exposure for paraffin waxes including exposure resulting from the exemption established by this action. EPA's assessment of exposures and risks associated with paraffin waxes follows.
EPA has evaluated the available toxicity data and considered their validity, completeness, and reliability as well as the relationship of the results of the studies to human risk. EPA has also considered available information concerning the variability of the sensitivities of major identifiable subgroups of consumers, including infants and children. Specific information on the studies received and the nature of the adverse effects caused by paraffin waxes as well as the no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) and the lowest-observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) from the toxicity studies are discussed in this unit.
Paraffin waxes exhibit low levels of acute toxicity via the oral, and dermal routes of exposure and they are anticipated to have low acute toxicity via the inhalation route. Paraffin waxes are non-irritating to the eye or skin, and they are not dermal sensitizers.
The repeated-dose toxicity for paraffin waxes is low. No adverse effects were observed in a 90-day oral rat study or in a developmental toxicity study in rats up to the limit dose. No acceptable oral chronic or carcinogenicity studies are available for paraffin waxes. However, there is low concern for genotoxicity or mutagenicity based on negative results in mammalian and bacterial genotoxicity tests. No evidence of neurotoxicity was observed in the neurotoxicity screening performed in the 90-day oral rat study and no evidence of immunotoxicity was seen in the available studies.
Once a pesticide's toxicological profile is determined, EPA identifies toxicological points of departure (POD) and levels of concern to use in evaluating the risk posed by human exposure to the pesticide. For hazards that have a threshold below which there is no appreciable risk, the toxicological POD is used as the basis for derivation of reference values for risk assessment. PODs are developed based on a careful analysis of the doses in each toxicological study to determine the dose at which no adverse effects are observed (the NOAEL) and the lowest dose at which adverse effects of concern are identified (the LOAEL). Uncertainty/safety factors are used in conjunction with the POD to calculate a safe exposure level—generally referred to as a population-adjusted dose (PAD) or a reference dose (RfD)—and a safe margin of exposure (MOE). For non-threshold risks, the Agency assumes that any amount of exposure will lead to some degree of risk. Thus, the Agency estimates risk in terms of the probability of an occurrence of the adverse effect expected in a lifetime. For more information on the general principles EPA uses in risk characterization and a complete description of the risk assessment process, see
The hazard profile of paraffin waxes is adequately defined. Overall, paraffin waxes are of low acute, subchronic, and developmental/reproductive toxicity. No systemic toxicity is observed up to 1,000 mg/kg/day. Since signs of toxicity were not observed, no toxicological endpoints of concern or PODs were identified. Therefore, a qualitative risk
1.
Dietary exposure (food and drinking water) to paraffin waxes may occur from foods containing these inert ingredients and from non-pesticidal uses (
2.
3.
Based on the lack of toxicity in the available database, EPA has not found paraffin waxes to share a common mechanism of toxicity with any other substances, and paraffin waxes do not appear to produce a toxic metabolite produced by other substances. For the purposes of this tolerance exemption, therefore, EPA has assumed that the paraffin waxes in this petition do not have a common mechanism of toxicity with other substances. For information regarding EPA's efforts to determine which chemicals have a common mechanism of toxicity and to evaluate the cumulative effects of such chemicals, see EPA's website at
Section 408(b)(2)(C) of FFDCA provides that EPA shall apply an additional tenfold (10X) margin of safety for infants and children in the case of threshold effects to account for prenatal and postnatal toxicity and the completeness of the database on toxicity and exposure unless EPA determines based on reliable data that a different margin of safety will be safe for infants and children. This additional margin of safety is commonly referred to as the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) Safety Factor (SF). In applying this provision, EPA either retains the default value of 10X, or uses a different additional safety factor when reliable data available to EPA support the choice of a different factor.
Based on an assessment of paraffin waxes, EPA has concluded that there are no toxicological endpoints of concern for the U.S. population, including infants and children. Because there are no threshold effects associated with paraffin waxes, EPA conducted a qualitative assessment. As part of that assessment, the Agency did not use safety factors for assessing risk, and no additional safety factor is needed for assessing risk to infants and children.
Because no toxicological endpoints of concern were identified, EPA concludes that there is a reasonable certainty that no harm will result to the general population, or to infants and children from aggregate exposure to paraffin wax residues.
An analytical method is not required for enforcement purposes since the Agency is establishing an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance without any numerical limitation.
Therefore, an exemption from the requirement of a tolerance is established for residues of paraffin waxes, paraffin waxes and hydrocarbon waxes (CAS Reg. No. 8002-74-2); carboxypolymethylene resin (CAS Reg. No. 68153-22-0); and paraffin waxes and hydrocarbon, oxidized, lithium salts (CAS Reg. No. 68649-48-9) when used as inert ingredients (flow aid, surface protectant, binder, carrier, coating agent or adjuvant) in pesticide formulations applied to growing crops and raw agricultural commodities pre- and post-harvest under 40 CFR 180.910, applied in/on animals under 40 CFR 180.930, and in antimicrobial formulations applied to food-contact surfaces in public eating places, dairy-processing equipment, and food-processing equipment and utensils under 40 CFR 180.940(a).
This action establishes exemptions from the requirement of a tolerance under FFDCA section 408(d) in response to a petition submitted to the Agency. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted these types of actions from review under Executive Order 12866, entitled “Regulatory Planning and Review” (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993). Because this action has been exempted from review under Executive Order 12866, this action is not subject to Executive Order 13211, entitled “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) or Executive Order 13045, entitled “Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks” (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997). This action does not contain any information collections subject to OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Since tolerances and exemptions that are established on the basis of a petition under FFDCA section 408(d), such as the exemptions in this final rule, do not require the issuance of a proposed rule, the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601
This action directly regulates growers, food processors, food handlers, and food retailers, not States or Tribes, nor does this action alter the relationships or distribution of power and responsibilities established by Congress in the preemption provisions of FFDCA section 408(n)(4). As such, the Agency has determined that this action will not have a substantial direct effect on States or Tribal Governments, on the relationship between the National Government and the States or Tribal Governments, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government or between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes. Thus, the Agency has determined that Executive Order 13132,
This action does not involve any technical standards that would require Agency consideration of voluntary consensus standards pursuant to section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) (15 U.S.C. 272 note).
Pursuant to the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 801
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, for the reasons stated in the preamble, EPA is amending 40 CFR chapter I as follows:
21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371.
(a) * * *
Department of State.
Proposed rule.
The Department of State (“Department”) proposes to amend its regulation governing immigrant visas by removing the section which allows a consular officer to conduct an informal evaluation of the family members of an immigrant visa applicant to identify potential grounds of ineligibility. The existing regulation was promulgated in 1952, at a time when a consular officer could more readily assess a family member's qualification for a visa. Assessing eligibility for an immigrant visa is now a complex task, and not one which can be accomplished accurately with an informal evaluation.
Written comments must be received on or before May 16, 2023.
Interested parties may submit comments to the Department by any of the following methods:
•
•
All interested parties are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written views and comments on all aspects of this proposed rule. Comments must be submitted in English or an English translation must be provided. Comments that will provide the most assistance to the Department of State in implementing this change will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include information that supports the recommendation.
Claire Kelly, Office of Visa Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Department of State, 600 19th St. NW, Washington, DC 20006, (202) 485-7586.
The Department proposes eliminating 22 CFR 42.68 in its entirety. Under 22 CFR 42.68 consular officers may, in certain circumstances, arrange for an informal evaluation of the family members of an immigrant visa applicant. Specifically, if a principal immigrant visa applicant will precede the family members in traveling to the United States, 22 CFR 42.68 allows a consular officer to arrange for an informal examination of the family members to make a preliminary determination of any ground of ineligibility on their part to receive a visa. Under the current regulation, the principal applicant must be informed of any preliminary finding of ineligibility, and a determination in connection with an informal examination carries no assurance that the individual will be eligible for an immigrant visa in the future.
The regulation, 22 CFR 42.68, was among the regulations promulgated by the Department in 1952 after the enactment of the Immigration and Nationality Act. Since 1952, however, the immigrant visa process generally and the scope of grounds on which an applicant may be ineligible for an immigrant visa has grown increasingly more complex, rendering the concept of an informal evaluation as outdated and impractical for a consular officer to complete with accuracy.
In 1952, a noncitizen wishing to immigrate completed Form FS-256a, and a consular officer then assessed their eligibility during an interview. This simple form requested basic biographical information and included a statement affirming that the noncitizen was not inadmissible. Since 1952, Congress has enacted numerous laws imposing new immigration ineligibilities.
The informal evaluation that was created in 1952 does not provide a complete picture of an individual's
If the Department were to update the informal evaluation process to provide a more informed and thorough review of a principal applicant's family members, such that a consular officer could provide an accurate preliminary assessment of visa eligibility, such changes would require reallocation of already limited resources of both the Department and other agencies to review applicants who have not—and potentially will not—apply for a visa, potentially requiring significant changes to Department systems that facilitate vetting of applicants based only on their submission of a completed visa application. Moreover, even with a comprehensive slate of information regarding a visa applicant, an assessment of eligibility can only account for their potential eligibility at that time, and is not a reliable indicator of whether they would be eligible in the future if and when they submit a visa application. Consequently, an informal evaluation is an inefficient use of State resources, and an unreliable tool for prospective applicants.
The authority provided for in 22 CFR 42.68 has not been used in recent years. Given the difficulty in accurately predicting an applicant's visa eligibility through an informal process, the Department is unable to allocate its limited resources toward offering a service that has been rendered obsolete.
To determine whether and how often the informal evaluation authority has been used, the Visa Office consulted with management in the immigrant visa units of five of the largest-volume immigrant visa processing posts: Ciudad Juarez, Manila, Santo Domingo, Mumbai, and Dhaka. Each of the five posts reported they have no record of ever providing this service. Given that these five posts process 32 percent of the immigrant visas worldwide, and they have no recent information regarding this service, we are confident that eliminating this service will not cause undue hardship to applicants or result in significant impacts to applicants.
In light of the complexity required to evaluate a noncitizen's eligibility for an immigrant visa, and limited resources to reliably assess eligibility absent a visa application, the Department seeks to eliminate this regulation.
This proposed rule involves the Department amending visa policy, which is a foreign affairs function of the United States and, therefore, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1), would be exempt from the notice and comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553. Notwithstanding the applicability of the foreign affairs exception to this rule, the Department is providing 60 days for public comment on this proposed rule's elimination of 22 CFR 42.68.
As this rulemaking is not required to be published for notice and comment under 5 U.S.C. 553, it is exempt from the regulatory flexibility analysis requirements set forth by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 603 and 604). Nonetheless, the Department certifies that this rulemaking will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Pub. L. 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private section. This proposed rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments.
Executive Orders (E.O.) 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 (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). The Department reviewed this proposal to ensure consistency with those requirements. OMB reviewed this proposed rule and designated as a “significant regulatory action” under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, OMB has reviewed this proposed regulation.
As noted above, the Visa Office consulted with management in the immigrant visa units of five of the largest-volume immigrant visa processing posts: Ciudad Juarez, Manila, Santo Domingo, Mumbai, and Dhaka. Each of the five posts reported they do not provide this service. Given that these five posts process 32 percent of the immigrant visas worldwide, and they have no information regarding the provision of this service, we are confident that eliminating this regulation will not result in significant impacts.
The Department has also considered this proposed rule in light of Executive Order 13563 and affirms that this proposed rule is consistent with the guidance therein.
This proposed rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the proposed rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132.
The Department has reviewed the proposed rule in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden.
The Department has determined that this proposed rule will not have Tribal implications, will not impose substantial direct compliance costs on Indian Tribal governments, and will not pre-empt Tribal law. Accordingly, the requirements of Executive Order 13175 do not apply to this proposal.
This proposed rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Immigration, Passports and visas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Department proposes to amend 22 CFR part 42 as follows:
8 U.S.C. 1104 and 1182; Pub. L. 105-277, 112 Stat. 2681; Pub. L. 108-449, 118 Stat. 3469; The Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (done at the Hague, May 29, 1993), S. Treaty Doc. 105-51 (1998), 1870 U.N.T.S. 167 (Reg. No. 31922 (1993)); 42 U.S.C. 14901-14954 (Pub. L. 106-279, 114 Stat. 825); 8 U.S.C. 1101 (Pub. L. 111-287, 124 Stat. 3058); 8 U.S.C. 1154 (Pub. L. 109-162, 119 Stat. 2960); 8 U.S.C. 1201 (Pub. L. 114-70, 129 Stat. 561).
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) is extending the public comment period for the proposed rule revising the regulations governing leasing of the Osage Nation's mineral estate (“Osage Mineral Estate”) for oil and gas mining. Extending the public comment period will allow more time for the public to review the proposal and submit comments.
•
•
•
Oliver Whaley, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, (202) 738-6065,
On January 13, 2023, the BIA published a proposed rule in the
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard proposes establishing a special local regulation on certain waters of the Hudson River near Castleton-on-Hudson, NY, in support of the Horsepower on the Hudson event, reoccurring annually one day in August. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of participants, participant vessels, spectators, and mariners transiting the area from the dangers associated with vessels operating at high speeds during the Horsepower on the Hudson event. This proposed rulemaking would allow the Coast Guard to enforce vessel movements within two regulated areas in a portion of the Hudson River near Castleton-on-Hudson, NY. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 17, 2023.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2023-0015 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at
For information about this document call or email MSTC S. Stevenson, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 718-354-4197, email
The Coast Guard established the first temporary Special Local Regulation titled “Special Local Regulation; 2022 Horsepower on the Hudson, Hudson River, Castleton, NY,” that was published in the
The combination of the vessels operating at high speeds during the event and an anticipated number of spectator crafts has the potential to result in serious injuries or fatalities. To protect the safety of all waterway users including event participants and spectators, this proposed rule would establish two regulated areas outside of the navigational channel that is not expected to impede routine vessel traffic within the navigational channel on the Hudson River. This proposed rulemaking aims to ensure the safety of participants, non-participants, and transiting vessels on the navigable waters in the vicinity of the high-speed race route and the spectator zone before, during, and after the scheduled event. The Coast Guard proposes this rulemaking under the authority of 46 U.S.C. 70041.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a special local regulation on the Hudson River in the vicinity of Castleton-on-the-Hudson, NY, encompassing all navigable waters of the Hudson River east of the navigable channel from the Hudson River Lighted Buoy 202 (LLNR 38905) to Hudson River Lighted Buoy 204 (LLNR 38910) outside of the channel, and all waters of the Hudson River westward of the navigational channel from Hudson River Lighted Buoy 201 (LLNR 38903) to Hudson River Lighted Buoy 205 (LLNR 38915) outside of the channel. The event will take place annually one day in August. The high-speed demonstration will consist of approximately 40 vessels that will transit by the Castleton Boat Club at speeds exceeding 100 mph. The special local regulation will include two regulated areas that will be located outside of the navigational channel: a
The duration of enforcement restrictions to the waterway in the areas is intended to ensure the safety of vessels, participants, spectators, and those transiting the area during the Horsepower on the Hudson event. Navigation rules would apply at all times within the areas. The Coast Guard would provide notice of the special local regulation's exact date and time by Local Notice to Mariners. 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. A summary of our analyses based on these statutes and Executive Orders follows.
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 proposed rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this proposed rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the special local regulation. With this special local regulation, the Coast Guard intends to allow marine traffic to transit via the main navigable channel. In addition, although this rule restricts access to the waters encompassed by the local regulation, the effect of this rule will not be significant because the local waterway users will be notified in advance via public Broadcast Notice to Mariners to ensure the special local regulation will result in minimum impact as the main navigation channel will be maintained allowing vessels to transit Hudson River outside of the high speed area or the spectator area. Mariners will therefore be able to plan and either transit through the available transit area or outside the periods of enforcement of the special local regulation. Additionally, mariners may be able to transit the high-speed area or spectator areas with approval from the COTP or designated representative. The entities most likely affected are commercial vessels and pleasure craft engaged in recreational activities.
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 regulated area 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. While the special local regulation is in effect, vessel traffic can pass safely using the main ship channel of the Hudson River. The maritime public will be advised in advance of this special local regulation
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 call 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 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 regulated area lasting five hours that would limit persons or vessels from transiting certain regulated areas during the scheduled event. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L61 of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary 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
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.
Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to amend 33 CFR part 100 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70041; 33 CFR 1.05-1.
(a)
(1)
(2)
(b)
(c)
(2) No participant may transit at high-speed inside the high-speed zone when vessels are in or transiting through the navigational channel.
(3) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the designated representative via VHF-FM Marine Channel 16 or by contacting the Coast Guard Sector New York command center at (718) 354-4356 or on VHF 16 to obtain permission. Those in the regulated area must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the designated representative.
(d)
(e)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule, notice of data availability.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing the availability of and soliciting public comment on additional data received by EPA related to the proposed rule for Part 1: Chrysotile Asbestos; Regulations of Certain Conditions of Use under TSCA. These additional data pertain to chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production and may be used by EPA in the development of the final rule, including EPA's determination of what constitutes “as soon as practicable” with regard to the proposed chrysotile asbestos prohibition compliance dates for these uses.
Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2023.
Submit your comments, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057, using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
In the
After being extended 30 days (87 FR 31814, May 25, 2022 (FRL-8332-03-OCSPP)), the comment period for the proposed rule closed on July 13, 2022. EPA received about 155 discrete comments as of the end of the extended public comment period. In the proposed rule, EPA requested public comment on several aspects of the proposed rule including the proposed prohibition compliance dates for the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos.
Specific to chrysotile asbestos diaphragms used in the chlor-alkali industry, EPA sought public comment “to support or refute its assumption that [chlor-alkali] plants using asbestos diaphragms will convert to non-asbestos technologies, and the timeframes required for such conversions.” 87 FR 21721. EPA sought comment on a prohibition compliance date that under TSCA sections 6(d)(1) would be both “as soon as practicable” and “provide for a reasonable transition period,” including information on the specific and detailed timelines to build asbestos-free facilities or to convert existing asbestos-using facilities to asbestos-free technology and the availability of asbestos-free technology. 87 FR 21726. EPA also requested information on “potential barriers to achieving the proposed prohibition date while considering the supply of chlor-alkali chemicals and on the potential impact of this transition on the market price of chlor-alkali chemicals.”
EPA received significant comment on these issues during the public comment period for the proposed rule. EPA received comments supporting the proposed two-year prohibition timeline, such as from the Asbestos Disease Awareness Organization (ADAO). ADAO stated: “EPA's proposal correctly calls for the chlor-alkali industry to stop importing and using asbestos two years after the final rule becomes effective. . . . this phase-out deadline . . . can be accomplished without disrupting the U.S. supply of chlorine and caustic soda . . . [industry's] recent voluntary closure of substantial asbestos-diaphragm capacity demonstrates that the remaining plants can be shut down quickly and without hardship to industry or consumers.” (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057-0397). However, many commenters argued the two-year timeline would not provide the chlor-alkali industry a reasonable transition period and requested EPA provide additional time to allow the chlor-alkali industry to transition away from asbestos-containing diaphragms, to allow for this transition to occur without causing economic disruptions, and public health impacts resulting from potential disruption of drinking water disinfection supplies due to fluctuations in the production of chlorine. Some commenters also expressed concerns about the proposed alternative five-year timeline for similar reasons. Commenters provided EPA with information on the conversion process to non-asbestos technologies and the timing involved, including examples from plants in the United States and elsewhere in the world. Commenters noted that Canada provided 11 years for the conversion of one plant, and in the European Union, Germany allowed 14 years for the conversion of one plant. Comments indicated that a single plant could be converted within 45 to 55 months, including project design and engineering, permitting, construction and startup (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057-0405c). However, commenters expressed concerns, including: “recent supply chain disruptions cast doubt on whether that aggressive five-year timeline can be met for a single . . . facility conversion; it would be clearly infeasible for multiple plant conversions. . . . Globally, there are only four electrolyzer manufacturers. Based on raw metal supply disruptions, electrolyzer market demand and production capacity, manufacturers have indicated they may only support a large-scale conversion every 3-4 years. . . . The logistical and cost-intensive process of converting several facilities simultaneously compound the infeasibility of EPA's proposed timeframe.” (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057-0405) That commenter (and others) noted the time required to obtain an air permit: “. . . preparing, applying for, and obtaining an [state] air permit, which is generally required to commence construction, . . . can easily take eighteen months or even the entire twenty-four-month period.” The commenter also noted “. . . sequential conversion to membrane is needed to maintain an ongoing supply of the chlor-alkali chemicals. Even if it were possible to construct the plants concurrently, shutting down that amount of capacity at the same time would have dramatic impact on supply across many industries and public services . . .” (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057-0405). Many commenters raised concerns about the impact the 2-year prohibition on the nation's supply of chlorine and caustic soda, which are essential chemicals for many industries. Many commenters asserted that a sudden shortage of chlorine could severely impact the ability of municipal water treatment facilities to disinfect public drinking water and therefore present a public health concern.
After the close of the public comment period for the proposed rule, EPA received comments and held meetings with stakeholders, including affected industry and interested groups, related to the use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production. Topics of these comments and meetings included media reports regarding asbestos workplace practices in the chlor-alkali industry, the timing of any prohibition on the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets, and the requirement, included in the primary regulatory alternative described in the preamble to the proposed rule, for processors and users of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets to comply with an ECEL as an interim control measure prior to the effective date of a prohibition. Meetings were held with: ADAO (July 6 & October 13, 2022); Chlorine Institute (July 6, 2022); Dow Chemicals (October 28, 2022); Axial/Westlake (November 3, 2022); Olin Corp. (November 14, 2022); OxyChem (November 16, December 7, 2022 & February 9, 2023), and Chemours (January 18, 2023). EPA received data as part of and following those stakeholder meetings and is now making those public data and stakeholder meeting summaries available to the public in the rulemaking docket (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057). Some industry information made available to EPA has been claimed as
In addition, other information made available to EPA after the close of the public comment period has been posted to the docket, including several public comments submitted to EPA regarding the potential impacts of the proposed rule's compliance date for the prohibition on the commercial use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms in the chlor-alkali industry on the supply of chlorine used for drinking water disinfection.
EPA received comments pertaining to the timing of the prohibition on the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms requesting the consideration of the current transition schedules for chlor-alkali facilities from chrysotile asbestos diaphragms to non-asbestos alternative technology. For example, comments suggest it may be practicable to prohibit the manufacture (including import) of chrysotile asbestos before prohibiting processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos, as all chlor-alkali companies that currently use chrysotile asbestos already have or will have a sufficient supply of chrysotile asbestos for foreseeable future operations prior to the prohibition compliance dates. Regarding the timing of the prohibition on processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use, some commenters believe it may be practicable for the compliance dates to vary for different affected persons, as comments have informed EPA that individual chlor-alkali companies may have different considerations for the timing of any transition away from chrysotile asbestos diaphragm technology, based on whether they intend to close or convert facilities, the number and size of facilities they have, and inherent technical differences in specific plant conversions. Comments received described the different approaches to move away from chrysotile asbestos use given the different designs of chrysotile asbestos diaphragm technology, the type of intended conversion to a non-asbestos diaphragm technology or membrane technology, the limited availability of suppliers and technical expertise during the conversion process, as well as differences regarding permits needed for the conversion of facilities and permitting timelines based on their location. Comments indicate that an approach that can accommodate differences among facilities may provide a reasonable transition period for each remaining chlor-alkali facility still using chrysotile asbestos diaphragms, while ensuring the associated unreasonable risk is addressed as soon as practicable. Another commenter, however, believes that since industry is already transitioning to non-asbestos chlor-alkali technology an expeditious ban of the use of chrysotile asbestos in chlor-alkali production will not only protect public health but achieve important economic and environmental benefits.
Comments EPA received regarding the timing of the prohibition on the manufacture (including import), processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets in chemical production, state that the prohibition compliance date should be delayed for titanium dioxide production facilities to allow a transition from chrysotile asbestos containing sheet gaskets to non-asbestos sheet gaskets, as titanium dioxide producers have different technical considerations from other chemical producers for the transition away from the chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets.
Comments from stakeholders also included discussion of workplace monitoring strategies to comply with an asbestos ECEL during the interim period prior to a prohibition on the commercial use of chrysotile asbestos diaphragms. For example, AIHA stated that “the proposed exposure limits of 0.005 f/cc and 0.0025 f/cc cannot be measured for an 8-hour work shift by existing sampling and analytical protocols for asbestos . . . due to the volume of air that would need to be collected to achieve the detection limit necessary . . .” (EPA-HQ-OPPT-2021-0057-0288). OxyChem has suggested that calculation of compliance with an ECEL could take into account the assigned protection factor (APF) used for individual tasks when such respirator use is required by a facility's exposure control plan.
EPA requests public comment on any data in the docket that was received during and after the proposed rule public comment period, and how EPA should consider it during the development of the final rule. In particular, EPA is seeking comments on how to consider the additional information received regarding maintaining the prohibition compliance dates, staggering the prohibition compliance dates or establishing longer deadlines for the prohibition on processing, distribution in commerce and commercial use of chrysotile asbestos for chrysotile asbestos diaphragms for use in the chlor-alkali industry and chrysotile asbestos-containing sheet gaskets used in chemical production. EPA is also seeking comments on the new information provided regarding the practicability of measuring 0.005 f/cc and 0.0025 f/cc for an 8-hour work shift by existing sampling and analytical protocols and how EPA could put in place effective interim exposure reduction requirements in a way that they are compatible with OSHA requirements and industrial hygiene practices, where those requirements and practices will address unreasonable risk until prohibitions are fully implemented. EPA also seeks comments on the workplace safety concerns in the chlor-alkali industry raised by ADAO in its comments.
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Export certification, Hazardous substances, Import certification, Recordkeeping.
Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Proposed rule; correction.
This document corrects technical and typographical errors that appeared in the proposed rule published in the
The comments due date remains March 21, 2023.
Geanelle G. Herring, (410) 786-4466 and Christopher Wilson, (410) 786-3178.
In FR Doc. 2022-27437 of December 21, 2022 (87 FR 78438), there were several technical and typographical errors in the regulations text that are identified and corrected in this correcting document.
On page 78453, in the section of the proposed rule that describes the documents that would be incorporated by reference, we inadvertently omitted language regarding the HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2: Digital Signatures and Delegation of Rights, Release 1 that we proposed to adopt as the electronic signature standard. Including this implementation guide in the list of documents to be incorporated by reference would align the section with discussion on page 78451, which specifies that the aforementioned implementation guide would be incorporated by reference. This correction does not introduce a new document for incorporation by reference, but, rather, ensures that the proposed incorporation by reference section of the proposed rule identifies all the documents proposed for incorporation by reference. We correct this error in section III. of this document (see item 1).
On page 78468, we note the following:
• In the regulations text for § 162.2002, we inadvertently omitted paragraph (f) that identifies the electronic signature standard we proposed to adopt. We also inadvertently omitted § 162.920(e)(4), which would specify the incorporation by reference of the implementation guide that would be adopted for the proposed electronic signature standard specified in § 162.2002(f). Adding these references would conform the regulations text to the policies proposed on pages 78449 and 78450 where we describe how the term “electronic signature” would be defined, identify the specific electronic signature standard we would adopt, and specify that we would adopt the electronic signature standard at § 162.2002(f). These corrections do not introduce new policy proposals in this document, but, rather, conform the regulations text to the policies that were clearly proposed and intended to be reflected in the regulations text. We correct these errors in section III. of this document (see items 2.a. and 1.b.(2)).
• In the regulations text for § 162.2002(e)(2), we made an inadvertent typographical error by referencing the wrong citation. We mistakenly referenced 45 CFR 1302(e)(2) rather than 45 CFR 162.1302(e)(2). We correct this error in section III. of this document (see item 2.b.(1).).
In FR Doc. 2022-27437 of December 21, 2022 (87 FR 78438), make the following corrections:
(1) Lines 11 and 12, the phrase “Errata; and (3) HL7 Implementation” is corrected to read “Errata; (3) HL7 Implementation”.
(2) Last line, the phrase “with Errata.” is corrected to read “with Errata; and (4) HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2: Digital Signatures and Delegation of Rights, Release 1.”
“The HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2: Digital Signatures and Delegation of Rights, Release 1 provides a standardized method of applying Digital Signatures to CDA documents. The standard provides for multiple signers, signers' declaration of their role, declaration of the purpose of the signature, long-term validation of the Digital Signatures, and data validation of the signed content.”.
(e) * * *
(4) HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2: Digital Signatures and Delegation of Rights, Release 1 October 2014; IBR approved for § 162.2002(f).
The addition reads as follows:
(f) For transmissions described in § 162.2001(a), where a health care provider uses an electronic signature, the HL7 Implementation Guide for CDA Release 2: Digital Signatures and Delegation of Rights, Release 1 (incorporated by reference, see § 162.920).
Federal Communications Commission.
Petition for reconsideration; correction.
The Federal Communications Commission (Commission) published a document in the
Oppositions to the Petition must be filed on or before March 20, 2023.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Rolanda F. Smith, Media Bureau, (202) 418-2700.
In the
Farm Service Agency, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requirement, the Farm Service Agency (FSA) is requesting comments from all interested individuals and organizations on a revision of two currently approved information collection requests, Direct Loan Servicing—Regular and Servicing Minor Program Loans, respectively. In the Direct Loan Servicing—Regular, the information is used to determine borrower compliance with loan agreements, assist the borrower in achieving business goals, and regular servicing of the loan account such as graduation, subordination, partial release, use of proceeds, and consent. In Servicing Minor Program Loans, the information collected is used to perform routine and special servicing actions for loans authorized and serviced under FSA's Minor Loan Program.
We will consider comments that we receive by May 16, 2023.
We invite you to submit comments in response to this notice. FSA prefers that the comments are submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal, identified by Docket ID No. FSA-2023-0006, go to
All comments received will be posted without change and made publicly available on
Lee Nault; by telephone: (202) 720-6834; or by email:
The information collection relates to a program benefit recipient or loan borrower requesting action on security they own, which was purchased with FSA loan funds, improved with FSA loan funds or has otherwise been mortgaged to FSA to secure a Federal Government loan. The information collected is primarily financial data not already on file, such as borrower asset values, current financial information and public use and employment data.
To better serve borrowers' minor loan program servicing requests, FSA is retiring form FSA-2060 “Application for Partial Release, Subordination (Real or Personal), or Consent”. FSA has created two new forms, FSA-2061 “Application for Partial Release or Consent” and FSA-2062 “Application for Subordination of Security for Commercial Credit”; both new forms captured the information previously requested on the FSA-2001 and FSA-2060 that will replace the FSA-2060 and eliminating the need for FSA-2001 for regular and routine servicing requests.
FSA is requesting OMB approval on the new two forms. With the retiring of FSA-2060 and the addition of FSA-2061 and FSA-2062, the estimated burden hours have not changed. A review of previous FSA-2060 usage over the past five years revealed no usage of the form to service minor program loans. While significant usage of the new forms replacing the FSA-2060 is not anticipated, these forms are included as part of this collection package due to the need for them to complete potential minor program servicing requests. No anticipated increase or decrease in usage for loans serviced under this program is expected.
For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per responses hours multiplied by the estimated total annual responses.
To better serve borrowers' regular and routine servicing requests, FSA is retiring form FSA-2060 “Application for Partial Release, Subordination (Real or Personal), or Consent”. The form FSA-2061 “Application for Partial Release or Consent,” and form FSA-2062 “Application for Subordination of Security for Commercial Credit” are new forms; both new forms captured the information previously requested on the FSA-2001 and FSA-2060 that will replace the FSA-2060 and eliminating the need for FSA-2001 for regular and routine servicing requests.
FSA is requesting OMB approval for the new two forms. The burden hours estimate has been increased by 177 hours while the estimated annual responses have increased by 88. The increase in burden is not attributed to additional completion time related to either new form but instead is an overall estimated increase in total future usage of the forms based on the number of borrowers who utilize the FSA-2060 to request servicing actions over the past five years.
For the following estimated total annual burden on respondents, the formula used to calculate the total burden hours is the estimated average time per responses multiplied by the estimated total annual of responses.
We are requesting comments on all aspects of this information collection to help us to:
(1) Evaluate whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of FSA, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of FSA's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected;
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
All comments received in response to this notice, including names and addresses when provided, will be a matter of public record. Comments will be summarized and included in the submission for Office of Management and Budget approval.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Agencies, offices, and employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family or parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Individuals who require alternative means of communication for program information (for example, braille, large print, audiotape, American Sign Language, etc.) should contact the responsible Agency or USDA TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and text telephone (TTY) or dial 711 for Telecommunications Relay Service (both voice and text telephone users can initiate this call from any telephone). Additionally, program information may be made available in languages other than English.
To file a program discrimination complaint, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, AD-3027, found online at
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meetings.
The North Wisconsin Resource Advisory Committee (RAC) will hold two public meetings according to the details shown below. The committee is authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the committee is to improve collaborative relationships and to provide advice and recommendations to the Forest Service concerning projects and funding consistent with Title II of the Act as well as to make recommendations on recreation fee proposals for sites on the Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest, consistent with the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act. General information and meeting details can be found at the following website:
The meetings will be held on:
All RAC meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meetings prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date(s) listed under in this
Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date(s) (to be scheduled on that particular agenda).
Written comments and requests for time for oral comments must be sent to Penny McLaughlin, 500 Hanson Lake Road, Rhinelander, WI 54501 or by email to
All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are placed in the record and are available for public inspection and copying. The public may inspect comments received upon request.
These meetings are open to the public and will be held at the Rhinelander Supervisor's Office, 500 Hanson Lake Rd., Rhinelander, Wisconsin 54501. The public may also join virtually via telephone and/or video conference. Virtual meeting participation details can be found on the website listed under
Adam Felts, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by phone at 715-362-1335 or email at
Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf and hard of hearing (TDD) may call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339, 24 hours a day, every day of the year, including holidays.
The purpose of the meetings are to:
1. Elect a chairperson;
2. Hear from Title II project proponents and discuss Title II project proposals; and
3. Make funding recommendations on Title II projects.
The meetings are open to the public. The agendas will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less.
Written comments and oral statements may be submitted as described under the
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication for program information (
USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the Committee. To ensure that the recommendations of the Committee have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include to the extent possible, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice of funding opportunity.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS, Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces acceptance of applications under the Value-Added Producer Grant (VAPG) program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, subject to the availability of funding. This Notice is being issued in order to allow applicants sufficient time to leverage financing, prepare and submit their applications, and give the Agency time to process applications within FY 2023. The Agency currently estimates that approximately $31 million will be available for FY 2023. Successful applications will be selected by the Agency for funding and subsequently awarded to the extent that funding may ultimately be made available through appropriations. All applicants are responsible for any expenses incurred in developing their applications.
Electronic applications e-filed through
Complete paper applications must be submitted by close of business on May 16, 2023 in the USDA RD State Office of the State where the project is located, Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped or sent overnight, hand carried or emailed by this date.
Late applications are not eligible for grant funding under this Notice.
This funding announcement will also be announced on
To submit a paper application, send it to the USDA RD State Office located in the state where the project will primarily take place. Applicants can find USDA RD State Office contact information at
Application materials are also available at
Greg York at 202-281-5259,
A complete paper application must be submitted by close of business on May 16, 2023 in the USDA RD State Office of the State where the project is located, or it will not be considered for funding. Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped or sent overnight, hand carried or emailed by this date.
Late applications are not eligible for grant funding under this Notice.
• Assisting rural communities recover economically through more and better market opportunities and through improved infrastructure;
• Ensuring all rural residents have equitable access to RD programs and benefits from RD funded projects; and
• Reducing climate pollution and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic support to rural communities.
1.
2.
3.
(a)
(1) 1 or more producers; or
(2) 1 or more entities, 100 percent of the ownership and control of which is held by 1 or more producers. The term `entity' means—
(i) a partnership;
(ii) a limited liability corporation;
(iii) a limited liability partnership; or
(iv) a corporation.
(b)
4.
Ten percent of available funds for applications will be reserved for applicants qualifying as Beginning, Veteran, and Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers. 7 CFR 4284.927(f)(1). An additional 10 percent of available funds will be reserved for applications from farmers or ranchers proposing development of Mid-Tier Value Chains. 7 CFR 4284.927(f)(2). Beginning, Veteran, and Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers or Ranchers and applicants proposing Mid-Tier Value Chains not awarded for reserved funds will compete with other eligible VAPG applications. In addition, any funds that become available for persistent poverty counties through enactment of FY 2023 appropriations will be allocated for assistance in persistent poverty counties. Funds not obligated from these reserves by September 30, 2023, will be used for the VAPG general competition and made available in a subsequent application cycle.
1.
The application narrative must demonstrate that all applicant eligibility requirements of 7 CFR 4284.920 and § 4284.921 have been met. Application narratives should also take note of the definition requirements at 7 CFR 4284.902, such as by demonstrating that the applicant satisfies the definition for an “Agricultural Producer”; how you qualify for one of the following applicant types: Independent Producer, Agricultural Producer Group, Farmer or Rancher Cooperative or Majority-Controlled Producer-Based Business Venture; and that the applicant meets the Emerging Market, Citizenship, Legal Authority and Responsibility, Multiple Grants and Active Grants requirements of the section. Required documentation to support eligibility is specified at 7 CFR 4284.931 and this Notice.
RBCS encourages applications from Federally-recognized Tribes and Tribal Entities. Federally-recognized Tribes and Tribal entities must demonstrate that they meet the definition requirements for one of the four eligible applicant types. RD State Offices and posted application toolkits will provide additional information on Tribal eligibility. Tribal applicants are encouraged to contact Agency staff early in the process to discuss applicant and project eligibility. In addition to contacting program staff Tribal applicants can contact USDA Rural Development's Tribal Relations Team with Tribal specific questions and concerns at
Factors rendering an applicant ineligible are provided at 7 CFR 4284.921. The Agency will check the Do Not Pay (DNP) system to determine if the applicant or its principals has been debarred or suspended (see 7 CFR 4284.921(a)). Per the Consolidated Appropriations Act, sections 520, 744, and 745, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328) any corporation (i) that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or (ii) that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by this or any other act, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government.
2.
Applicant matching contributions in the form of raw commodity, time contributed to the project, or goods or services for which no out-of-pocket expenditure is made during the grant period, must be characterized as in-kind contributions, subject to the requirements and limitations specified in 7 CFR 4284.925(a)-(b). Donations of goods and services from third parties must be characterized as in-kind contributions. Tribal applicants may utilize grants made available under Public Law 93-638 sec. 104(C), the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act of 1975, as their matching contribution, and should check with appropriate tribal authorities regarding the availability of such funding. Non-tribal applicant cannot provide matching funds paid by the Federal Government under another Federal award. 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(4)(iv).
Matching funds must be available at the time of application and must be certified and verified as described in 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(3) and (4). Do not include
3. Other.
(a)
(1)
In addition, per the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (Pub. L. 115-334), working capital applications must include a statement describing the direct or indirect producer benefits intended to result from the proposed project within a reasonable period of time after the receipt of a grant.
(2)
(i)
(ii)
(3)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
1.
2.
(a) Standard Form (SF)-424, “Application for Federal Assistance,” is required. 7 CFR 42484.931(a)(1). The forms require the applicant to include their Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) and expiration date (or evidence that the System for Award Management (SAM) registration process has begun). If the UEI is not included in the application, it will not be considered for funding.
(b) SF-424A, “Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs” is required. 7 CFR 4284.931(a)(2).
(c) Permit. Applicants must provide a valid permit or evidence of having begun the permitting process if proposing a working capital grant to produce and market value-added products in the industries of wine, beer, distilled spirits or other alcoholic merchandise; or tobacco or tobacco products, as specified in 27 CFR chapter 1.
(d) Producer license. Applicants must provide a valid producer license issued by a State, Tribe, or USDA, as applicable, or in accordance with 7 CFR part 990 if proposing to market value-added hemp products.
(e) Executive Summary and Abstract. A one-page Executive Summary containing the following information: legal name of applicant entity, application type (planning or working capital), applicant type, amount of grant request, a summary of the project, whether it is a simplified application, and whether reserved funds are being requested. Also include a separate abstract of up to 100 words briefly describing the project.
(f) Eligibility discussion. 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(1).
(g) Work plan and budget.
(h) Performance evaluation criteria. 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(2)(i).
(i) Proposal evaluation criteria. 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(2)(ii).
(j) Certification and verification of matching funds. 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(3)-(4).
(k) Optionally, reserved Funds and Priority Point documentation. 7 CFR 4284.924.
(l) Feasibility studies, business plans, and/or marketing plans, as applicable. 7 CFR 4284.931(b)(5)-(6).
(m) Appendices containing required supporting documentation.
(n) Applicants requesting less than $50,000 are permitted to submit a simplified application, the contents of which are specified in this notice. Applicants requesting Working Capital Grants of less than $50,000 are not required to provide Feasibility Studies or Business Plans but must provide information demonstrating increases in customer base and revenue returns to the producers supplying the majority of the Agricultural Commodity as a result of the project. 7 CFR 4284.932.
3.
(a) At the time of application, each applicant must have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) before submitting its application in accordance with 2 CFR 25. In order to register in SAM, entities will be required to create a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). Instructions for obtaining the UEI are available at
(b) Applicant must maintain an active SAM registration, with current, accurate and complete information, at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
(c) Applicant must ensure they complete the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations in SAM.
(d) Applicants must provide a valid UEI in its application, unless determined exempt under 2 CFR 25.110.
(e) The Agency will not make an award until the applicant has complied with all SAM requirements including providing the UEI. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.
Paper applications must be postmarked and mailed, shipped, sent overnight, hand carried, or emailed by close of business on May 16, 2023 to the USDA RD State Office where the project is located. USDA RD State Office contact information is located at
If the due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the application is due the next business day. The Agency will not solicit or consider new scoring or eligibility information that is submitted after the application deadline. The Agency also reserves the right to ask applicants for clarifying information and additional verification of assertions in the application. Late applications will automatically be considered ineligible and will not be evaluated further.
5.
6.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
7.
(a)
To use
If submitting the application electronically, all application documents must be submitted through
After electronically applying through
(b)
1.
The Agency application toolkit provides additional instructions to help you to respond to the criteria below.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(d)
(e)
(1) Five (5) points will be awarded if the applicant meets the requirements for one of the following categories and provide the documentation described in 7 CFR 4284.923 and 4284.924 as applicable: Beginning Farmer or Rancher, Socially-Disadvantaged Farmer or Rancher, Veteran Farmer or Rancher, or Operator of a Small or Medium-sized Farm or Ranch that is structured as a Family Farm, Farmer or Rancher Cooperative, or are proposing a Mid-Tier Value Chain project.
(2) Up to 5 priority points will be awarded if the Applicant is an Agricultural Producer Group, Farmer or Rancher Cooperative, or Majority-Controlled Producer-Based Business Venture (referred to below as “applicant group”) whose project “best contributes to creating or increasing marketing opportunities” for Operators of Small and Medium-sized Farms and Ranches that are structured as Family Farms, Beginning Farmers and Ranchers, Socially-Disadvantaged Farmers and Ranchers, and Veteran Farmers and Ranchers (referred to below as “priority groups”). For each of the priority point levels below, applications must demonstrate how the proposed project will contribute to new or increased marketing opportunities for respective priority groups. Applicants will not be awarded more than 5 points even if they qualify for more than one of the priority categories.
(i) Two (2) priority points will be awarded if the existing membership of the applicant group is comprised of either more than 50 percent of any one of the four priority groups or more than 50 percent of any combination of the four priority groups.
(ii) One (1) additional priority point will be awarded if the existing membership of the applicant group is comprised of two or more of the priority groups. One point is awarded regardless of whether a group's membership is comprised of two, three, or all four of the priority groups.
(iii) Two (2) additional priority points will be awarded if the applicant's proposed project will increase the number of priority groups that comprise applicant membership by one or more priority groups. However, if an applicant group's membership is already comprised of all four priority groups, such an applicant would not be eligible for points under this criterion because there is no opportunity to increase the number of priority groups. Note also that this criterion does not consider either the percentage of the existing membership that is comprised of the four priority groups or the number of priority groups currently comprising the applicant group's membership.
(f)
(1) Applications may also be awarded points for the following three priorities:
(i) Assisting rural communities recover economically through more and better market opportunities and through improved infrastructure. Proposals where the project is located in or serving one of the top 10% of counties or county equivalents based upon county risk score in the United States. Information on this priority may be found at:
(ii) Ensuring all rural residents have equitable access to RD programs and benefits from RD funded projects. Direct technical assistance to a project located in or serving a community with a score 0.75 or above on the CDC Social Vulnerability Index. Information on this priority may be found at:
(iii) Reduce climate pollution and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic support to rural communities. Direct technical assistance to a project addressing climate impacts shown as either quantitative or qualitative. Additional information on this priority may be found at:
(A)
(B)
(2) The Agency will confirm if the project is located in an area qualifying for these priorities. However, the applicant can provide a written narrative in the application on how the project reduces climate pollution and increases resilience to the impacts of climate change if the project is not located in or serving coal, oil and gas, and power plant communities whose economic well-being ranks in the most distressed tier.
2.
The Agency will select applications for award under this notice in accordance with the provisions specified in 7 CFR 4284.950(a).
If an application is eligible and complete, it will be qualitatively scored by at least two reviewers based on criteria specified in section E.1. of this Notice. One of these reviewers will be an experienced RD employee from the applicable servicing State Office and at least one additional reviewer will be a non-Federal, independent reviewer. Independent reviewers must have at least a bachelor's degree in one or more of the following fields: agri-business, agricultural economics, agriculture, animal science, business, marketing, economics or finance; or a minimum of 8 years of experience in an agriculture-related field (
The Administrator of the Agency may choose to award up to 10 Administrator priority points based on criteria (f) in section E.1. of this Notice. These points will be added to the cumulative score for a total possible score of 100.
A final ranking will be obtained based solely on the scores received for criteria (a) through (d) and priority point under (e) and (f). A minimum score of 50 points is required for funding. Applications for reserved funds will be funded in rank order until funds are depleted. Unfunded reserve applications will be returned to the general funds where applications will be funded in rank order until the funds are expended. Funding for Majority Controlled Producer-Based Business Ventures is limited to 10 percent of total grant funds expected to be obligated as a result of this notice. These applications will be funded in rank order until the funding limitation has been reached. Grants to these applicants from reserved funds will count against this funding limitation. In the event of tied scores, the Administrator shall have discretion in breaking ties. The Agency reserves the right to offer the applicant less than the grant funding requested.
If the application is ranked, but not funded, it will not be carried forward into the next application funding cycle.
1.
If you are not selected for funding, you will be notified in writing and informed of any review and appeal rights. Funding of successfully appealed applications will be limited to available funding.
2.
In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about first-tier subawards and executive compensation (see 2 CFR part 170). You will be required to have the necessary processes and systems in place to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Pub. L. 109-282) reporting requirements (see 2 CFR 170.200(b), unless you are exempt under 2 CFR 170.110(b)). More information on these requirements can be found at
The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:
(i) Agency approved Financial Assistance Agreement.
(ii) Letter of Conditions.
(iii) Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
(iv) Form RD-400-4, “Assurance Agreement.”
(v) SF LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
(vi) Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
(vii) Use Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement.”
3.
(a) An SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance
(b) A final project and financial status report within 120 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.
(c) Provide outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.
If you have questions about this notice, please contact the USDA RD State Office as identified in the
Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces that the Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS, Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), invites applications for grants under the Socially Disadvantaged Groups Grant (SDGG) program for Fiscal Year (FY) 2023. This notice is being issued to allow applicants sufficient time to leverage financing, prepare and submit their applications, and give the Agency time to process applications within FY 2023. A total of $3,000,000 in grant funding will be available for FY 2023. Successful applications will be selected by the Agency for funding and subsequently awarded to the extent that funding may ultimately be made available through appropriations. All applicants are responsible for any expenses incurred in developing and submitting their applications.
Complete applications for grants must be submitted electronically by 4:30 p.m. local time on May 16, 2023, through
Applicants are encouraged to contact the USDA RD State Office well in advance of the application deadline to discuss the project and ask any questions about the application process. Contact information for USDA RD State Offices can be found at
Program guidance as well as application templates may be obtained at
Arti Kshirsagar at
• Assisting rural communities recover economically through better market opportunities and through improved infrastructure;
• Ensuring all rural residents have equitable access to Rural Development (RD) programs and benefits from RD funded projects; and
• Reducing climate pollution and increasing resilience to the impacts of climate change through economic support to rural communities.
1.
2.
Section 736 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023, Public Law 117-328 (the “2023 Appropriations Act”), designates funding for projects in persistent poverty counties. Persistent poverty counties as defined in Section 736 is “any county that has had 20 percent or more of its population living in poverty over the past 30 years, as measured by the 1990 and 2000 decennial censuses, and 2007-2011 American Community Survey 5-year average, or any territory or possession of the United States”. Another provision in Section 736 expands the eligible population in persistent poverty counties to include any county seat of such a persistent poverty county that has a population that does not exceed the authorized population limit by more than 10 percent. This provision expands the current 50,000 population limit to 55,000 for county seats located in persistent poverty counties. Therefore, applicants and/or beneficiaries of technical assistance services located in persistent poverty county seats with populations up to 55,000 (per the 2010 Census) are eligible.
3.
4.
1.
(a) Required Documentation Applicants must verify their legal structure in the state or the Tribe under which the applicants are legally organized or incorporated.
(b) Applicants must demonstrate that all defined requirements for one of the three eligible applicant types have been met. These three eligible applicant types are: individual cooperatives, groups of cooperatives, or cooperative development centers.
An applicant is ineligible if:
(a) It is a public body or individual.
(b) It has been debarred or suspended or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs under Executive Order 12549, “Debarment and Suspension.” The Agency will check the Do Not Pay (DNP) system to determine if the applicant has been debarred or suspended at the time of application and prior to funding any grant award.
(c) It has an outstanding judgment obtained by the U.S. in a Federal Court (other than U.S. Tax Court), is delinquent on the payment of Federal income taxes, or is delinquent on Federal debt. The applicant must certify as part of the application that there are no outstanding judgments against them. The applicant is responsible for resolving any issues that are reported in the `Do Not Pay' System and if issues are not resolved by the deadline found in this notice, the Agency may proceed to award funds to other eligible applicants.
(d) Any corporation or cooperative (i) that has been convicted of a felony criminal violation under any Federal law within the past 24 months or (ii) that has any unpaid Federal tax liability that has been assessed, for which all judicial and administrative remedies have been exhausted or have lapsed, and that is not being paid in a timely manner pursuant to an agreement with the authority responsible for collecting the tax liability, is not eligible for financial assistance provided with funds appropriated by the 2023 Appropriations Act, unless a Federal agency has considered suspension or debarment of the corporation and has made a determination that this further action is not necessary to protect the interests of the Government. Certification of compliance with this provision is now completed during registration or annual recertification in the System for Award Management (SAM) at SAM.gov via the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations.
2.
3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
The Agency may approve requests to extend the grant period for up to an additional 12 months at its discretion. However, applicants may not have more than one SDGG award during the same grant period. If you extend the period of performance for your current award, you may be deemed ineligible to receive an SDGG in the next grant cycle. Further guidance on grant period extensions will be provided in the award document.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
1.
2.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(1)
Applicants must verify their incorporation and status in the state that they have applied by providing the State or Tribe's Certificate of Good Standing and Articles of Incorporation. Bylaws may also be submitted if they provide additional information not included in the Articles of Incorporation that will help verify the applicant's legal status. If applying as an institution of higher education, documentation verifying legal status is not required; however, the applicant must demonstrate that they qualify as an Institution of Higher
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(g)
(h)
(1) Number of cooperatives assisted; and
(2) Number of socially disadvantaged groups assisted.
3.
(a) At the time of application, applicants must have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) before applying in accordance with 2 CFR part 25. To register in SAM, entities will be required to create a Unique Entity Identifier (UEI). Instructions for obtaining the UEI are available at
(b) Applicants must maintain an active SAM registration, with current, accurate and complete information, at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
(c) Applicants must complete the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations in SAM.
(d) Applicants must provide a valid UEI in its application, unless determined exempt under 2 CFR 25.110.
(e) The Agency will not make an award until the applicant has complied with all SAM requirements including providing the UEI. If an applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine that the applicant is not qualified to receive a Federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another applicant.
4.
(a)
(b)
Applications received after the deadline are not eligible for funding under this notice and will not be evaluated. The Agency will not solicit or consider new scoring or eligibility information that is submitted after the application deadline. RBCS also reserves the right to ask applicants for clarifying information and additional verification of assertions in the application.
5.
6.
(a) No funds made available under this notice shall be used to:
(1) Plan, repair, rehabilitate, acquire, or construct a building or facility, including a processing facility;
(2) Purchase, rent, or install fixed equipment, including processing equipment;
(3) Purchase vehicles, including boats;
(4) Pay for the preparation of the grant application;
(5) Pay expenses not directly related to the funded project;
(6) Fund political or lobbying activities;
(7) Fund any activities considered unallowable by the applicable grant cost principles, including 2 CFR part 200, subpart E and the Federal Acquisition Regulation as stated in 48 CFR chapter 1, subchapter E, part 31;
(8) Fund architectural or engineering design work for a specific physical facility;
(9) Fund any direct expenses to produce any commodity or product to which value will be added, including seed, rootstock, labor for harvesting the crop, and delivery of the commodity to a processing facility;
(10) Fund research and development;
(11) Purchase land;
(12) Duplicate current activities or activities paid for by other Federal grant programs;
(13) Pay costs of the project incurred prior to the date of grant approval;
(14) Pay for assistance to any private business enterprise that does not have at least fifty-one (51) percent ownership by those who are either citizens of the United States or reside in the United States after being legally admitted for permanent residence;
(15) Pay any judgment or debt owed to the United States;
(16) Pay any operating costs of the cooperative, group of cooperatives, or cooperative development center not directly related to the project;
(17) Pay expenses for applicant employee training or professional development not directly related to the project;
(18) Pay for any goods or services from a person or entity who has a conflict of interest with the grantee; or
(19) Pay for technical assistance provided to a cooperative that does not have a membership that consists of a majority of members from socially disadvantaged groups.
(b) Applications will not be considered for funding if it does any of the following:
(1) Requests more than the maximum grant amount;
(2) Proposes ineligible costs that equal more than ten (10) percent of total grant funds requested; or
(3) Proposes participant support costs that equal more than ten (10) percent of total grant funds requested.
(c) The Agency will consider an application for funding if it includes ineligible costs of ten (10) percent or less of total grant funds requested if it is determined eligible otherwise. However, if the application is successful, those ineligible costs must be removed and replaced with eligible costs before the Agency will make the grant award or the amount of the grant award will be reduced accordingly. If the Agency cannot determine the percentage of ineligible costs, the application will not be considered for funding.
(d) No assistance or funding from this grant can be provided to a hemp producer without a valid license issued from an approved State, Tribal or Federal plan in accordance with Subtitle G of the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946, as amended (7 U.S.C. 1621
7.
The
Applications must include electronic signatures. Original signatures may be required if funds are awarded. After applying electronically through
1.
(a)
(1) Needs of the socially disadvantaged groups to be assisted and explain how those needs were determined,
(2) Proposed technical assistance to be provided to the socially disadvantaged groups; and
(3) Expected outcomes of the proposed technical assistance, including how socially disadvantaged groups will benefit from participating in the project. Applicants will score higher on this criterion if examples of the entity's past projects that demonstrate successful outcomes in identifying specific needs and providing technical assistance to socially disadvantaged groups are provided.
(b)
(1) Specific tasks to be completed using grant funds;
(2) How customers will be identified;
(3) Key personnel and what tasks they are undertaking; and
(4) The evaluation methods to be used to determine the success of specific tasks and overall project objectives. Please provide qualitative methods of evaluation. For example, evaluation methods should be measurable and go beyond quantitative measurements of completing surveys or number of evaluations. Examples include discussions of pre-test, post-test, and the evaluation of how task results will be measured.
(c)
(1) 0 points will be awarded if you do not substantively address the criterion.
(2) 1-9 points will be awarded if qualifications and experience of some, but not all, staff is addressed and, if necessary, qualifications of unfilled positions are not provided.
(3) 10-14 points will be awarded if (2) is met, plus all project personnel are identified but do not demonstrate qualifications or experience relevant to the project.
(4) 15-19 will be awarded if (2) and (3) are met, plus most, but not all, key personnel demonstrate strong credentials and/or experience, and availability indicating a reasonable likelihood of success.
(5) 20-25 points will be awarded if (2)-(4) are met, plus all personnel demonstrate strong, relevant credentials or experience and availability indicating a high likelihood of project success.
(d)
(e)
(1) 0 points are awarded if the applicant does not adequately address this criterion.
(2) A range of 1-5 points are awarded if the applicant demonstrates support from potential beneficiaries and other developmental organizations in the discussion but does not provide letters of support.
(3) Additional 1 point is awarded if 2 to 3 support letters are provided and show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
(4) Additional 2 points are awarded if 4 to 5 support letters are provided and show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
(5) Additional 3 points are awarded if 6 to 7 support letters are provided and show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
(6) Additional 4 points are awarded if 8 to 9 support letters are provided and show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
(7) Additional 5 points are awarded if 10 support letters are provided and show support from potential beneficiaries and/or support from local organizations.
Support letters should be signed and dated after the publication date of this notice and should come from potential beneficiaries and other local organizations. Letters received from Congressional members or technical assistance providers will not be included in the count of support letters received. Additionally, identical form letters signed by multiple potential beneficiaries and/or local organizations will not be included in the count of support letters received. Support letters should be included as an attachment to the application in Appendix C and will not count against the maximum page total. Additional letters from industry groups, commodity groups, Congressional members, and similar organizations should be referenced but not included in the application package. When referencing these letters, provide the name of the organization, the date of the letter, the nature of the support, and the name and title of the person signing the letter.
(f)
(1) The applicant has never received a SDGG award—5 points; or
(2) The applicant seeks to advance one or more key priorities addressed in the
2.
1.
Applicants not selected for funding will be notified in writing via postal or electronic mail and informed of any review and appeal rights. Funding of successfully appealed applications will be limited to available FY 2023 funding.
2.
The following additional requirements apply to grantees selected for this program:
(a) Execution of an Agency approved Grant Agreement.
(b) Acceptance of a written Letter of Conditions.
(c) Submission of Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
(d) Submission of Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
(e) Assurance Agreement. By signing the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations in SAM, grant recipients affirm that they will operate the program free from discrimination. The grant recipients will maintain the race and ethnic data on their board members and the beneficiaries of the program. The grant recipient will provide alternative forms of communication to persons with limited English proficiency. The Agency will conduct civil rights compliance reviews on grant recipients to identify the collection of racial and ethnic data on program beneficiaries. In addition, the compliance review will ensure that equal access to the program benefits and activities are provided for persons with disabilities and language barriers.
3.
(a) An SF-425, “Federal Financial Report,” and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 30 calendar days after the end of the semiannual period). The project performance reports shall include a comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives established for that period;
(b) A statement providing reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable;
(c) A statement providing reasons for any problems, delays, or adverse conditions, if any, which have affected or will affect attainment of overall project objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of objectives during established time periods, and a description of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation;
(d) Objectives and timetable established for the next reporting period;
(e) A final project and financial status report within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant in accordance with 2 CFR 200.344; and
(f) Outcome project performance reports and final deliverables.
For general questions about this notice and for program technical assistance, please see the contact information in the
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, 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 May 16, 2023.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to Dianne Hanshaw, Statutory Import Program Assistant, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; or by email to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Dianne Hanshaw, Statutory Import Program Assistant, Enforcement & Compliance, International Trade Administration, Room 3720, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, DC 20230; by telephone at (202) 482-1661, or by email to
The Departments of Commerce and Homeland Security (“DHS”) are required to determine whether nonprofit institutions established for scientific or educational purposes are entitled to duty-free entry for scientific instruments the institutions import under the Florence Agreement. Form ITA-338P enables: (1) DHS to determine whether the statutory eligibility requirements for the institution and the instrument are fulfilled, and (2) Commerce to make a comparison and finding as to the scientific equivalency of comparable instruments being manufactured in the United States. Without the collection of the information, DHS and Commerce would not have the necessary information to carry out the responsibilities of determining eligibility for duty-free entry assigned by law.
A copy of Form ITA-338P is provided on and downloadable from a website at
Upon acceptance by DHS as a valid application, the application is transmitted to Commerce for further processing.
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.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of incidental harassment authorization.
NMFS has received a request from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) for a second re-issuance of a previously issued incidental harassment authorization (IHA), with the only change being the effective dates. The IHA authorizes take of seven species of marine mammals, by Level A and Level B harassment, incidental to construction associated with the Debris Dock Replacement Project in Sausalito, California. The ACOE has requested re-issuance with new effective dates of January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024. The scope of the activities and anticipated effects remain the same, authorized take numbers are not changed, and the required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting remains the same as included in the initial IHA. NMFS is, therefore, issuing an identical IHA to cover the incidental take analyzed and authorized in the initial IHA.
This authorization is effective from January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024.
An electronic copy of the final 2021 IHA previously issued to the ACOE, the ACOE's application, and the
Jessica Taylor, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
An authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s), will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for subsistence uses (where relevant), and if the permissible methods of taking and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring and reporting of such takings are set forth.
NMFS has defined “negligible impact” in 50 CFR 216.103 as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival.
The MMPA states that the term “take” means to harass, hunt, capture, kill or attempt to harass, hunt, capture, or kill any marine mammal.
Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
On July 14, 2021, NMFS published final notice of our issuance of an IHA authorizing take of marine mammals incidental to the Debris Dock Replacement project (86 FR 37124). The effective dates of that IHA were September 1, 2021, through August 31, 2022. On December 14, 2021, the ACOE informed NMFS that the project was delayed. None of the work identified in the initial IHA application (
The planned activities (including mitigation, monitoring, and reporting), authorized incidental take, and anticipated impacts on the affected stocks are the same as those analyzed and authorized through the previously issued IHA.
The purpose of the ACOE's construction project is to replace the existing decaying dock and other onshore infrastructure used to move marine debris collected from San Francisco Bay onto land for disposal. The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the initial IHA. The mitigation and monitoring are also as prescribed in the initial IHA.
Species that are expected to be taken by the planned activity include harbor porpoise (
We refer to the documents related to the previously issued IHA, which include the
The ACOE will conduct activities as analyzed in support of the initial 2021 IHA. As described above, the number of authorized takes of the same species and stocks of marine mammals are identical to the numbers that were found to meet the negligible impact and small numbers standards and authorized under the initial IHA and no new information has emerged that would change those findings. The re-issued 2024 IHA includes identical required mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures as the initial IHA, and there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change.
Based on the information contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; and (4) the ACOE's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action.
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (incidental take authorizations with no anticipated
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA: 16 U.S.C. 1531
However, no incidental take of ESA-listed species is authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
NMFS has issued an IHA to the ACOE for in-water construction activities associated with the specified activity from January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024. All previously described mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements from the initial 2021 IHA are incorporated.
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Additions to the Procurement List.
This action adds service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or email
On 1/27/2023, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed additions to the Procurement List. This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503 (a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3.
After consideration of the material presented to it concerning capability of qualified nonprofit agencies to provide the service(s) and impact of the additions on the current or most recent contractors, the Committee has determined that the service(s) listed below are suitable for procurement by the Federal Government under 41 U.S.C. 8501-8506 and 41 CFR 51-2.4.
I certify that the following action will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The major factors considered for this certification were:
1. The action will not result in any additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities other than the small organizations that will furnish the service(s) to the Government.
2. The action will result in authorizing small entities to furnish the service(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the service(s) proposed for addition to the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following service(s) are added to the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed additions to and deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to add product(s) and service(s) to the Procurement List that will be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities, and delete product(s) and service(s) previously furnished by such agencies.
Comments must be received on or before: April 16, 2023.
Committee for Purchase from People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024.
For further information or to submit comments contact: Michael R. Jurkowski, Telephone: (703) 785-6404, or email
This notice is published pursuant to 41 U.S.C. 8503(a)(2) and 41 CFR 51-2.3. Its purpose is to provide interested persons an opportunity to submit comments on the proposed actions.
If the Committee approves the proposed additions, the entities of the Federal Government identified in this notice will be required to procure the product(s) and service(s) listed below from nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
The following product(s) and service(s) are proposed for addition to the Procurement List for production by the nonprofit agencies listed:
The following product(s) and service(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Notice of public meeting.
April 13, 2023, from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., ET.
The meeting will be held virtually only via Zoom webinar.
Angela Phifer, 355 E Street SW, Suite 325, Washington, DC 20024; (703) 798-5873, or
88 FR 15991, March 15, 2023.
1:00 p.m. EDT, Tuesday, March 21, 2023.
The time of the meeting has changed. This meeting will now start at 12:30 p.m. EDT. The meeting date, place, Closed status, and matters to be considered, as previously announced, remain unchanged.
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the nature of the information collection and its expected costs and burden.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 17, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of this notice's publication to OIRA, at
In addition to the submission of comments to
Or by either of the following methods:
•
•
All comments must be submitted in English, or if not, accompanied by an English translation. Comments will be posted as received to
Dan Rutherford, Associate Director, Office of Public Affairs, Office of Customer Education and Outreach, Commodity Futures Trading Commission, (202) 418-6552; email:
This collection of information is necessary to enable the OCEO to garner customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient and timely manner in accordance with our commitment to improving service delivery. The information collected from our customers and stakeholders will help ensure that users have an effective, efficient, and satisfying experience with OCEO programs. This feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions, experiences and expectations, provide an early warning of issues with service, or focus attention on areas where communication, training or changes in operations might improve delivery of products or services. These collections will allow for ongoing, collaborative and actionable communications between the OCEO and its customers and stakeholders. It will also allow feedback to contribute directly to the improvement of program management.
On December 27, 2022, the Commission published in the
There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Corporation for National and Community Service, operating as AmeriCorps, has submitted a public information collection request (ICR) entitled External Reviewer Application Instructions. for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Written comments must be submitted to the individual and office listed in the
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Copies of this ICR, with applicable supporting documentation, may be obtained by calling AmeriCorps, Danielle Horetsky, at 202-606-3863 or by email to
The OMB is particularly interested in comments which:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of CNCS, including whether the information will have practical utility;
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions;
• Propose ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Propose ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
A 60-day Notice requesting public comment was published in the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Army, DoD.
Notice of intent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for a General Reevaluation Report of navigation improvements at Port Tampa, Hillsborough County, FL.
Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as implemented by the Council on Environmental Quality regulations, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Jacksonville District, announces its intent to prepare an Integrated General Reevaluation Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to examine navigation improvements to the existing Tampa Harbor Federal Navigation Project. The purpose of the study is to determine the need and feasibility of deepening and/or widening the current Tampa Harbor federal navigation channel to improve vessel capacity, efficiency, and safety. Comments are being sought regarding identification of potential alternatives, information, and analysis relevant to the study for improving navigation, beneficial use of dredge material, and analyses to support evaluation of effects on the human environment and will be accepted at any time during the EIS process.
Written comments and suggestions must be submitted by May 16, 2023.
To ensure the USACE has sufficient time to consider public input in the preparation of the Draft EIS, scoping comments should be submitted to Mr. Michael Ornella II by email at
Michael Ornella II, at 904-232-1498 or
However, due to the volume of material expected to be dredged—up to 40 million cubic yards—and the likely beneficial use of a majority of that material, possibly to restore Egmont Key, an EIS is being proposed.
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
Notice of intent.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District (USACE), intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for the proposed Project. The Project is proposed due to the planned expansion of the Bingham Canyon Mine (Mine), a commercial open pit copper mining operation near Magna, Salt Lake County, Utah. Kennecott Utah Copper LLC (Applicant) has applied for a Department of the Army (DA) permit for discharges of dredged or fill materials into 44.86 acres of waters of United States, including wetlands, to construct the Project. This notice opens the public scoping phase and invites interested parties to identify issues and reasonable alternatives to the proposed action that should be considered in the EIS.
Written comments for consideration in the development of the scope of the NEPA EIS are due to the addresses below no later than April 17, 2023.
Please send written comments to Nicole Fresard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, Bountiful Regulatory Field Office, 533 West 2600 South, Suite 150, Bountiful, Utah 84010; email at
Questions about the proposed action and EIS can be answered by Nicole Fresard, (801) 295-8380 extension 8321; email:
The Applicant has applied for a DA permit under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act to construct the East Tailings Expansion with related infrastructure and to buttress the east slope of the historic South Tailings Impoundment.
The Applicant is developing an updated mine plan for the Bingham Canyon Mine that would extend the open pit life of mine to approximately year 2038 and would generate an additional 1.2 to 1.7 million tons (Mt) of copper equivalent product. To fully implement the updated mine plan, the Applicant has stated that it needs to expand the eastern portion of the historic south impoundment to provide an additional 100 Mt of tailings storage that cannot be met using existing storage capacity. In addition, studies have shown that the east slope of the historic South Tailings Impoundment is potentially susceptible to earthquake-induced tailing flows resulting from impoundment failure. The Project would buttress the east slope of the historic South Tailings Impoundment to improve seismic stability and reduce the risk of runout caused by a seismic event to a level as low as reasonably practicable.
The Project purpose is to increase tailings storage capacity for continued mining operations at the Bingham Canyon mine until approximately 2038 and to improve seismic stability of the east slope of the historic South Tailings Impoundment.
The project is located approximately ten miles west of Salt Lake City near the community of Magna, Utah. The additional infrastructure would include: new access roads; a new drainage system including finger drains; relocation of the clarification canal; a new 50-foot electrical corridor; relocation of Outfall 002 (which discharges to the C-7 ditches); installation of tailings and water piping, pumps, and valve stations required to operate the Project; and a dust control system. Construction of the Project infrastructure is planned to begin in 2024 and extend through 2026.
The project would impact approximately 539 acres, including 327 acres within the footprint of the existing South Tailings Impoundment, 39 acres of the existing clarification canal and the closed sedimentation pond (industrial process waters), and 173
USACE anticipates that the draft EIS will be made available for public comments in November 2023. At that time, a minimum 45-day public review period will be provided for individuals and agencies to review and comment on the Draft EIS. USACE anticipates the Final EIS will be published in July 2024. At that time, a minimum 30-day public review period will be provided for individuals and agencies to review and comment on the Final EIS. A Record of Decision is anticipated in September 2024.
Affected federal, state, and local agencies, Native American tribes, and other interested private organizations and parties are invited to participate. Potentially significant issues to be analyzed in the EIS include, but are not limited to impacts to waters, hydrology, water supply, water quality, cultural resources, biological resources, traffic and transportation, and air quality.
The USACE is the lead federal agency for preparation of the EIS under the requirements of NEPA. USACE has invited the following Tribes and federal and state agencies to participate as cooperating agencies for the EIS: Ute Indian Tribe of The Uintah & Ouray Reservation, Utah, Northwestern Band of the Shoshone Nation, Skull Valley Band of Goshute Indians of Utah, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Utah Department of Natural Resources, and Utah Department of Environmental Quality.
Other environmental review and consultation requirements for the proposed action include the need for the Applicant to obtain water quality certification under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act from the Utah Division of Water Quality. The proposed project will not affect any federally listed threatened or endangered species; however, it may affect state-listed special status species. USACE will consult with the State Historic Preservation Officer under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act concerning properties listed, or potentially eligible for listing, on the National Register of Historic Places.
Interested parties may register for the USACE public notice email notification lists at:
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2023 for the Open Textbooks Pilot program conducted under the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education (FIPSE), Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.116T. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Kurrinn Abrams, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 2nd Floor, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 987-1920. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
Increasing textbook costs introduce an additional barrier to college access and completion, particularly for low-income students. This barrier was exacerbated during the COVID-19 pandemic (pandemic), as many students suffered a financial disruption. Research shows that 40 percent of undergraduate students experienced a financial disruption due to the pandemic.
In recent years, the development of open textbooks and other open educational resources has emerged as a potential solution to help students overcome financial barriers to accessing higher education, and thereby additionally support retention and completion. In fact, in a study conducted by the Open Textbook Alliance, switching from commercial textbooks to open educational resources nationwide in the 10 introductory core-curriculum courses surveyed in the study, would collectively save students an estimated $1.5 billion per year on course materials.
In addition to the cost-saving benefits of open resources, there are additional benefits for students and faculty. Open textbooks and open educational resources increase equity because institutions are able to freely distribute these resources and provide students access to high-quality, up-to-date, and relevant content and materials. Furthermore, access to open resources can empower faculty to customize learning materials to better meet the needs of their students.
Post-pandemic, higher education looks different, and as many institutions begin to rethink the higher education experience, both inside and outside the classroom, it is important for institutions to look at best practices for improving retention and completion, such as through supplementing or expanding evidence-based and data-driven activities. While open textbooks often are available for general education or introductory courses, the Department seeks to promote retention and degree completion by supporting the development of open textbooks at all levels within an academic program. This program, therefore, emphasizes expanding the use of existing open textbooks in general education or introductory courses, as well as developing open textbooks for several required courses in one or more high-enrollment majors to ensure that students will benefit from cost savings throughout their programs.
These priorities are:
To meet this priority, an eligible applicant must propose to lead and carry out projects that involve a consortia of institutions, instructors, and subject matter experts, including no less than three IHEs, along with relevant employers, workforce stakeholders (as defined in this notice), and/or trade or professional associations (as defined in this notice). Applicants must explain how the members of the consortium will work together to develop and implement open textbooks that: (a) reduce the cost of college for large numbers of students through a variety of cost saving measures; and (b) contain instructional content and ancillary instructional materials that align student learning objectives with the skills or knowledge required by large numbers of students (at a given institution or nationally), or in the case of a career and technical postsecondary program, meet industry standards in in-demand industry sectors or in-demand occupations (as defined in this notice).
To meet this priority, an applicant must identify the gaps in the open textbook marketplace in courses that are part of a degree-granting program that it seeks to address and propose how to close such gaps. An applicant must
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose to build upon existing open textbook materials and/or develop new open textbooks for high-enrollment courses or high-enrollment programs in order to achieve the highest level of savings for students.
Additionally, this priority requires the applicant to include plans for: (a) promoting and tracking the use of open textbooks in postsecondary courses across participating members of the consortium, including an estimate of the projected direct cost savings for students which will be reported during the annual performance review; (b) monitoring the impact of open textbooks on instruction, learning outcomes, course outcomes, and educational costs; (c) investigating and disseminating evidence-based practices associated with using open textbooks that improve student outcomes; and (d) updating the open textbooks beyond the funded period.
This priority is:
To meet this priority, an applicant must propose a project that focuses on improving instruction and student learning outcomes by integrating technology-based strategies, such as personalized learning, and providing support to faculty, instructors, and other staff who are delivering courses using these techniques. The project must enable students to tailor and monitor their own learning and/or allow instructors to monitor the individual performance of each student in the classes or courses for which the applicant proposes to develop open textbooks. In addition, online and technology-enabled content and courses developed under this project must incorporate the principles of universal design in order to ensure that they are readily accessible by all students, including students with disabilities. The openly licensed resources that are developed should support traditional, text-based materials, including through such tools as adaptive learning modules, digital simulations, and tools to assist student engagement.
This priority is:
An application from a Minority-Serving Institution (MSI) (as defined in this notice) or community college (as defined in this notice) that leads the activities of the consortium and serves as the fiscal agent; or an application from a consortium in which an MSI or community college is a member of the consortium but not the lead applicant.
For the purpose of this priority, the definition of “minority-serving institution” is from the Supplemental Priorities and section 437(d)(1) of the General Education Provisions Act (GEPA). The definition of “community college” is from section 312(f) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA) (20 U.S.C. 1058(f)). These definitions apply to this competition for FY 2023 and any subsequent year in which we make awards from the list of unfunded applicants from this competition.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications for this competition.
1.
(a) Lead the activities of a consortium that is comprised of at least:
(i) Three IHEs as defined in section 101 of the HEA;
(ii) An educational technology or electronic curriculum design expert (which may include such experts that are employed by one or more of the consortium institutions); and
(iii) An advisory group of at least three employers, workforce organizations, or sector partners; and
(b) Have demonstrated experience in the development and implementation of open educational resources.
2. a.
b.
c.
3.
1.
2.
Because we plan to make successful applications available to the public, you may wish to request confidentiality of business information.
Consistent with Executive Order 12600, please designate in your application any information that you believe is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 4. In the appropriate Appendix section of your application, under “Other Attachments Form,” please list the page number or numbers on which we can find this information. For additional information please see 34 CFR 5.11(c).
3.
4.
5.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double-space all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, references, and captions.
• Use a readable 12-point font such as Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended 60-page limit applies only to the application narrative and does not apply to Part I, the cover sheet; Part II, the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; Part IV, the assurances and certifications; or the one-page abstract, the resumes, the bibliography, or the letters of support. We recommend that any application addressing the competitive preference priority include no more than three additional pages for the priority, if the priority is addressed.
6.
1.
Points awarded under the competitive preference priority are in addition to any points an applicant earns for all of the selection criteria in this notice. The maximum score that an application may receive under the competitive preference priority and the selection criteria is 105. The selection criteria are as follows:
a.
The Secretary considers the significance of the proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population (up to 10 points).
(2) The potential replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation in a variety of settings (up to 10 points).
b.
The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable (up to 4 points).
(2) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs (up to 4 points).
(3) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance (up to 4 points).
(4) The extent to which the proposed project represents an exceptional approach to the priority or priorities established for the competition (up to 4 points).
c.
The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project. In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The likelihood that the services to be provided by the proposed project will lead to improvements in the achievement of students as measured against rigorous academic standards (up to 5 points).
(2) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services (up to 5 points).
(3) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services (up to 5 points).
d.
The Secretary considers the quality of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator (up to 5 points).
(2) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel (up to 4 points).
e.
The Secretary considers the adequacy of resources for the proposed project. In determining the adequacy of resources for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of the project (up to 10 points).
(2) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the objectives, design, and potential significance of the proposed project (up to 10 points).
f.
The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project. In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing project tasks (up to 5 points).
(2) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed project (up to 5 points).
g.
The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project (up to 5 points).
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible (up to 5 points).
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
For this competition, a panel of external reviewers will read, prepare a written evaluation of, and score all eligible applications using the selection criteria and the competitive preference priority, if applicable, provided in this notice. The individual scores of the reviewers will be added and the sum divided by the number of reviewers to determine the peer review score. The Department may use more than one tier of reviews in evaluating grantees. The Department will prepare a rank order of applications based solely on the evaluation of their quality according to the selection criteria and competitive preference priority points.
In the event there are two or more applications with the same final score in the rank order listing, and there are insufficient funds to fully support each of these applications, the Department will apply the following procedure to determine which application or applications will receive an award:
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
5.
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115—232) (2 CFR 200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize the use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we will notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
a. The number of students who enrolled in courses that use open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;
b. The number of students who completed courses that used open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;
c. The failure rate or withdrawal rate in courses that use open textbooks and/or ancillary materials compared with equivalent courses that used commercial textbooks;
d. The average grade of students who completed a course that used open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant compared with the equivalent average grade of students who used commercial textbooks;
e. The number of faculty/instructors that use open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;
f. The number of institutions within the consortium, and the number of institutions outside of the consortium, that adopted the open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;
g. The number of courses among consortium members that adopted the open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant, compared to those that continued to use commercial textbooks;
h. The number of faculty/instructors or institutions that use tools for revising and remixing open educational resources content to facilitate adoption of open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant;
i. The average cost savings per student; and
j. The total cost savings for students who used open textbooks and/or ancillary materials developed through the grant compared to students in the same course of study who used traditional textbooks.
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing an extension without change of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 17, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Donna Bussell, 202-453-6813.
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
This collection is being submitted under the Streamlined Clearance Process for Discretionary Grant Information Collections (1894-0001). Therefore, the 30-day public comment period notice will be the only public comment notice published for this information collection.
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.
Notice of application.
Shell Energy North America (US), L.P. (the Applicant or Shell Energy) has applied for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before April 17, 2023.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed by electronic mail to
Steven Blazek, (240) 474-2780,
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) regulates electricity exports from the United States to foreign countries in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) and regulations thereunder (10 CFR 205.300
Section 202(e) of the FPA provides that an entity which seeks to export electricity must obtain an order from DOE authorizing that export. (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On June 13, 2022, the authority to issue such orders was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) under Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2022-2 and Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2022.
On May 5, 2008, DOE issued Order No. EA-339 authorizing Shell Energy to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer. DOE subsequently renewed Shell Energy's authorization to export electric energy from the United States to Canada as a power marketer in Order No. EA-339-A (May 9, 2013), and again in Order No. EA-339-B (May 30, 2018). On December 2, 2022, Shell Energy filed an application with DOE (Application or App) for renewal of their export authority for an additional five-year term. App at 1.
In its Application, Shell Energy states that it “does not own or control any transmission or distribution facilities” and “does not have a franchised service area.” App at 2. Shell Energy seeks to renew its authority to “export electric energy acquired from U.S. generating sources to Canada over international electric transmission facilities.” App at 3. Shell Energy represents that it “will purchase the power to be exported from electric utilities, qualifying small power production facilities, cogeneration facilities and federal power marketing agencies” and that “electric energy exported pursuant to the authorization requested in this Renewal Application, whether on a firm or interruptible basis, will be purchased in bilateral, voluntary transactions from the surplus and available electric energy of the generator/seller.” App at 4. Therefore, “Shell Energy's exports to Canada will not impair the sufficiency of the electric power supply within the U.S.”
The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by
Comments and other filings concerning Shell Energy's Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. EA-339-C. Additional copies are to be provided directly to David L. Smith, Regulatory Advisor DF—Shell Energy, 1000 Main, Suite 1200, Houston, TX 77002-6336, (713) 767-5542,
A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the United States electric power supply system.
Copies of this Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.
Notice of application.
Freepoint Commodities LLC (the Applicant or Freepoint) has applied for authorization to transmit electric energy from the United States to Canada pursuant to the Federal Power Act.
Comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be submitted on or before April 17, 2023.
Comments, protests, motions to intervene, or requests for more information should be addressed by electronic mail to
Steven Blazek, (240) 474-2780,
The United States Department of Energy (DOE) regulates electricity exports from the United States to foreign countries in accordance with section 202(e) of the Federal Power Act (FPA) (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)) and regulations thereunder (10 CFR 205.300
Section 202(e) of the FPA provides that an entity which seeks to export electricity must obtain an order from DOE authorizing that export. (16 U.S.C. 824a(e)). On June 13, 2022, the authority to issue such orders was delegated to the DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) under Delegation Order No. S1-DEL-S3-2022-2 and Redelegation Order No. S3-DEL-GD1-2022.
On September 29, 2011, in Order No. EA-380, the DOE authorized Freepoint to export electricity from the United State to Canada as a power marketer for a period of ten years ending on September 29, 2021. On September 30, 2022, Freepoint filed an application with DOE (Application or App) for renewal of their export authority for an additional ten-year term. App. at 1.
Freepoint acknowledged in its Application that it did not seek to renew its authorization to export electricity to Canada prior to the lapse of the authorization granted in Order No. EA-380. Since the expiration of that authorization, as indicated in its quarterly filings with the Department (which it continued to file, notwithstanding the expiration of the authorization), Freepoint has not exported any electricity from the United States. Freepoint seeks renewal of its authorization at this time because it anticipates entering one or more transactions that could involve exports of electricity to Canada. App at 1-2.
In its Application, the Applicant states that it “does not own or control any electric generation or transmission facilities, nor does it hold a franchise or service territory for the transmission, distribution, or sale of electric power.” App at 3. Freepoint further states that it “has purchased, or will purchase, the power that may be exported to Canada from wholesale generators, electric utilities, federal power marketing agencies, and the markets administered by independent system operators (ISOs) and regional transmission organizations (RTOs).”
Freepoint “plans to export electric power over authorized transmission interconnections between Canada and the United States. Transmission to the point of delivery will be arranged by Freepoint over any authorized existing international electric transmission facilities (including those set out in Attachment 1), and over any international transmission facilities that may be approved by the Department in the future.” App at 4.
Therefore, “Freepoint's export of electric energy to Canada does not and will not impair the sufficiency of electric supply within the United States nor does it or will it impede or tend to impede the coordination in the public interest of facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).” App at 2.
The existing international transmission facilities to be utilized by the Applicant have been previously authorized by Presidential permits issued pursuant to Executive Order 10485, as amended, and are appropriate for open access transmission by third parties.
Comments and other filings concerning Freepoint's Application should be clearly marked with GDO Docket No. EA-380-A. Additional copies are to be provided directly to Martin Ramirez, Head of Compliance, Freepoint Commodities, LLC, 58 Commerce Road, Stamford, CT 06902; (203) 542-6767;
A final decision will be made on the requested authorization after the environmental impacts have been evaluated pursuant to DOE's National Environmental Policy Act Implementing Procedures (10 CFR part 1021) and after DOE evaluates whether the proposed action will have an adverse impact on the sufficiency of supply or reliability of the United States electric power supply system.
Copies of this Application will be made available, upon request, by accessing the program website at
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of acceptance of title X claims during fiscal year (FY) 2023.
This Notice announces the Department of Energy's (DOE) acceptance of claims in FY 2023 from eligible uranium and thorium processing site licensees for reimbursement under Title X of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. In FY 2022, DOE distributed $16.155 million to licensees with approved claims from licensees in the Title X Uranium and Thorium Reimbursement Program.
The closing date for the submission of FY 2023 title X claims is July 14, 2023. The claims will be processed for payment together with any eligible unpaid approved claim balances from prior years, based on the availability of funds from congressional appropriations. If the total approved claim amounts exceed the available funding, the approved claim amounts will be reimbursed on a prorated basis. All reimbursements are subject to the availability of funds from congressional appropriations.
Claims must be submitted by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, to Charlee Anne Boger, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management, 2597 Legacy Way, Grand Junction, Colorado 81503. Two copies of the claim should be included with each submission. In addition to the mailed hardcopies, claims may be submitted electronically to
Amie Robinson, Title X Program Lead at (202) 586-5000 or email:
DOE published a final rule under 10 CFR part 765 in the
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 14, 2023, by Amie Robinson, Office of Waste Disposal, Office of Environmental Management, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) are reviewing the May 2013
The Plan and Procedures are referred to at 18 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 380.12(i)(5) and 380.12(d)(2), respectively, as well as 18 CFR 157.206(b)(3)(iv). Full texts of the current versions of the Plan and Procedures can be viewed on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) website at
Commission staff anticipate issuing draft changes to the Plan and Procedures in late 2023 and will make them available for public comment. Commission staff will then consider all timely comments on the drafts before issuing the final versions.
Interested parties can help determine the appropriate updates and improvements to make by providing comments or suggestions that focus on the specific sections requiring clarification, updates to reflect current laws and regulations, or improved measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. The more specific your comments, the more useful they will be. Commission staff also encourage commentors to include references for any scientific studies associated with their comments. Please note that the measures in the Plan and Procedures are primarily performance-based, so that they can be applied to pipeline projects throughout the entire country. Suggestions for prescriptive language or comments focused on one portion of the country will provide limited value.
There are three methods you can use to submit your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-3676 or
(1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to the Commission. Be sure to reference the docket number AD23-6-000 on your letter. Submissions sent via the U.S. Postal Service must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A, Washington, DC 20426. Submissions sent via any other carrier must be addressed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
All of the information related to the proposed updates to the Plan and Procedures and submitted comments can be found on the FERC website (
Additionally, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides autotomatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to documents. Go to
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following Complaints and Compliance filings in EL Dockets:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Aron Energy Prepay 23 LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 30, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Aron Energy Prepay 22 LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 30, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) has prepared a final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the Northern Lights 2023 Expansion Project (Project), proposed by Northern Natural Gas Company (Northern) in the above-referenced docket. Northern requests authorization to abandon, construct, and operate certain interstate natural gas facilities in Freeborn, Washington, Scott, Sherburne, and Stearns Counties, Minnesota and Monroe County, Wisconsin. The proposed Project would allow Northern to provide up to 44,222 dekatherms per day (Dth/d) of natural gas in incremental winter peak day firm transportation service to its existing residential, commercial, and industrial customer market and 6,667 Dth/d of additional firm service that would allow enhanced reliability and flexibility in providing natural gas transportation capacity for electric generation.
The final EIS assesses the potential environmental effects of the construction and operation of the Project in accordance with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The FERC staff concludes that approval of the proposed Project, with the mitigation measures recommended in the final EIS, would result in limited adverse environmental impacts. Most adverse environmental impacts would be temporary or short-term during construction, but some long-term and permanent environmental impacts would occur on some forested lands. With the exception of climate change impacts that are not characterized in this final EIS as significant or insignificant, staff concludes that impacts would be reduced to less than significant levels through implementation of Northern's proposed avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures, as well as staff's Project-specific recommendations.
The Project would involve six new pipeline segments (four pipeline extensions and two pipeline loops
The final EIS addresses the potential environmental effects of the abandonment, construction and operation of the following Project facilities:
• construction of a 2.79-mile extension of 36-inch-diameter Ventura North E-line, Freeborn County, Minnesota;
• construction of a 1.07-mile, 30-inch-diameter loop of 20-inch-diameter Elk River 1st and 2nd branch lines, Washington County, Minnesota;
• construction of a 1.14-mile extension of 24-inch-diameter Willmar D branch line, Scott County, Minnesota;
• construction of a 2.48-mile extension of 8-inch-diameter Princeton tie over loop, Sherburne County, Minnesota;
• construction of a 2.01-mile loop of 3-inch-diameter Paynesville branch line, Stearns County, Minnesota;
• construction of a 0.34-mile extension of 8-inch-diameter Tomah branch line loop, Monroe County, Wisconsin;
• construction or modification of aboveground facilities including; construction of one new pig launcher within an existing facility, construction of four new valve settings, replacement of valves and piping inside four existing facilities, and installation of two rupture-mitigation valves, associated piping, and building. Aboveground facilities would be in Freeborn, Washington, Scott, Sherburne, and Stearns County, Minnesota; and Monroe County, Wisconsin; and
• abandonment and removal of two valve settings and associated piping in Scott and Freeborn County, Minnesota.
The Commission mailed a copy of this
In accordance with the Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ) regulations implementing NEPA, no agency decision on a proposed action may be made until 30 days after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency publishes a notice of availability of the final EIS in the
Additional information about the project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website (
In addition, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which allows you to keep track of all formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets. This can reduce the amount of time you spend researching proceedings by automatically providing you with notification of these filings, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Eastern Power & Gas LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 30, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Aron Energy Prepay 21 LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 30, 2023.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Western Area Power Administration, DOE.
Notice of Final 2025 Provo River Project Marketing Plan and Call for 2025 Resource Pool Applications.
Western Area Power Administration (WAPA), a federal Power Marketing Administration of the Department of Energy (DOE), Colorado River Storage Project (CRSP) Management Center (MC) announces its Final 2025 Provo River Project Marketing Plan (Marketing Plan) and Call for 2025 Resource Pool Applications (Call for Applications) for an allocation of federal energy from the Provo River Project (PRP). On
The Marketing Plan will become applicable April 17, 2023. The Call for Applications will begin on that same date. WAPA must receive a completed and signed application using the APD form by 4:00 p.m., MDT, on June 15, 2023 to be assured of consideration by WAPA.
Preference entities interested in applying for an allocation may submit a completed hard copy APD application form with a wet signature to: Mr. Rodney G. Bailey, CRSP Manager, CRSP MC, Western Area Power Administration, 1800 South Rio Grande Avenue, Montrose, CO 81401. APD application forms with an e-signature may be emailed to
Mr. Randolph Manion, CRSP Contracts and Energy Services Manager,
WAPA is responsible for marketing power from the PRP, which is done independently from the other projects marketed by WAPA's CRSP, including the Salt Lake City Area Integrated Projects (SLCA/IP), Olmsted Project, and the Falcon-Amistad Project. In addition to marketing power from the PRP and other projects, WAPA's CRSP operates approximately 2,316 miles of transmission lines and associated infrastructure related to these federal hydroelectric projects across Arizona, New Mexico, Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming.
The PRP is a small water development project, with a powerplant, in northern Utah. It was authorized by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, in part, as a response to the Great Depression and a severe drought that devasted Utah's agriculture and threatened municipal water supplies in the 1930s. PRP's primary function is to provide water for irrigation, municipal, and industrial purposes in Salt Lake and Utah Counties, Utah. The Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) finished construction of the Deer Creek Dam in 1938 and the Deer Creek Powerplant in 1958, which included two 2.475-megawatt generators. On June 27, 1936, Reclamation signed contract number Ilr-874 making the Provo River Water Users' Association (PRWUA) the operator of the dam and responsible for repayment of the PRP. The initial investment in the power facilities was repaid in 1984 but there are ongoing costs associated with operation, maintenance, and replacement (OM&R) of equipment.
Between October 15 and April 15, water may be diverted from the adjacent Weber River Basin into the Provo River and stored in Deer Creek Reservoir for irrigation purposes pursuant to the terms of the 1938 contract number Ilr-1082 between the PRWUA, PacifiCorp (formerly Utah Power and Light Company), and Reclamation, among others. This winter season diversion creates a loss of hydropower generation at the Weber Powerplant on the Weber River, downstream from the diversion. As a result, PacifiCorp, the owner of the Weber Powerplant, is reimbursed for its energy losses caused by the diversion with PRP energy (Weber/Provo Water Exchange). During this winter period, PRP generation above the reimbursement amount for the Weber/Provo Water Exchange is marketed by WAPA to PRP allottees as surplus energy. During the summer period, the total available PRP generation is marketed by WAPA to PRP allottees.
The Marketing Plan, herein, describes how CRSP Management Center will market federal energy from the PRP beginning October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2054. As part of the Marketing Plan, WAPA will establish one 2025 Resource Pool of 3 percent of the net marketable resource currently under contract to be available for eligible new preference entities and Customers. The 2025 Resource Pool will be allocated and under contract by October 1, 2024. WAPA, at its discretion, will allocate a percentage of the 2025 Resource Pool to selected applicant(s) that meet the Eligibility Criteria defined in the Marketing Plan, herein. This allocation percentage will be multiplied by the 2025 Resource Pool percentage to determine the applicant's percentage of the resource pool. WAPA will publish a notice in the
During the public consultation and comment period, WAPA received three letters and one email commenting on the Proposed Plan. In addition, WAPA received one comment during the June 28, 2022, Public Comment Forum. In preparing the Marketing Plan, WAPA reviewed and considered all comments received during the public consultation and comment period. The following is a summary of the comments received during the consultation and comment period, and WAPA's responses to those comments. Comments are grouped by subject and paraphrased for brevity when it was possible to do so without affecting the meaning of the statements.
WAPA revised the Marketing Plan, in part, to address comments received during the public consultation and comment period. The revisions are summarized as follows:
•
•
•
•
• Marketing Plan added three new sections:
WAPA will continue a collaborative process with Customers and new allotees in implementing the terms set forth in the Marketing Plan.
Within broad statutory guidelines, WAPA has discretion as to whom and under what terms it will contract for the sale of federal power, as long as preference is accorded to statutorily defined public bodies. WAPA markets power in a manner that will encourage the most widespread use at the lowest possible rates consistent with sound business principles. All products and services provided under the Marketing Plan will be subject to the operational requirements and constraints of the PRP, transmission availability, and federal authorities.
As used herein, the following acronyms and terms, whether singular or plural, capitalized or not capitalized, shall have the following meanings:
The following criteria and contract principles apply to all Contracts executed under the Marketing Plan:
As defined in Section I., herein, the Marketing Area includes the counties of Utah and Wasatch, within and to the exterior of these county boundaries as established through an administrative or political subdivision of a state Utah.
WAPA will provide 97 percent of the net marketable PRP resources to existing customers and establish a resource pool with the remaining energy resources for new allocations.
Starting October 1, 2024, existing Customers will have the right to purchase 97 percent of the net marketable PRP energy resources through September 30, 2054, under new Contracts. If existing Customer(s) surrender some or all of its allocation prior to October 1, 2024, that percentage of the total Base Resource will be returned to the remaining existing Customers on a
The 2025 Resource Pool will consist of 3 percent of the net marketable PRP energy resources available after September 30, 2024. The 2025 Resource Pool will be created by reducing existing Customers' allocations by up to 3 percent. An estimated amount of net marketable PRP energy resource that may be available for the Resource Pool as of October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2054, is estimated at 517,306 kWh annually, an approximate figure based on the most recent 5-year net marketable power average of 17,243,527 kWh annually. PRP energy not under Contract by September 30, 2024, will be reallocated to the existing Customers on a
WAPA will, at its discretion, allocate a percentage of the 2025 Resource Pool to applicants that meet the Eligibility and Allocation Criteria. WAPA will take into consideration all existing federal hydropower allocations an applicant is currently receiving when determining each new 2025 Resource Pool allocation. Allocations from the 2025 Resource Pool will be determined through processes described in this Marketing Plan. The 2025 Resource Pool will be dissolved after September 30, 2024, the closing date for executing new 2025 Resource Pool Contracts.
The following Allocation Criteria will apply to all applicants seeking a 2025 Resource Pool Allocation under the Marketing Plan:
a. Allocations will be made in amounts as determined solely by WAPA in the exercise of its discretion under Reclamation Law and considered to be in the best interest of the U.S. Government.
b. Allocations will be determined based on all existing federal hydropower allocations an applicant is currently receiving and on the applicant's load during the calendar year prior to the Call for Applications or the amount requested, whichever is less.
c. An allottee will execute an electric service contract with WAPA and comply with all the conditions in that contract.
d. Eligible Native American applicants will receive consideration for an allocation consistent with this Marketing Plan and 25 U.S.C. 3505.
As defined herein, includes Municipalities, rural electric cooperatives, and political subdivisions including irrigation or other districts, other governmental organizations, nonprofit organizations financed in whole or in part by loans made pursuant to the Rural Electrification Act of 1936, and federally recognized Native American tribes are all preference entities in accordance with section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939, as amended (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)). A Native American applicant must be an “Indian Tribe” as that term is defined in section 4 of the Indian Self Determination and Education Assistance Act, as amended (25 U.S.C. 5304(e)).
Eligible applicants must be ready, willing, and able to receive and distribute or consume energy from WAPA by October 1, 2024. “Ready, willing, and able” means the applicant has the facilities needed for the receipt of power or has made the necessary arrangements for transmission and/or distribution service, and its power supply contracts with third parties to permit the delivery of WAPA's power.
WAPA will apply the following Eligibility Criteria to all applicants seeking a 2025 Resource Pool Allocation under the Marketing Plan:
1. Applicants must meet the preference requirements under Section 9(c) of the Reclamation Project Act of 1939 (43 U.S.C. 485h(c)(1)), as amended and supplemented.
2. Applicants must be located within the Marketing Area.
3. Applicants that require energy for their own use must be ready, willing, and able to receive and use federal energy.
4. Applicants that provide retail electric service must be ready, willing, and able to receive and use the federal energy to provide electric service to their customers, not for resale to other utilities.
5. Applicants must submit an application in response to the Call for 2025 Resource Pool Applications by the deadline for receipt by WAPA as specified in the
6. Native American applicants must be a Native American tribe as defined in the Indian Self Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 5304).
7. WAPA generally will not allocate power to applicants with loads of less than 1 MW; however, allocations to applicants with loads of at least 500 kW may be considered, provided the loads can be aggregated with other allottees' loads to schedule and deliver to a minimum load of 1 MW.
Eligible applicants that receive an allocation must execute Contracts within 6 months of receiving a contract offer from WAPA, unless WAPA agrees otherwise in writing. Furthermore, applicants must comply with all terms and conditions stated within that contract, including:
1. Clauses specifying criteria to receive electric service from WAPA.
2. WAPA's standard provisions, policies and procedures for Contracts, Integrated Resource Plans, General Power Contract Provisions, and creditworthiness as determined by WAPA.
3. Clauses that allow WAPA to reduce or increase an allottee's or Customer's allocation percentage, upon 180 days' notice, if WAPA determines that (1) the allottee or Customer is not using this power to serve its own loads; (2) the allocation amounts are consistently greater than the Customer's maximum load; or (3) the Customer is allotted a percentage of allocation returned to WAPA from another Customer.
4. Clauses concerning any energy not under Contract may be allocated at any time, at WAPA's sole discretion, or sold as deemed appropriate by WAPA, consistent with federal law.
5. Clause providing for alternative funding arrangements, including Net
6. Contracts may include a clause providing for alternative funding arrangements, including Net Billing, Bill Crediting, Reimbursable Financing, and advance payment.
7. All power supplied by WAPA will be delivered pursuant to a scheduling agreement negotiated between WAPA, Customers and the allottees. Terms and conditions are subject to WAPA's final approval.
8. Clauses stipulating that Customers will pay for their percentage of the Base Resource, pursuant to the formula rate described in Section L, herein. Customers must pay all applicable rates and charges in the manner and within the time prescribed in the Contract.
Eligible applicants that receive an allocation must execute a separate multi-party agreement among WAPA, Reclamation, Central Utah Water Conservation District, PRWUA, and PacifiCorp to ensure repayment of energy to PacifiCorp for the loss of power generation due to the Weber/Provo Water Exchange.
Contracts shall provide for WAPA to furnish electric service beginning October 1, 2024, through September 30, 2054.
PRP is electrically interconnected to PacifiCorp's 138-kilovolt (kV) transmission system (PacifiCorp's System). Eligible applicants taking delivery of power from WAPA must do so at the PacifiCorp System 138-kV Hale Powerplant Switchyard, South Provo Tap, or Spanish Fork Substation.
Any associated transformation/transmission beyond the PacifiCorp System 138-kV Hale Powerplant Switchyard, South Provo Tap, or Spanish Fork Substation is the sole responsibility of the eligible applicants that receive an allocation. Eligible applicants that receive an allocation must have the necessary arrangements for transmission and/or distribution service in place by the first effective day of the Contract.
Should PacifiCorp, as the balancing authority operator where the PRP project is interconnected, join a full electricity market (
PRP is a “take all, pay all” project. This means the annual revenue requirement does not depend on the amount of energy available each year. Each eligible applicant that receives an allocation will receive a proportional share of the energy and will annually pay a proportional share of the OM&R expenses, including a separate annual payment to Reclamation for the PRP irrigation investments, in 12 monthly installments. WAPA establishes the rates for the PRP through a separate public process. For additional information, see PRP's current Rate Order No. WAPA-189.
WAPA recognizes there have been, and continue to be, significant impacts caused from a persisting long-term drought in the Colorado River Basin, and changes in the electric utility industry. To address this concern, WAPA, in collaboration with its Customers, will include the ability to make changes in how the federal resource is marketed if there is deemed a benefit to WAPA and its Customers. Any changes implemented would be done through negotiation and revision to individual Customer and allotee Contracts.
Through this
The APD application form has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget under Control No. 1910-5136. APD application forms are available upon request to the person listed in the
Applicants must provide all information requested on the APD application form, if available and applicable. Please indicate if the requested information is not applicable or not available. WAPA may request, in writing, additional information from any applicant whose application is deficient. The applicant will have 10 business days from postmark date on WAPA's request to provide the information. In the event an applicant fails to provide all information to WAPA, the application will not be considered.
The information in the APD application form should be answered as if prepared by the entity/organization seeking the allocation of federal power. The information collected under this process will not be part of a system of records covered by the Privacy Act and may be available under the Freedom of Information Act. If you are submitting any confidential or business sensitive information, please mark such
If WAPA accepts an application and the applicant receives an allocation of federal energy, the applicant must keep all information related to the APD for a period of 3 years after signing a Contract for federal energy. There is no recordkeeping requirement for unsuccessful applicants who do not receive an allocation of federal energy.
WAPA has obtained Office of Management and Budget Clearance Number 1910-5136 for collection of the above information. The APD is collected to enable WAPA to properly perform its function of marketing limited amounts of federal hydropower. The data supplied will be used by WAPA to evaluate who will receive an allocation of federal power.
After WAPA has evaluated the applications, WAPA will publish a notice of Proposed Allocations in the
WAPA developed the Marketing Plan in accordance with its power marketing authorities pursuant to the following Acts of Congress: Reclamation Act of June 17, 1902 (Pub. L. 57-161) (32 Stat. 388), Reclamation Project Act of August 4, 1939 (Pub. L. 76-260) (53 Stat. 1187), Department of Energy Organization Act of August 4, 1977 (Pub. L. 95-91) (91 Stat. 565), Energy Policy Act of October 30, 1992 (Pub. L. 102-575) (106 Stat. 4600, 4605), as such acts may be supplemented or amended.
WAPA has determined that this proposed action fits within the categorical exclusion listed in appendix B to subpart D of 10 CFR part 1021 (B4.1 contracts, policies, and marketing and allocation plans for electric power). Categorically excluded projects and activities do not require preparation of either an environmental impact statement or an environmental assessment. A copy of the categorical exclusion determination is available on the CRSP website at:
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
WAPA has an exemption from centralized regulatory review under Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, no clearance of this notice by the Office of Management and Budget is required.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on March 2, 2023, by Tracey A. LeBeau, Administrator, Western Area Power Administration, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document, with the original signature and date, is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) has notified EPA that it has adopted amendments to its Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth regulation (2020 At-Berth Amendments). By letter dated September 27, 2022, CARB asked that EPA authorize these amendments pursuant to section 209(e) of the Clean Air Act (CAA). CARB has also notified EPA that it has adopted amendments to its Commercial Harbor Craft regulation (2022 CHC Amendments). By letter dated January 31, 2023, CARB asked that EPA authorize these amendments pursuant to section 209(e) of the CAA. This notice announces that EPA may hold a public hearing to consider California's authorization requests for both the 2020 At-Berth Amendments and the 2022 CHC Amendments, and that EPA is now accepting written comment on the requests.
You may submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0152 (for the 2020 At-Berth Amendments) and by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0153 (for the 2022 CHC Amendments), by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Public Hearing. EPA may hold a virtual public hearing for this action only if any party notifies EPA by March 27, 2023 to express interest in presenting the Agency with oral testimony. Please refer to Participation in Virtual Public Hearing in the
David Dickinson, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, Transportation and Climate Division (TCD), Environmental Protection Agency; Telephone number: (202) 343-9256; Email address:
A.
B.
EPA's Office of Transportation and Air Quality also maintains a web page that contains general information on its review of California waiver and authorization requests. Included on that page are links to prior waiver and authorization
CARB first adopted the initial At-Berth Regulation, the Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Auxiliary Diesel Engines Operated on Ocean-Going Vessels At-Berth in a California Port (2007 At-Berth Regulation), on October 16, 2008, and EPA granted California an authorization for that regulation in 2011.
On September 27, 2022, CARB submitted a new authorization request to EPA for its amendments to the 2007 At-Berth Regulation the CARB Board adopted on August 27, 2020 (2020 At-Berth Amendments).
The 2020 At-Berth Amendments establish, among other provisions, in-use emissions-related requirements that apply beginning January 1, 2023, with limited exceptions, to any person who owns, operates, charters, or leases any United States or foreign-flag OGV that visits a California port, terminal, or berth; any person who owns, operates, or leases a port, terminal, or berth located where OGVs visit; or any person who owns, operates, or leases a CARB approved emissions control strategy (CAECS) for OGV auxiliary engines or tanker auxiliary boilers.
CARB approved its original CHC regulation on November 15, 2007. The original CHC regulation established in-use emission limits for in-use ferries, excursion vessels, tugboats, and towboats equipped with federal Tier 0 and Tier 1 propulsion and auxiliary marine engines. Owners and operators of these vessels were required to upgrade the engines to meet emission limits equal to or cleaner than federal Tier 2 or Tier 3 marine engine certification standards, according to a compliance schedule that was also set forth in the regulation. The compliance schedule was based on the model year of the original engine, its hours of operation, and the vessel's home port location. On December 13, 2011, EPA granted California an authorization for the original CHC regulation.
CARB subsequently adopted the CHC amendments on June 24, 2010 (2010 CHC Amendments). The 2010 CHC Amendments set forth a variety of in-use requirements, including: extending the applicability of the CHC regulations to in-use crew and supply, barge, and dredge vessels that are equipped with Tier 0 and Tier 1 propulsion and auxiliary marine engines that operate within the Regulated California Waters; deleting certain exemptions of CHC engines registered in CARB's portable equipment registration regulation or permitted by local air pollution districts; defining swing engines and clarifying certain in-use engine requirements; adding replacement engine exemptions; expanding compliance extension options; and, allowing continued use of existing engines in certain circumstances. CARB's 2010 CHC Amendments that are applicable to both new and in-use engines allow the use of EPA or CARB certified off-road (also known as nonroad)
On January 31, 2023, CARB submitted its authorization request to EPA for further amendments to the CHC regulation that the CARB Board adopted on March 24, 2022 (2022 CHC Amendments).
The 2022 CHC Amendments requirements include, among other provisions, that new harbor craft vessels may not be sold, offered for sale, leased, rented, or acquired unless each propulsion and auxiliary engine on the vessel meets performance standards that are equivalent in stringency to: (1) the most stringent federal marine engine standard (federal Tier 3 or Tier 4 marine standards) or California or federal off-road engine standards (California or federal Final Tier 4 off-road engine standards) that were in effect at the time any of the aforementioned actions occur and that are applicable to new engines with the same power ratings and displacements as the subject propulsion and auxiliary engines, and that (2) reflect the addition of a level 3 Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategy (VDECS), such as a verified diesel particulate filter (DPF). Newly acquired in-use harbor craft may not be sold, offered for sale, leased, rented, purchased or acquired, unless each propulsion and auxiliary engine on the vessel meets the performance standards applicable to new harbor craft as discussed above.
The 2022 CHC Amendments also include additional requirements for new, newly-acquired, and in-use short-run ferries and excursion vessels. The pre-existing CHC regulation required new ferry vessels capable of transporting 75 or more passengers to be equipped with propulsion engines certified to Tier 4 marine engine standards, or with propulsion engines certified to Tier 2 or Tier 3 marine engine standards and to also be equipped with the best available control technology (BACT) to reduce emissions of NO
Section 209(e)(1) of the CAA prohibits states and local governments from adopting or attempting to enforce any standard or requirement relating to the control of emissions from new nonroad vehicles or engines. The Act also preempts states from adopting and enforcing standards and other requirements related to the control of emissions from non-new nonroad engines or vehicles. Section 209(e)(2), however, requires the Administrator, after notice and opportunity for public hearing, to authorize California to adopt and enforce standards and other requirements relating to the control of emissions from such vehicles or engines if California determines that California standards will be, in the aggregate, at least as protective of public health and welfare as applicable Federal standards. However, EPA shall not grant such authorization if it finds that (1) the determination of California is arbitrary and capricious; (2) California does not need such California standards to meet compelling and extraordinary conditions; or (3) California standards and accompanying enforcement procedures are not consistent with [CAA section 209].
In order to be consistent with section 209(a), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not apply to new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines. To be consistent with section 209(e)(1), California's nonroad standards and enforcement procedures must not attempt to regulate
IV. EPA's Request for Comments
As stated above, EPA is tentatively offering the opportunity for a virtual public hearing and is requesting written comment. Specifically, we request comment on whether California's 2020 At-Berth Amendments and the 2022 CHC Amendments meet the criteria for a full authorization.
Revision to FR Notice Published 12/16/2022; Extending the Comment Period from 03/07/2023 to 03/31/2023.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public comment period.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing a 30-day public comment period associated with release of the document,
The 30-day public comment period begins March 17, 2023 and ends April 17, 2023. Comments must be received on or before April 17, 2023.
The Protocol for the Naphthalene IRIS Assessment will be available via the internet on the IRIS website at
For information on the docket, contact the ORD Docket at the EPA Headquarters Docket Center; email:
For technical information on the protocol, contact Mr. Dahnish Shams, Center for Public Health & Environmental Assessment; 202-564-2758; or email:
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) Program is a human health assessment program that evaluates quantitative and qualitative information on effects that may result from exposure to chemicals found in the environment. Through the IRIS Program, EPA provides high quality science-based human health assessments to support the Agency's regulatory activities and decisions to protect public health.
As part of developing a draft IRIS assessment, EPA presents a methods document, referred to as the protocol, for conducting a chemical-specific systematic review of the available scientific literature. EPA is seeking public comment on components of the protocol including the described strategies for literature searches, criteria for study inclusion or exclusion, considerations for evaluating study methods, information management for extracting data, approaches for synthesis within and across lines of evidence, and methods for derivation of toxicity values. The protocol serves to inform the subsequent development of the draft IRIS assessment. EPA may update the protocol based on the evaluation of the literature, and any updates will be posted to the docket and on the IRIS website.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-ORD-2014-0527 for naphthalene, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For information on visiting the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, visit
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice and request for comments.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or the Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical utility; the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and ways to further reduce the information collection burden on small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees. The FCC may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number.
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before May 16, 2023. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments, but find it difficult to do so within the period of time allowed by this notice, you should advise the contact listed below as soon as possible.
Direct all PRA comments to Nicole Ongele, FCC, via email
For additional information about the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele, (202) 418-2991.
FCC Form 405 is used by the Experimental Radio Service to apply for renewal of radio station licenses at the FCC. Section 307 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, limits the term of radio licenses to five years and requires that
The information submitted on FCC Form 405 is used by the Commission staff to evaluate the applicant/licensee's need for a license renewal. In performing this function, staff performs analysis of the renewal request as compared to the original license grant to ascertain if any changes are requested. If so, additional analysis is performed to determine if such changes met the requirements of the rules of the Experimental Radio Service for interference free operation. If needed, the collected information is used to coordinate such operation with other Commission bureaus or other Federal agencies. All applications are also analyzed on their merits regarding whether they meet the general requirements for an Experimental license. These requirements are set out in 47 CFR part 5.
The Commission rules in 47 CFR part 15, § 15.525 requires operators of the Ultra-Wideband (UWB) imaging systems to coordinate with other Federal agencies via the FCC and to obtain approval before the UWB equipment may be used. Initial operation in a particular area may not commence until the information has been sent to the Commission and no prior approval is required. The information will be used to coordinate the operation of the Ultra-Wideband transmission systems in order to avoid interference with sensitive U.S. government radio systems. The UWB operators will be required to provide name, address and other pertinent contact information of the user, the desired geographical area of operation, and the FCC ID number, and other nomenclature of the UWB device. This information will be collected by the Commission and forwarded to the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) under the U.S. Department of Commerce. This information collection is essential to controlling potential interference to Federal radio communications. Since initial operation in a particular area does not require approval from the FCC to operate the equipment.
The Commission's Rules to Permit Unlicensed National Information Infrastructure (U-NII) in the 5 GHz Band, section 15.407(j) of the rules established filing requirements for U-NII operators that deploy a collection of more than one thousand outdoor access points with the 5.15-5.25 GHz band, parties must submit a letter to the Commission acknowledging that, should harmful interference to licensed services in this band occur, they will be required to take corrective action. Corrective actions may include reducing power, turning off devices, changing frequency bands, and/or further reducing power radiated in the vertical direction. This material shall be submitted to Laboratory Division, Office of Engineering and Technology, Federal Communications Commission, 7435 Oakland Mills Road, Columbia, MD 21046 Attn: U-NII Coordination, or via website at
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 might “further reduce the information collection burden for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees.” 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.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before April 17, 2023.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Nicole Ongele at (202) 418-2991. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
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.”
The Commission staff uses the information to advise the Commission about the efficacy of its rules and policies adopted to implement the Telecommunications Act of 1996. The data are necessary to evaluate the status of local telecommunications competition and broadband availability. The Commission uses the data to prepare reports that help inform consumers and policy makers at the federal and state level on the availability and adoption of broadband services, as well as on developments related to competition in the voice telephone services market. The Commission also uses the data to support its analyses in a variety of rulemaking proceedings under the Communications Act, including those related to fulfilling its universal service mandate.
The Commission releases to the public the broadband availability and mobile voice availability data that it began collecting in 2014 as a result of the Order. This information is used by consumers, federal and state government agencies, analysts, and others to determine broadband service availability by provider, technology, and speed.
Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Update listing of financial institutions in liquidation.
Notice is hereby given that the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (Corporation) has been appointed the sole receiver for the following financial institutions effective as of the Date Closed as indicated in the listing.
This list (as updated from time to time in the
Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:30 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on March 30, 2023.
1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC, and virtual (this meeting will be a hybrid meeting).
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a considerable adverse effect on the implementation of a proposed Commission action.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs; General Services Administration, (GSA).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the Presidential Memorandum on Tribal Consultation and Strengthening Nation-to-Nation Relationships, dated January 26, 2021, a notice is hereby given for a Government-to-Government consultation to discuss Tribal interests and concerns surrounding GSA's support of Tribes. In particular, GSA would like to discuss: a resource that GSA publishes titled “Tribes and Tribal Organizations: Guide to Using GSA Solutions”; a special GSA initiative around Carbon Pollution-Free Electricity Procurement; and a special GSA initiative relating to Electric Vehicles. GSA recognizes that formal consultation with Tribal Nations is essential as GSA takes actions to implement and develop policies that might affect them.
Monday, April 3, 2023, 1:00-2:50 p.m., Pacific Time.
Reservation Economic Summit (RES) 2023 held at 3570 S Las Vegas Blvd., Las Vegas, NV 89109.
Gianelle Rivera, Associate Administrator, GSA Office of Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs, email
GSA is consulting with Tribal governments about their interests and concerns surrounding GSA's support of Tribes with a focus on three agency initiatives.
“Tribes and Tribal Organizations: Guide to Using GSA Solutions” outlines how Tribes and Tribal organizations are eligible to use GSA solutions in the procurement of goods and services. The guide explains the various authorities that support Tribes' and Tribal organizations' use of GSA sources and programs, and identifies resources currently available for use. GSA's intent in consulting on this document, which is continuously in the process of being updated, is to invite Tribal feedback to assist GSA in improving the existing guidance to help ensure that it speaks to needs that are unique to Tribes and better supports future Tribal acquisitions.
As part of its second Tribal National Summit on November 30, 2022, the Biden-Harris administration
The EV Initiative for Tribal Nations helps to ensure that Tribal Nations and Native communities are part of the EV future of the country. To support this initiative, GSA is seeking input to understand Tribal Nations' role and needs as GSA, subject to applicable authorities, assists Tribes with purchasing or leasing electric vehicles, mapping the Federal facilities in Indian country to support EV infrastructure deployment, and expanding training for Tribal members on the GSA solutions available.
You can register for the Consultation and find supporting documentation at
Comments can be submitted by email at
Office of Human Resource Management, Division of Human Capital Policy and Programs, General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of request for comments regarding a request for a new OMB clearance.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Regulatory Secretariat Division will be submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request to review and approve a new information collection requirement.
Submit comments on or before May 16, 2023.
Submit comments identified by Information Collection 3090-XXXX; Living Quarters Eligibility Questionnaire; GSA Form 5039 to:
Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking portal by searching for “Information Collection 3090-XXXX; Living Quarters Eligibility Questionnaire; GSA Form 5039”. Select the link “Submit a Comment” that corresponds with “Information Collection 3090-XXXX; Living Quarters Eligibility Questionnaire; GSA Form 5039”. Follow the instructions provided at the “Submit a Comment” screen. Please include your name, company name (if any), and “Information Collection 3090-XXXX;
Colin C. Bennett, Human Resources Specialist, Office of Human Resources Management, Division of Human Capital Policy and Programs, at telephone 240-418-6822 or via email to
The General Services Administration routinely hires, reassigns, promotes or transfers Federal employees to duty stations in foreign areas (
To more effectively administer LQA, the General Services Administration (GSA) has created a new agency form, GSA Form 5039,
Public comments are encouraged and are particularly invited on: (a) whether this collection of information is necessary, (b) whether it will have practical utility, (c) whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection of information is accurate (and based on valid assumptions and methodology), (d) whether or not there are ways to enhance the new form's utility and clarity of the information to be collected, and (e) whether or not there might be ways in to minimize the data collection burden through the use of information technology.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Developmental/Methodologic Projects to Improve the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and Related Programs” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on October 21, 2022 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Developmental/Methodologic Projects to Improve the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey and Related Programs (OMB Control No. 0920-1208, Exp. 8/31/2023)—Extension—National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Section 306 of the Public Health Service (PHS) Act (42 U.S.C. 242k), as amended, authorizes that the Secretary of Health and Human Services (DHHS), acting through NCHS, shall collect statistics on the extent and nature of illness and disability; environmental, social and other health hazards; and determinants of health of the population of the United States. The Division of Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys (DHNES) has conducted national surveys and related projects periodically between 1970 and 1994, and continuously since 1999. The mission of DHNES programs is to produce descriptive statistics which measure the health and nutrition status of the general population. The continuous operation of DHNES programs presents unique challenges in testing new survey content and activities, such as outreach or participant screening.
This Generic Information Collection Request (ICR) covers developmental projects to help evaluate and enhance DHNES existing and proposed data collection activities to increase research capacity and improve data quality. The information collected through this Generic ICR will not be used to make generalizable statements about the population of interest or to inform public policy; however, methodological findings from these projects may be reported.
The purpose and use of projects under this NHANES Generic Clearance would include developmental projects necessary for activities such as testing new procedures, equipment, technology and approaches that are going to be folded into NHANES or other NCHS programs; designing and testing examination components or survey questions; creating new studies including biomonitoring and clinical measures; creating new cohorts, including a pregnancy and/or a birth-24 month cohort; testing of the cognitive and interpretive aspects of survey methodology; feasibility testing of proposed new components or modifications to existing components; testing of human-computer interfaces/usability; assessing the acceptability of proposed NHANES components among likely participants; testing alternative approaches to existing NHANES procedures, including activities related to improving nonresponse; testing the use of or variations/adjustments in incentives; testing content of web based surveys; testing the feasibility of obtaining bodily fluid specimens (blood, urine, semen, saliva, breastmilk) and tissue sample (swabs); testing digital imaging technology and related procedures (
The types of participants covered by the NHANES Generic may include current or past NHANES participants; family or household members of NHANES participants; individuals eligible to be participants in NHANES, but who did not screen into the actual survey; convenience samples; volunteers; subject matter experts or consultants such as survey methodologist, academic researchers, clinicians or other health care providers; NHANES data or website users; members of the general public or individuals abroad who would be part of a collaborative development project or projects between NCHS and related public health agencies in the U.S. and/or abroad. The type of participant involved in a given developmental project would be determined by the nature of the project. The details of each
CDC requests a three-year clearance. The estimated annualized burden for this generic data collection is 59,465 hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' initial guidance for the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program for the implementation of the Inflation Reduction Act. CMS will be releasing additional Inflation Reduction Act-related guidance; all can be viewed on the dedicated Inflation Reduction Act section of the CMS website at
Comments must be received by April 14, 2023.
Written comments should be sent to
The Inflation Reduction Act was signed into law on August 16, 2022. Sections 11001 and 11002 of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) (Pub. L. 117-169) established the Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program (hereafter the “Negotiation Program”) to negotiate Maximum Fair Prices (MFPs) for certain high expenditure, single source drugs and biological products. The requirements for this program are described in sections 1191 through 1198 of the Social Security Act (hereafter “the Act”) as added by sections 11001 and 11002 of the Inflation Reduction Act.
To obtain copies of the Negotiation Program initial guidance and other Inflation Reduction Act-related documents, please access the CMS Inflation Reduction Act website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Evell J. Barco Holland, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Children's Bureau, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is requesting a three-year extension of the data information collection for the Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS) that was implemented as part of the AFCARS final rule published in May 2020 (85 FR 28410). There are no proposed changes to the information collection published as the final rule in May 2020.
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
Children's Bureau, Administration for Children and Families, United States Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Children's Bureau, the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), in the United States (U.S.) Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is requesting a three-year extension of the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System (NCANDS) collection (Office of Management and Budget (OMB) #0970-0424, expiration August 31, 2023). There are no changes requested to this data collection.
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
During 1996, CAPTA was amended to require all states that receive funds from the Basic State Grant program to work with the Secretary of HHS to provide specific data elements, to the maximum extent practicable, about children who had been maltreated. Most of the required data elements were added to the NCANDS data collection. Subsequent CAPTA reauthorizations and amendments added required data elements. The current list of CAPTA required data elements includes:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or the Agency) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is announcing the continuation of the Regulatory Project Management Site Tours and Regulatory Interaction Program (the Site Tours Program). The purpose of this document is to invite pharmaceutical companies interested in participating in this program to contact CDER.
Pharmaceutical companies may send proposed agendas to the Agency by May 16, 2023.
Dan Brum, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 5480, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-0578,
An important part of CDER's commitment to make safe and effective drugs available to all Americans is optimizing the efficiency and quality of the drug review process. To support this goal, CDER has initiated various training and development programs to promote
In this program, which generally lasts a few days, small groups of CDER regulatory project managers, often including a senior level regulatory project manager, can observe operations of pharmaceutical manufacturing and/or packaging facilities, pathology/toxicology laboratories, and regulatory affairs operations. Neither this tour nor any part of the program is intended as a mechanism to inspect, assess, judge, or perform a regulatory function, but is meant rather to improve mutual understanding and to provide an avenue for open dialogue. During the Site Tours Program, regulatory project managers will also participate in daily workshops with their industry counterparts, focusing on selective regulatory issues important to both CDER staff and industry. The primary objective of the daily workshops is to learn about the team approach to drug development, including drug discovery, nonclinical and clinical evaluation, postmarketing activities, and regulatory submission operations. The overall benefit to regulatory project managers will be exposure to project management, team techniques, and processes employed by the pharmaceutical industry. By participating in this program, the regulatory project manager will grow professionally by gaining a better understanding of industry processes and procedures.
All travel expenses associated with the Site Tours Program will be the responsibility of CDER; therefore, selection will be based on the availability of funds and resources for each fiscal year. Selection will also be based on firms having a favorable facility status as determined by FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs District Offices in the firms' respective regions. Firms that want to learn more about this training opportunity or that are interested in offering a site tour should respond by sending a proposed agenda by email directly to Dan Brum (see
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than April 17, 2023.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the information request collection title for reference.
A 60-day notice was published in the
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than April 17, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Samantha Miller, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.
A 60-day notice published in the
Grant dollars are awarded annually; therefore, this information is needed annually by the program in order to measure effective use of grant dollars consistently among all the grantees.
HRSA specifically requests comments on (1) the necessity and utility of the proposed information collection for the proper performance of the agency's functions, (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden, (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected, and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology to minimize the information collection burden.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than April 17, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.
A 60-day notice published in the
(1)
(2)
(3)
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, Office of the Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice; correction.
The Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health published a document in the
Jomana Musmar, M.S., Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, Presidential Advisory Council on Combating Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Health, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1101 Wootton Parkway, Rockville, MD 20852. Phone: 202-746-1512; Email:
In the
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee (MDCC).
The meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with attendance limited to space available. Individuals who plan to participate and need special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting.
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
More information can be found on the Muscular Dystrophy Coordinating Committee home page:
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as
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.
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.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing Commissioner, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Comments should refer to the proposal by name and/or OMB Control Number and should be sent to: Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 4176, Washington, DC 20410-5000; telephone 202-402-3400 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Colette Pollard, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410; email Colette Pollard at
Copies of available documents submitted to OMB may be obtained from Ms. Pollard.
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in section A.
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
HUD encourages interested parties to submit comment in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty order and antidumping duty order on softwood lumber products from Canada would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date.
March 6, 2023.
Charles Cummings (202-708-1666), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
On March 6, 2023, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). The Commission found that both the domestic responses and respondent interested party group responses from Canada to its notice of institution (87 FR 73778, December 1, 2022) were adequate and determined to conduct full reviews of the orders on imports from Canada. A record of the Commissioners' votes will be available from the Office of the Secretary and at the Commission's website.
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on January 13, 2023, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Coda Octopus Colmek, Murray, UT; Consolidated Resource Imaging LLC, Grand Rapids, MI; Opto-Knowledge Systems, Inc., Torrance, CA; Capraro Technologies, Inc., Utica, NY; Spectrum Bullpen LLC, Palm Bay, FL; Axellio, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO; Exyn Technologies, Philadelphia, PA; Aurotech LLC, Silver Spring, MD; Micron Technology, Inc., Seattle, WA; Wind Talker Innovations, Inc., Fife, WA; TurbineOne LLC, San Francisco, CA; Aqsacom Incorporated, Irving, TX; Capstone Partners, Inc., Lancaster, PA; AlphaPixel LLC, Evergreen, CO; KinetX, Inc., Tempe, AZ; M2 Technology, Inc., San Antonio, TX; Onclave Networks, Inc., McLean, VA; LAINE Technologies, Goose Creek, SC; Applied Technology, Inc., King George, VA; Encryptor, Inc., Plano, TX; Global Technical Systems, Virginia Beach, VA; and RPI Group, Inc., Fredericksburg, VA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NSC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 23, 2014, NSC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 14, 2022. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on 01/219/2023, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Madison College/Digital Credentials Institute, Madison, WI; KC Tek, Ankara, TURKEY; Public Consulting, Boston, MA; CPALMS, Tallahassee, FL; and CatchOn, Nashville, TN, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and 1EdTech Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On April 7, 2000, 1EdTech Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 4, 2022. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 18, 2023, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, the following entities have become members of the Forum: Knut Johannessen, Oslo, NORWAY; Vijay Consultants, Bengaluru, INDIA; Swish Fibre, London, UNITED KINGDOM; Gigaclear Ltd, Abingdon, UNITED KINGDOM; NodeWeaver Corporation, Weston, FL; Surfly, Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; Tigo Honduras, Tegucigalpa, HONDURAS; Tigo Panama, Ciudad de Panama, PANAMA; Tigo Colombia, Bogota, COLOMBIA; Fundação Cearense de Pesquisa e Cultura, Fortaleza, BRAZIL; Verso Altima d.o.o., Zagreb, CROATIA; NATEC RD LLC, Kyiv, UKRAINE; National Institute of Information and Communications Technology (NICT), Tokyo, JAPAN; Kazakhtelecom JSC, Nur-Sultan, KAZAKHSTAN; Revalora Beta Consulting, S.L., Madrid, SPAIN; Sage Management, LLC, Charleston, SC; POWERACT Consulting, Casablanca, MOROCCO; Modern Telecom Systems IT, Cairo, EGYPT; ICT Research Center of Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung, INDONESIA; iMocha `Mocha Technologies Inc', Claymont, DE; Amazon Web Services, Inc., Seattle, WA; DZS Inc., Plano, TX; Levio Consulting Inc., Québec City, CANADA; LPTIC, Tripoli, LIBYA.
Also, the following members have changed their names: Sofrecom SA, Sofrecom Tunisie, Tunis, TUNISIA; Marand Software, Marand Software ltd, Ljubljana, SLOVENIA.
In addition, the following parties have withdrawn as parties to this venture: Allo Technology, Cyberjaya, MALAYSIA; ANS Digital Transformation Limited, London, UNITED KINGDOM; Billity AS, Foldrøyhamn, NORWAY; Cellwize Wireless Technologies Ltd., Tel Aviv, ISRAEL; Circa Information Corporation, Fergus, CANADA; Inselleben.Berlin GmbH, Berlin, GERMANY; iQmetrix, Vancouver, CANADA; KNOWHAWK sprl, Pont-à-Celles, BELGIUM; Lifecell Ventures Coöperatief U.A., Amsterdam, NETHERLANDS; Logate d.o.o., Podgorica, MONTENEGRO; Maplewave, Dartmouth, CANADA; National University of Ireland Maynooth, Maynooth, IRELAND; NHB Management Services SARL, Temara, MOROCCO; RIFT Inc., Chelmsford, MA; SSE Electricity, Reading, UNITED KINGDOM; SuccessFull Telecom Technology Co., Ltd., Shanghai, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Tatic Soluções em Informática Ltda, Belo Horizonte, BRAZIL; Tecnovos Technologies LLP, Ulsoor, INDIA; Teledom d.o.o., Zagreb, CROATIA; Tshwane University of Technology Faculty of ICT, The Reeds, SOUTH AFRICA; USC—University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and the Forum intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 21, 1988, the Forum filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 27, 2022. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 26, 2023, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Ernst & Young LLP, Tysons, VA; Chakrabarti Management Consultancy, Inc., Fairfax, VA; LAINE LLC, Goose Creek, SC; Liberty Consulting Solutions, Toms River, NJ; and Sonalysts, Inc., Waterford, CT, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and HSTech (fka BSTC) intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 30, 2012, HSTech (fka BSTC) filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 2, 2022. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on 01/12/2023, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Online Only OÜ (dba WebsiteSetup), Harjumaa, ESTONIA; and Coinbase, Oakland, CA, have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and OpenJS Foundation intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On August 17, 2015, OpenJS Foundation filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 17, 2022. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 6, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, 4Links Limited, Milton Keynes, UNITED KINGDOM, has withdrawn as a party to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and PXI Systems intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 22, 2000, PXI Systems filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 18, 2022. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 11, 2023, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and RISE intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On July 2, 2021, RISE filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 11, 2022. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 11, 2023, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and ADC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 11, 2021, ADC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 11, 2022. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 10, 2023, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and OGA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On March 31, 2022, OGA filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 31, 2022. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 11, 2023 pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UHD Alliance intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On June 17, 2015, UHD Alliance filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 9, 2022. A notice was published in the
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before April 17, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Nicole Bouchet by telephone at 202-693-0213, or by email at
The purpose of the Occupational Noise Standard and its information collection requirements are to provide protection to workers from adverse health effects associated with occupational exposure to noise. The standard requires employers to establish and maintain accurate records of worker exposure to noise and audiometric testing performed in compliance with this standard. For additional substantive information about this ICR, see the related notice published in the
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Registration for the meeting will be available prior to the meeting date. Both the agenda and the registration link will be located on the GEO AC website at
The National Science Board's Committee on Strategy's Subcommittee on Technology, Innovation and Partnerships hereby gives notice of the scheduling of a teleconference for the transaction of National Science Board business pursuant to the NSF Act and the Government in the Sunshine Act.
Wednesday, March 22, 2023, from 10:30-11:30 a.m. EDT.
This meeting will be via videoconference through the National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, VA 22314.
Closed.
The agenda is: Subcommittee Chair's Opening Remarks; Goals for the inaugural Type 2 competition portfolio and discussion of portfolio construction strategy, process, and risk.
Point of contact for this meeting is:
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Standard design approval application; receipt.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing public notice of the receipt and availability of a standard design approval (SDA) application from NuScale Power, LLC (NuScale) for a Small Modular Reactor (SMR) design. The SDA application was submitted in a number of transmittals between the period of November 23, 2022, and December 31, 2022.
The SDA application referenced in this notice was available on January 1, 2023.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0027 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:
•
•
•
Getachew Tesfaye, Office of New Reactors, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-8013, email:
By letter dated November 21, 2022 (ADAMS Accession No. ML22325A349), NuScale informed the NRC of its intent to submit an SDA application in stages, along with supporting technical reports, by December 31, 2022. By letter dated November 23, 2022, NuScale submitted the first part of its application (non-public, withheld pursuant to 10 CFR 2.390) for a standard design approval of the NuScale US460 SMR design, pursuant to section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and part 52, subpart E, of title 10 of the
As described in the November 21, 2022, letter, the application contains the final safety analysis report (FSAR) chapters and parts thereof. Supporting technical reports are cited throughout the application, some of which are attached to the corresponding FSAR chapter; other technical reports cited in the application are available as standalone documents in ADAMS, if publicly available. Following these submittals, NuScale submitted additional supporting licensing topical reports (LTRs), which were required to be submitted before the SDA application could be accepted for review. By January 8, 2023, NuScale submitted these LTRs to the NRC. The NRC staff is currently reviewing the application and supporting information to determine if it is sufficiently complete to be acceptable for docketing and for commencement of the staff's detailed safety review.
The NuScale US460 SMR is a pressurized-water reactor. The design is based on the Multi-Application Small Light Water Reactor developed at Oregon State University in the early 2000's. The NuScale US460 SMR is a natural circulation light-water reactor with the reactor core and helical coil steam generator located in a common reactor vessel in a cylindrical steel containment. The NuScale power module is partly immersed in water in a safety related pool. The reactor pool is located below grade and is designed to hold up to six power modules. Each NuScale SMR has a rated thermal output of 250 megawatts thermal and an electrical output of 77 megawatts electric (MWe); accordingly, a plant containing six modules would have a total capacity of 462 MWe. The acceptability of the tendered application for docketing and other matters relating to the request will be the subject of subsequent
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 17(d) (15 U.S.C. 80a-17(d)) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a
Rule 17d-1 also contains a number of exceptions to the requirement that a fund must obtain Commission approval prior to entering into joint transactions or arrangements with affiliates. For example, funds do not have to obtain Commission approval for certain employee compensation plans, certain tax-deferred employee benefit plans, certain transactions involving small business investment companies, the receipt of securities or cash by certain affiliates pursuant to a plan of reorganization, certain arrangements regarding liability insurance policies and transactions with “portfolio affiliates” (companies that are affiliated with the fund solely as a result of the fund (or an affiliated fund) controlling them or owning more than five percent of their voting securities) so long as certain other affiliated persons of the fund (
Thus, the rule contains two filing and recordkeeping requirements that constitute collections of information. First, rule 17d-1 requires funds that wish to engage in a joint transaction or arrangement with affiliates to meet the procedural requirements for obtaining exemptive relief from the rule's prohibition on joint transactions or arrangements involving first- or second-tier affiliates. Second, rule 17d-1 permits a portfolio affiliate to enter into a joint transaction or arrangement with the fund if a prohibited participant has a financial interest that the fund's board determines is not material and records the basis for this finding in their meeting minutes. These requirements of rule 17d-1 are designed to prevent fund insiders from managing funds for their own benefit, rather than for the benefit of the funds' shareholders.
Based on an analysis of past filings, Commission staff estimates that 43 funds file applications under section 17(d) and rule 17d-1 per year. The staff understands that funds that file an application generally obtain assistance from outside counsel to prepare the application. The cost burden of using outside counsel is discussed below. The Commission staff estimates that each applicant will spend an average of 75 hours to comply with the Commission's applications process. The Commission staff therefore estimates the annual burden hours per year for all funds under rule 17d-1's application process to be 3,225 hours at a cost of $1,428,675.
As noted above, the Commission staff understands that funds that file an application under rule 17d-1 generally use outside counsel to assist in preparing the application. The staff estimates that, on average, funds spend an additional $53,100 for outside legal services in connection with seeking Commission approval of affiliated joint transactions. Thus, the staff estimates that the total annual cost burden imposed by the exemptive application requirements of rule 17d-1 is $2,283,300.
We estimate that funds currently do not rely on the exemption from the term “financial interest” with respect to any interest that the fund's board of directors (including a majority of the directors who are not interested persons of the fund) finds to be not material. Accordingly, we estimate that annually there will be no transactions under rule 17d-1 that will result in this aspect of the collection of information.
Based on these calculations, the total annual hour burden is estimated to be 3,225 hours and the total annual cost burden is estimated to be $2,283,300.
The estimate of average burden hours is made solely for the purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act. The estimate is not derived from a comprehensive or even a representative survey or study of the costs of Commission rules. Complying with these collections of information requirement is necessary to obtain the benefit of relying on rule 17d-1. Responses will not be kept confidential. 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.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 12h-1(f) (17 CFR 240.12h-1(f)) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”) provides an exemption from the Exchange Act Section 12(g) registration requirements for compensatory employee stock options of issuers that are not required to file periodic reports under the Exchange Act. The information required under Exchange Act Rule 12h-1 is not filed with the Commission. Exchange Act Rule 12h-1(f) permits issuers to provide the required information to the option holders either by: (i) physical or electronic delivery of the information; or (ii) written notice to the option holders of the availability of the information on a password-protected internet site. We estimate that it takes approximately 2 burden hours per response to prepare and provide the information required under Rule 12h-1(f) and it is prepared and provided by approximately 40 respondents. We estimate that 25% of the 2 hours per response (0.5 hours per response) is prepared by the company for a total annual reporting burden of 20 hours (0.5 hours per response × 40 responses).
An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend BOX Rule 7110 (Order Entry) and Rule 7130 (Execution and Price/Time Priority) to codify in the BOX Rulebook when the identity of Options Participants is available. The text of the proposed rule change is available from the principal office of the Exchange, at the Commission's Public Reference Room and also on the Exchange's internet website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7110 (Order Entry) and Rule 7130 (Execution and Price/Time Priority) to codify in the BOX Rulebook when the identity of Options Participants is available. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to codify in the BOX Rulebook that the contra party Options Participants identification number (“Participant ID”) is available to all Participants in their post trade execution reports. The Exchange notes that other exchanges also provide such contra party information.
Current Rule 7110(f) provides that the identity of Options Participants who submit orders to the Trading Host will remain anonymous to market participants at all times, except orders submitted through the Directed Order process, certain exposed orders as set forth in 7130(b)(3)(iii), during error resolution or through the normal clearing process as set forth in Rule 7130. The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7110 to codify that the contra party Options Participant ID is provided on the execution reports that are sent to each Participant that is party to a trade. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend the language within 7110(f) to provide that after execution, the identity of Options Participants is available during error resolution, through the normal clearing process as set forth in Rule 7130, and on the execution reports sent to each Participant that is party to a trade. As part of the proposed change,
The Exchange is also proposing to add language within Rule 7130 to cite back to the proposed exemption within Rule 7110(f) to make it clear that, for each trade, contra party details will be made available after the trade is executed to Options Participants that were party to the trade through the normal clearing process and as otherwise provided within Rule 7110(f).
The Exchange currently sends out execution reports containing contra party information, and the Exchange believes codifying this information in the Rules will provide more transparency to market participants regarding these execution reports. The proposed rule change is consistent with current Exchange and options industry practices including the fact that clearing information available through The Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) provides contra party information. As indicated above, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with current rules and practices in place at other options exchanges.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes the proposal will serve to promote just and equitable principles of trade, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general protect investors and the public interest because it will benefit investors by providing more transparency on when the identity of Options Participants is available and clarifying what is provided within these execution reports. The Exchange currently provides such contra party Options Participant IDs within execution reports and believes that aligning its rules with current practices will benefit investors by providing more transparency to market participants regarding what is provided within these execution reports.
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange believes the proposed changes to Rule 7110 and Rule 7130 are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
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. In this regard and as indicated above, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change is substantially similar to the rules and practices of other options exchanges.
The proposed rule change is intended to codify in the BOX Rulebook that the contra party Options Participant ID is available to all Participants in their post trade execution. The Exchange began providing this contra party information for Participants within execution reports in response to Participant interest and requests for such information. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intermarket competition, as the rule change is only intended to codify in the BOX Rulebook that the contra party Options Participant ID is available to all Participants in their post trade execution reports. The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the rules and practices in place at other options exchanges.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition, as the rule change seeks to codify in the BOX Rulebook that contra party information is included within execution reports, which are provided to all Participants.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6) normally does not become operative prior to 30 days after the date of filing. Rule 19b-4(f)(6)(iii), however, permits the Commission to designate a shorter time if such action is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest. BOX requested that the Commission waive the operative delay to permit BOX to codify within its Rulebook the inclusion of contra party information in execution reports, which BOX represents is consistent with current Exchange and option industry practices. The
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
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 new Rule 980NYP (Electronic Complex Order Trading) to reflect the implementation of the Exchange's Pillar trading technology on its options market and to make conforming amendments to Rule 935NY (Order Exposure Requirements). The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange plans to transition its options trading platform to its Pillar technology platform. The Exchange's affiliated options exchange, NYSE Arca, Inc. (“NYSE Arca” or “Arca Options”) is currently operating on Pillar, as are the Exchange's national securities exchange affiliates' cash equity markets.
In this regard, the Exchange recently filed a proposal to add new rules to reflect the priority and allocation of
Proposed Rule 980NYP would (1) use Pillar terminology; and (2) introduce new functionality for Electronic Complex Order trading (
Finally, as discussed in the American Pillar Priority Filing, the Exchange will announce by Trader Update when symbols are trading on the Pillar trading platform. The Exchange intends to transition Electronic Complex Order trading on Pillar at the same time that single-leg trading is transitioned to Pillar.
Current Rule 980NY (Electronic Complex Order Trading) specifies how the Exchange processes Electronic Complex Orders submitted to the Exchange. The Exchange proposes new Rule 980NYP to establish how such orders would be processed after the transition to Pillar. To promote clarity and transparency, the Exchange proposes to add a preamble to current Rule 980NY specifying that it would not be applicable to trading on Pillar.
As discussed in greater detail below and unless otherwise specified herein, the Exchange is not proposing fundamentally different functionality regarding how Electronic Complex Orders would trade on Pillar than is currently available on the Exchange. However, with Pillar, the Exchange would use Pillar terminology to describe functionality that is not changing and also introduce certain new or updated functionality for Electronic Complex Orders (
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(1) would define the term “Away Market Deviation” as the difference between the Exchange BB (BO) for a series and the ABB (ABO) for that same series when the Exchange BB (BO) is lower (higher) than the ABB (ABO).
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(2) would define the term “Complex NBBO” to mean the derived national best net bid and derived national best net offer for a complex strategy calculated using the NBB and NBO for each component leg of a complex strategy. This definition is based on current Rule 900.2NY, without any substantive differences and is also identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(a)(2).
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(2)(A) would define the term “Complex BBO” to mean the complex order(s) to buy (sell) with the highest (lowest) net working price (per proposed Rule 964NYP(a)(3)) on each side of the Consolidated Book for the same complex order strategy. This definition is based on current Rule 900.2NY(a), without any substantive differences.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(3) would define “Complex Order Auction” or “COA” to mean an auction of an ECO as set forth in proposed Rule 980NYP(f) (discussed below). This definition is based on the title of paragraph (e) of current Rule980NY, which sets forth the COA Process for ECOs without any substantive differences. Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(3) would also state that the terms defined in paragraphs (a)(3)(A)-(D) would be used for purposes of a COA.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(3)(A) would define a “COA Order” to mean an ECO that is designated by the ATP Holder as eligible to initiate a COA. This definition is based on the definition of a “COA-eligible order” as set forth in current Rule 980NY(e)(1) and (e)(1)(i), with a difference that the proposed definition would not require that an option class be designated as COA-eligible because all option classes that trade on Pillar would be COA-eligible.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(3)(B) would define the term “Request for Response” or “RFR” to refer to the message disseminated to the Exchange's proprietary complex data feed announcing that the Exchange has received a COA Order and that a COA has begun. As further proposed, the definition would provide that each RFR message would identify the component series, the price, the size and side of the market of the COA Order. This definition is based on the description of RFR in Rule 980NY(e)(3) without any substantive differences. The Exchange proposes a clarifying difference to make clear that RFR messages would be sent over the Exchange's proprietary complex data feed, which is based on current functionality.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(3)(C) would define the term “RFR Response” to mean any ECO received during the Response Time Interval (defined below) that is in the same complex strategy, on the opposite side of the market of the COA Order that initiated the COA, and marketable against the COA Order.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(3)(D) would define the term “Response Time Interval” to mean the period of time during which RFR Responses for a COA may be entered and would provide that the Exchange would determine and announce by Trader Update the length of the Response Time Interval; provided, however, that the duration of the Response Time Interval would not be less than 100 milliseconds and would not exceed one (1) second. This definition is based in part on the description of Response Time Interval in Rule 980NY(e)(4), with a difference that the Exchange proposes to reduce the minimum time from 500 milliseconds to 100 milliseconds. The proposal to establish a minimum duration for a COA is identical to the minimum time frame allowed for a COA per Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(a)(4) and is consistent with the minimum auction length for the Exchange's electronic-paired auctions (
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(4) would define the term “Complex strategy” to mean a particular combination of leg components and their ratios to one another. The proposed definition would further provide that new complex strategies can be created when the Exchange receives either a request to create a new complex strategy or an ECO with a new complex strategy. This proposed definition is new and is identical to how this term is defined in Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(a)(4). Furthermore, this proposed definition is consistent with how this concept is defined on other options exchanges and would promote clarity and transparency.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(5) would define the term “DBBO” to address situations where it is necessary to derive a (theoretical) bid or offer for a particular complex strategy. As proposed, “DBBO” would mean the derived best net bid (“DBB”) and derived best net offer (“DBO”) for a complex strategy. The bid (offer) price used to calculate the DBBO on each leg would be the Exchange BB (BO)
Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(5)(A) would provide further detail about how the DBBO would be derived when, for a leg, there is no Exchange BB (BO) and no ABB (ABO). As proposed, in such circumstances, the bid (offer) price used to calculate the DBBO would be the offer (bid) price for that leg (
Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(5)(B) would provide that, if for a leg of a complex strategy, there is neither an Exchange BBO nor an ABBO, the Exchange would not allow the complex strategy to trade until, for that leg, there is either an Exchange BB or BO, or an ABB or ABO, on at least one side of the market. The Exchange believes that preventing a complex strategy from trading when, for a leg, there is no reliable pricing indication—either on the Exchange or in Away Markets, would benefit market participants by preventing potentially erroneous executions. Moreover, including this additional detail in the proposed rule about when a complex strategy would not trade would benefit market participants as it would promote clarity and transparency in Exchange rules regarding ECO trading. This functionality is also identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O (a)(5)(B).
Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(5)(C) would provide that if the best bid and offer prices (when not based solely on the Exchange BBO) for a component leg of a complex strategy are locked or crossed, the Exchange would not allow an ECO for that strategy to execute against another ECO until the condition resolves. The Exchange notes that, as described above, the DBBO may be calculated using leg prices derived either exclusively from, or a combination of, the Exchange BBO, the ABBO, or the Exchange BBO as adjusted to be priced within the maximum allowable Away Market Deviation. As such, if the best bid and offer prices (when not based solely on Exchange BBO) for a component leg of a complex strategy are locked or crossed, a DBBO calculated when using those prices could be erroneous.
Further, per proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(5)(C), if an Away Market quote updates to lock or cross the current Exchange BB (BO) or ABB (ABO) for a component leg of a complex strategy, the Exchange would allow an ECO for that strategy to execute against leg market interest on the Exchange. Allowing an eligible ECO to execute against leg market interest in these circumstances is consistent with the way single-leg orders trade. This functionality is also identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(a)(5)(C). In this regard, the Exchange notes that, to the extent that leg prices are locked or crossed as a result of updates to the ABBO, such updates do not prevent resting leg market interest from trading at its resting price with all eligible contra-side interest, which includes incoming ECOs in the same complex strategy.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(6) would define the term “ECO Order
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(7) would define the term “Electronic Complex Order” or “ECO” to mean a Complex Order as defined in Rule 900.3NYP(f) that would be submitted electronically to the Exchange.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(8) would define the term “leg” or “leg market” to mean each of the component option series that comprise an ECO. This definition is consistent with the concept of leg markets as used in current Rule 980NY(a), which defines legs as individual orders and quotes in the Consolidated Book. The Exchange believes the proposed definition would add clarity regarding how the terms “leg” and “leg market” would be used in connection with ECO trading on Pillar.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(9) would define “Ratio” or “leg ratio” to mean the quantity of each leg of an ECO broken down to the least common denominator such that the “smallest leg ratio” is the portion of the ratio represented by the leg with the fewest contracts. The Exchange believes the proposed definition would add clarity regarding how the terms “ratio” and “leg ratio” would be used in connection with ECOs trading on Pillar, which definition is identical to how this term is defined in Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(a)(9). This proposed definition is likewise consistent with how this concept is described on other options exchanges.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(b)(2) would set forth the time-in-force contingencies available to ECOs, which would be Day, IOC, FOK, or GTC, as those terms will be defined in the subsequent Pillar Order Type Filing in proposed Rule 900.3NYP(b), and GTX (per proposed Rule 980NYP(b)(2)(C) as described below).
• The proposed text is based on current Rules 980NY(d)(2) and (3), except that it adds GTX (as described below). The proposed text also omits AON because the Exchange would not offer AONs for ECO trading on Pillar.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(b)(2)(A) would provide that an ECO designated as IOC or FOK would be rejected if entered during a pre-open state,
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(b)(2)(B) would provide that an ECO designated as FOK must also be designated as a Complex Only Order (per proposed Rule 980NYP(b)(1) and described further below). This proposed rule, which is new under Pillar, would simplify the operation of electronic complex order trading and would add clarity and transparency that ECOs designated as FOK (
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(b)(2)(C) would provide that an ECO designated as GTX would be defined as an “COA GTX Order” and would have the following features: it would not be displayed; it may be entered only during the Response Time Interval of a COA; it must be on the opposite side of the market as the COA Order; and it must specify the price, size, and side of the market. As further proposed, COA GTX Orders may be modified or cancelled during the Response Time Interval and any remaining size that does not trade with the COA Order would be cancelled at the end of the COA. This term “COA GTX Order” is new but the definition is based on the description of an RFR Response in current Rule 980NY(e)(5)(A)-(C), which likewise are not displayed and expire at the end of the COA.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(c) would further provide that, unless otherwise specified in this Rule, ECOs would be processed as follows:
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(c)(1) would provide that when trading with the leg markets, an ECO would trade at the price(s) of the leg markets provided the leg markets are priced no more than the maximum allowable Away Market Deviation (as defined herein). The proposed rule requiring that when trading with the leg markets, the components of the ECO would trade at the prices of the leg markets is consistent with current functionality, per Rule 980NY(c)(ii); requiring that such prices be bound by the Away Market Deviation for an ECO to trade with the leg markets is new under Pillar, as discussed further below).
For example, if there is sell interest in a leg market at $1.00, and a leg of an ECO to buy could trade up to $1.05, the ECO would trade with such leg market at $1.00. This would result in the ECO receiving price improvement and is consistent with the ECO trading as the Aggressing Order.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(c)(2) would provide that when trading with another ECO, each component leg of the ECO must trade at a price at or within the Exchange BBO for that series, and no leg of the ECO may trade at a price of zero.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(c)(3) would provide that an ECO may trade without consideration of prices of the same complex strategy available on other exchanges, which is based on the same text as contained in current Rule 980NY(c) without any substantive differences.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(c)(4) would provide that an ECO may trade in one cent ($0.01) increments regardless of the MPV otherwise applicable to any leg of the complex strategy, which is based on current Rule 980NY, Commentary .01 without any substantive differences.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(1) would set forth the conditions required for the commencement of an ECO Opening Auction Process. Specifically, as proposed, the Exchange would initiate an ECO Opening Auction Process for a complex strategy only if all legs of the complex strategy have opened or reopened for trading, which text is based on current Rule 980NY(c)(i)(A) without any substantive differences. Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(1)(A)-(B) would set forth conditions that would prevent the opening of a complex strategy, as follows:
○ Any leg of the complex strategy has neither an Exchange BO nor an ABO; or
○ The complex strategy cannot trade per proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(5)(B)-(C).
The proposal to detail these conditions for opening (and reopening) are consistent with current functionality not set forth in the current rule. The Exchange believes that this added detail would not only add clarity and transparency to Exchange rules but would also protect market participants from potentially erroneous executions when there is a lack of reliable information regarding the price at which a complex strategy should execute, thereby promoting a fair and orderly ECO Opening Auction Process.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(2) would provide that any ECOs in a complex strategy with prices that lock or cross
Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(2)(A) would provide that an ECO received during a pre-open state would not participate in the Auction Process for the leg markets pursuant to proposed Rule 952NYP, which is based on the same text (in the second sentence) of current Rule 980NY(c)(i)(A) without any substantive differences.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(2)(B) would provide that a complex strategy created intra-day when all leg markets are open would not be subject to an ECO Opening Auction Process and would instead trade pursuant to paragraph (e) of the proposed Rule (discussed below) regarding the handling of ECOs during Core Trading Hours.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(2)(C) would provide that the ECO Opening Auction Process would be used to reopen trading in ECOs after a trading halt. This proposed rule is consistent with current Rule 952NY(e) and makes clear that the ECO Opening Auction Process would be applicable to reopenings, which would add internal consistency to Exchange rules and promote a fair and orderly ECO Opening Auction Process following a trading halt.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(3) would describe each aspect of the ECO Opening Auction Process. First, proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(3)(A) would describe the “ECO Auction Collars,” which terminology would be new for ECO trading and is based on the term “Auction Collars” used in Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O.
As proposed, the upper (lower) price of an ECO Auction Collar for a complex strategy would be the DBO (DBB); provided, however, that if the DBO (DBB) is calculated using the Exchange BBO for all legs of the complex strategy and all such Exchange BBOs have displayed Customer interest, the upper (lower) price of an ECO Auction Collar would be one penny ($0.01) times the smallest leg ratio inside the DBO (DBB). This new functionality on Pillar would ensure that if there is displayed Customer interest on the Exchange on all legs of the strategy, the opening price for the complex strategy would price improve the DBBO, which the Exchange believes is consistent with fair and orderly markets and investor protection.
• Next, proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(3)(B) would describe the “ECO Auction Price.” As proposed, the ECO Auction Price would be the price at which the maximum volume of ECOs can be traded in an ECO Opening Auction, subject to the proposed ECO Auction Collar. As further proposed, if there is more than one price at which the maximum volume of ECOs can be traded within the ECO Auction Collar, the ECO Auction Price would be the price closest to the midpoint of the ECO Auction Collar, or, if the midpoint falls within such prices, the ECO Auction Price would be the midpoint, provided that the ECO Auction Price would not be lower (higher) than the highest (lowest) price of an ECO to buy (sell) that is eligible to trade in the ECO Opening (or Reopening) Auction Process. The concept of an ECO Auction Price is consistent with the concept of “single market clearing price” set forth in current Rule 980NY(c)(i)(B). For Pillar, the Exchange proposes to determine the ECO Auction Price in the same manner as is used pursuant to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O.
Finally, as proposed, if the ECO Auction Price would be a sub-penny price, it would be rounded to the nearest whole penny, which text is based on current Rule 980NY(c)(i)(B), with a difference that the current rule refers to the midpoint of the Complex NBBO (which could be a sub-penny price and if so, is rounded down to the nearest penny) as opposed to referring to the ECO Auction Price, which would be a new Pillar term for trading ECOs, which price, if in sub-pennies, would be rounded (up or down) to the nearest MPV.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(3)(B)(i) would provide that an ECO to buy (sell) with a limit price at or above (below) the upper (lower) ECO Auction Collar would be included in the ECO Auction Price calculation at the price of the upper (lower) ECO Auction Collar, but ranked for participation in the ECO Opening (or Reopening) Auction Process in price-time priority based on its limit price. This proposed text is based in part on current Rule 980NY(c)(i)(B). The proposed rule would operate in the same manner as Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O regarding the ECO Auction Price.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(3)(B)(ii) would provide that locking and crossing ECOs in a complex strategy would trade at the ECO Auction Price. As further proposed, if there are no locking or crossing ECOs in a complex strategy at or within the ECO Auction Collars, the Exchange would open the complex strategy without a trade. This proposed text would be new and is identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(d)(3)(B)(ii).
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(4) would describe the “ECO Order Processing during ECO Opening Auction Process,” which processing would be identical to Rule 6.91P-O(d)(4). The Exchange proposes to apply existing Pillar auction functionality regarding how to process ECOs that may be received during the period when an ECO Auction Process is ongoing.
Accordingly, as proposed, new ECOs and ECO Order Instructions (as defined in proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(6), described above) that are received when the Exchange is conducting the ECO Opening Auction Process for the complex strategy would be accepted but would not be processed until after the conclusion of this process. As further proposed, when the Exchange is conducting the ECO Opening Auction Process, ECO Order Instructions would be processed as follows:
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(4)(A) would provide that an ECO Order Instruction received during the ECO Opening Auction Process would not be processed until after this process concludes if it relates to an ECO that was received before the process begins and that any subsequent ECO Order Instruction(s) relating to such ECO would be rejected if received during the ECO Opening Auction Process when a prior ECO Order Instruction is pending.
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(4)(B) would provide that an ECO Order Instruction received during the ECO Opening Auction Process would be processed on arrival if it relates to an order that was received during this process.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(4) is identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(d)(4) and would provide transparency regarding how ECO Order Instructions that arrived during the ECO Opening Auction Process would be processed.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(5) would describe the “Transition to continuous trading” after the ECO Opening Auction Process. As proposed, after the ECO Opening Auction, ECOs would be subject to ECO Price Protection, per proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(2) (as described below) and, if eligible to trade, would trade as follows:
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(5)(A) would provide that ECOs received before the complex strategy was opened that did not trade in whole in the ECO Opening Auction Process and that lock or cross other ECOs or leg markets in the Consolidated Book would trade pursuant to proposed Rule 980NYP(e) (discussed below) regarding the handling of ECOs during Core Trading Hours; otherwise, such ECOs would be added to the Consolidated Book. This provision is based on the (last sentence) of current Rule 980NY(c)(i)(B) and (C), with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology.
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(5)(B) would provide that ECOs received during the ECO Opening Auction Process would be processed in time sequence relative to one another based on original entry time. This proposed rule is based on both current functionality and is identical to how orders in an option series that were received during an Auction Processing Period are processed per Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(d)(5)(B).
Proposed Rule 980NYP(e)(1) would provide that once a complex strategy is open for trading, an ECO would trade with the best-priced contra-side interest as follows:
Proposed Rule 980NYP(e)(1)(A) relates to the priority of the leg markets over ECOs at a price. As proposed, if, at a price, the leg markets can trade with an eligible ECO,
The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 980NYP(c)(1)(A) would benefit market participants because it is designed to protect the priority of orders on the leg markets by requiring an ECO to execute first against interest on the leg markets at the best price to the extent possible,
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(c)(1)(B) would provide that an ECO would not trade with orders in the leg markets designated as AON, FOK, or with an MTS modifier. This proposed text would be new and is based in part on existing functionality (for AON and FOK) and also reflects the Exchange's proposed treatment under Pillar of its new MTS modifier for orders in the leg markets.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(e)(1)(C) would provide that an ECO designated as Complex Only would be eligible to trade solely with another ECO and would not trade with the leg markets. The proposed Complex Only Orders would be new functionality and would operate in the same manner as Complex Only Orders per Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(e)(1)(C).
As further proposed, an ECO designated as Complex Only must trade at a price at or within the DBBO; provided that, if the DBB (DBO) is calculated using the Exchange BBO for all legs of the complex strategy and all such Exchange BBOs have displayed Customer interest, the Complex Only Order would not trade below (above) one penny ($0.01) times the smallest leg ratio inside the DBB (DBO), regardless of whether there is sufficient quantity on such leg markets to satisfy the ECO.
The proposed operation of the Complex Only Order, insofar as it protects displayed Customer interest in the leg markets when an ECO trades with another ECO, is consistent with current functionality.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(e)(1)(D) would provide that ECOs with any one of the following complex strategies would be ineligible to trade with the leg markets and would be processed as a Complex Only Order:
○ a complex strategy with more than five legs;
○ a complex strategy with two legs and both legs are buying or both legs are selling, and both legs are calls or both legs are puts; or
○ a complex strategy with three or more legs and all legs are buying or all legs are selling.
The proposal to restrict ECOs with more than five legs from trading with the leg markets (and being treated as Complex Only Orders), per proposed Rule 980NYP(e)(1)(D)(i), would be new functionality under Pillar and is designed to help Market Makers manage risk. The functionality is identical to functionality available per Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(e)(1)(D)(i). Because the execution of a multi-legged ECO is a single transaction, comprising discrete legs that must all trade simultaneously, allowing ECOs with more than five legs to trade with the leg markets may allow a multi-legged transaction to occur before a Market Maker's risk settings would be triggered. This proposed limitation is designed to prevent such multi-legged transactions, which would help ensure that Market Makers continue to provide liquidity and do not trade above their established risk tolerance levels. In addition to Arca Options Rule 6.91-O(e)(1)(D)(i), this restriction is also consistent with similar limits established on other options exchanges.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(e)(1)(D)(ii)-(iii), which treats ECOs with certain complex strategies as Complex Only Orders, is based in part on current Rule 980NY(d)(4)(i)-(ii), with a difference that currently, such so-called “directional strategies” are rejected. The proposed handling under Pillar would be less restrictive than the current rule because such strategies would not be rejected and is consistent with the treatment of such complex strategies on other options exchanges.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(e)(2) would provide that the Exchange would evaluate trading opportunities for a resting ECO when the leg markets comprising a complex strategy update, provided that during periods of high message volumes, such evaluation may be done less frequently. The Exchange believes that this proposed rule promotes transparency of the frequency with which the Exchange would be evaluating the leg markets for updates.
The Exchange believes the proposed handling of ECOs during Core Trading is reasonably designed to facilitate increased interaction between orders on the leg markets and ECOs, and to do so in such a manner as to ensure a dynamic, real-time trading mechanism that maximizes the opportunity for trade executions for both ECOs and orders on single option series.
As proposed, a COA Order received when a complex strategy is open for trading and that satisfies the requirements of paragraph (f)(1) of the proposed Rule would initiate a COA only on arrival after trading with eligible interest per proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(2)(A) (described below). As further proposed, a COA Order would be rejected if entered during a pre-open state or if entered during Core Trading Hours with a time-in-force of FOK or GTX. This proposed order handling is based in part on current Rule 980NY(e)(1)(ii), which requires that COA Orders be submitted during Core Trading Hours. The proposed rejection of such orders during a pre-open state would be new under Pillar and is consistent with the Exchange's proposed functionality that a COA Order would initiate a COA only on arrival. In addition, the proposal would clarify that COA Orders designated as FOK or GTX would be rejected, even if submitted during Core Trading Hours, is based on current functionality and this addition would add further detail and clarification to the rule text. Finally, as further proposed, only one COA may be conducted at a time in a complex strategy, which is identical to text in current Rule 980NY(e)(3).
Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(1), which is identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(f)(1), would describe the conditions required for the “Initiation of a COA.” As proposed, to initiate a COA, the limit price of the COA Order to buy (sell) must be higher (lower) than the best-
Finally, as proposed, once a COA is initiated, the Exchange would disseminate a Request for Response message, the Response Time Interval would begin and, during such interval, the Exchange would accept RFR Responses, including COA GTX Orders. This proposed text is based on current functionality set forth in Rule 980NY(e), with non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology, including using the new Pillar term for COA GTX Orders.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(2), which is identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(f)(2), would describe the “Pricing of a COA.” As proposed, a COA Order to buy (sell) would initiate a COA at its limit price, unless its limit price locks or crosses the DBO (DBB), in which case it would initiate a COA at a price equal to one penny ($0.01) times the smallest leg ratio inside the DBO (DBB) (the “COA initiation price”). This proposed functionality utilizes the new concept of a DBBO, is consistent with current functionality (that relies on substantively similar concept of Complex BBO (per Rule 900.2NY(a)), and ensures (consistent with current functionality) that interest on the leg markets maintain priority.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(2)(A) would provide that prior to initiating a COA, a COA Order to buy (sell) would trade with any ECO to sell (buy) resting in the Consolidated Book that is priced equal to or lower (higher) than the DBO (DBB), unless the DBO (DBB) is calculated using the Exchange BBO for all legs of the complex strategy and all such Exchange BBOs have displayed Customer interest, in which case the COA Order will trade up (down) to one penny ($0.01) times the smallest leg ratio inside the DBO (DBB) (
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(2)(B) would provide that a COA Order would not be eligible to trade with the leg markets until after the COA ends, which added detail, while not explicitly stated in the current rule, is consistent with current functionality described in Rules 980NY(e)(7)(A) and (B) that only RFR Responses (
Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(3) would set forth the conditions that would result in the “Early End to a COA” (
Under Pillar, the Exchange would no longer use a snapshot of the Derived BBO as the basis for determining whether to end a COA early but would instead rely on the DBBO (calculated per proposed Rule 980NYP(a)(5)), which is updated as market conditions change (including during the Response Time Interval).
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(3)(A) would provide that a COA would end early if the Exchange receives an incoming ECO or COA Order to buy (sell) in the same complex strategy that is priced higher (lower) than the initiating COA Order to buy (sell), which proposed text is based on current Rule 980NY(e)(6)(B)(i) without any substantive differences.
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(3)(B) would provide that a COA would end early if the Exchange receives an RFR Response that locks or crosses the DBBO on the same-side as the COA Order, which proposed text is based on current Rule 980NY(e)(6)(A)(i), except (as noted above) it refers to the DBBO rather than the “initial Derived BBO.”
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(3)(C) would provide that a COA would end early if the leg markets update causing the DBBO on the same-side as the COA Order to lock or cross (i) any RFR Response(s) or (ii) if no RFR Responses have been received, the best-priced, contra-side ECOs. This proposed rule is based in part on current Rule 980NY(e)(6)(C)(i), with differences to use Pillar terminology, including reference to the DBBO.
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(3)(D) would provide that a COA would end early if the leg markets update causing the contra-side DBBO to lock or cross the COA initiation price. This proposed rule is based in part on current Rule 980NY(e)(6)(C)(ii), except that it would refer to the DBBO and the COA initiation price, which would be new concepts under Pillar.
Because the DBBO may be calculated using the ABBO for a given leg, the Exchange notes that it would be new under Pillar to have a COA end early based on (locking or crossing) market conditions outside of the Exchange. The Exchange believes this proposed functionality would benefit market participants by preventing COA Orders from executing at prices too far away from the prevailing market for that complex strategy. In addition, the Exchange believes this proposed functionality would promote internal consistency and benefit market participants because, as proposed, the execution of ECOs on the Exchange, including whether such ECO may initiate a COA as a COA Order, is based on the DBBO. As such, the Exchange believes it is appropriate and to the benefit of market participants that the early termination of a COA likewise be based on the DBBO—regardless of whether the prices used to calculate such DBBO include (or consist entirely of) ABBO prices.
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(3)(E) would provide that a COA would end early if the Exchange receives a Complex CUBE Order in the same
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(4) would set forth the “Allocation of COA Orders” after a COA either ends early or after the expiration of the Response Time Interval. Current Rule 980NY(e)(7)(A) sets forth that the COA-eligible orders are allocated against the best-priced interest received in the COA at each price on a “size pro rata basis,” as that concept is defined in Rule 964NY(b)(3).
Specifically, proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(4)(A) would provide that RFR Responses to sell (buy) that are priced equal to or lower (higher) than a COA Order to buy (sell) would trade up (down) to the DBBO; provided, however, that if all legs of the DBB (DBO) are calculated using Exchange BBOs and all such Exchange BBOs have displayed Customer interest, RFR Responses to sell (buy) would not trade below (above) one penny ($0.01) times the smallest leg ratio inside the DBB (DBO). This proposed rule would ensure that the COA Order would not trade at a worse price than the leg markets and would price improve the DBBO where there is displayed Customer interest on all legs of the complex strategy on the Exchange, which is consistent with current Commentary .02(ii) to Rule 980NY.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(4)(B) would provide that after COA allocations pursuant to paragraph (f)(4)(A) of this proposed Rule, any unexecuted balance of a COA Order (including COA Orders designated as IOC) would be eligible to trade with any contra-side interest, including the leg markets unless the COA Order is designated or treated as a Complex Only Order. This proposed text is based on existing functionality and makes explicit that a COA Order would trade solely with complex interest (and not the leg markets) during a COA. This proposed rule is designed to provide clarity and transparency that the remaining balance of a COA Order would be eligible to trade with the leg markets after the COA ends.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(4)(C) would provide that after a COA Order trades pursuant to proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(4)(B), any unexecuted balance of a COA Order that is not cancelled (
Proposed Rule 980NYP(f)(5) would set forth “Prohibited Conduct related to COAs,” and is based on the first sentence of current Commentary .04 to Rule 980NY with one substantive differences: to add reference to quotes, and would provide that a pattern or practice of submitting “unrelated
With the transition to Pillar, the Exchange proposes to modify and enhance its existing risk checks for ECOs, as follows:
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(1) would set forth the “Complex Strategy Limit.” As proposed, the Exchange would establish a limit on the maximum number of new complex strategies that may be requested to be created per MPID, which limit would be announced by Trader Update.
This is new functionality proposed under Pillar but is conceptually similar to the Complex Order Table Cap (the “Cap”), set forth in Commentary .03 to Rule 980NY, which Cap (like the Complex Strategy Limit), would help maintain a fair and orderly market because it would operate as a system protection tool that enables the Exchange to prevent any single MPID from creating more than a limited number of complex strategies during the trading day. This proposed Cap is identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(g)(1). The Exchange also notes that other options exchanges likewise impose a limit on new complex order strategies.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(2) would set forth the ECO Price Protection. The existing ECO “Price Protection Filter” is set forth in Commentary .05 to current Rule 980NY (the “ECO Filter”). The proposed “ECO Price Protection” on Pillar would work similarly to how the current ECO price protection mechanism functions on the Exchange because an ECO would be rejected if it is priced a specified percentage away from the contra-side Complex NBB or NBO.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(2)(A) would provide that each trading day, an ECO to buy (sell) would be rejected or cancelled (if resting) if it is priced a Specified Threshold amount or more above (below) the Reference Price (as described below), subject to proposed paragraphs (g)(2)(A)(i)-(v) of the Rule as described below. Because ECO Price Protection would be applied each trading day, an ECO designated GTC would be re-evaluated for ECO Price Protection on each day that it is eligible to trade and would be cancelled if the limit price is equal to or through the Specified Threshold.
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(2)(A)(i) would provide that an ECO that arrives when a complex strategy is open for trading would be evaluated for ECO Price Protection on arrival. This functionality is identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(g)(2)(A)(i).
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(2)(A)(ii) would provide that an ECO received during a pre-open state would be evaluated for ECO Price Protection after the ECO Opening Auction Process concludes.
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(2)(A)(iii) would provide that an ECO resting on the Consolidated Book before a trading halt would be reevaluated for ECO Price Protection after the ECO Opening Auction Process concludes. This functionality is identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(g)(2)(A)(iii).
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(2)(A)(iv) would provide that QCC Orders (per Rule 6.62P-O(g)(1)) would not be subject to ECO Price Protection, as the Exchange subjects such paired orders to distinct price validations.
○ Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(2)(A)(v) would provide that ECO Price Protection would not be applied if there is no Reference Price for an ECO. This functionality is identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(g)(2)(A)(v).
Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(2)(B) would specify the “Reference Price” used in connection with the ECO Price Protection. As proposed, the Reference Price for calculating ECO Price Protection for an ECO to buy (sell) would be the Complex NBO (NBB), provided that, immediately following an ECO Opening Auction Process, the Reference Price would be the ECO Auction Price or, if none, the Complex NBO (NBB). The Exchange believes that adjusting the Reference Price for ECO Price Protection immediately following an ECO Opening Auction would ensure that the most up-to-date price would be used to assess whether to cancel an ECO that was received during a pre-open state, including during a Trading Halt. The Exchange notes this functionality is identical to how this functionality operations per Arca Options Rule 6.91P(g)(2)(B).
As further proposed, there would be no Reference Price for an ECO if there is no NBBO for any leg of such ECO (
Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(2)(C) would set forth the “Specified Threshold” used in connection with the ECO Price Protection. As proposed, the Specified Threshold for calculating ECO Price Protection would be $1.00, unless determined otherwise by the Exchange and announced to ATP Holders by Trader Update.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Specified Threshold of $1.00 simplifies how the Reference Price would be calculated as compared to the calculations currently specified in Commentary .05 to Rule 980NY. In addition, consistent with Commentary .05(d), the Exchange proposes that the Specified Threshold could change, subject to announcing the changes by Trader Update. Providing flexibility in Exchange rules regarding how the Specified Threshold would be set is identical functionality available per Arca Options Rule 6.62P-O(a)(3)(C) and is also consistent with the rules of other options exchanges as well as the functionality for the single-leg Limit Order Price Protection feature.
• Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(3) would set forth the “Complex Strategy Protections,” which are identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(g)(3). The proposed protections are based on current Rule 980NY, Commentary .06, which are referred to as the “Debit/Credit Reasonability Checks.” The Exchange believes this name change is appropriate because it more accurately conveys that the check applies solely to certain complex strategies and because (as discussed above), the Exchange proposes to refer simply to a “net price” as opposed to the “total net debit or credit price.” The proposed Pillar Complex Strategy Protections would function similarly to the current Debit/Credit Reasonability Checks because potentially erroneously priced incoming ECOs would be rejected. However, rather than to refer to specified debit or credit amounts as a way to determine whether a given strategy is erroneously priced, the proposed rule would instead focus on the expectation of the order sender and what would result if the ECO were not rejected. Consistent with current functionality, the proposed Complex Strategy Protections are designed to prevent the execution of ECOs at prices that are inconsistent with/not aligned with their strategies.
As proposed, to protect an ATP Holder that sends an ECO (each an “ECO sender”) with the expectation that it would receive (or pay) a net premium but has priced the ECO such that the ECO sender would instead pay (or receive) a net premium, the Exchange would reject any ECO that is comprised of the erroneously-priced complex strategies as set forth in proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(3)(A)-(C) and described below.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(3)(A) would provide that “ `All buy' or `all sell' strategies” would be rejected as erroneously-priced if it is an ECO for a complex strategy where all legs are to buy (sell) and it is entered at a price less than one penny ($0.01) times the sum of the number of options in the ratio of each leg of such strategy (
Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(3)(B) would provide for the rejection of erroneously-priced “Vertical spreads,” which are defined as complex strategies that consists of a leg to sell a call (put) option and a leg to buy a call (put) option in the same option class with the same expiration but at different strike prices. As proposed, the Exchange would reject as erroneously-priced: (i) an ECO for a vertical spread to buy a lower (higher) strike call and sell a higher (lower) strike call and the ECO sender would receive (pay) a net premium (proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(3)(B)(i)); and (ii) an ECO for a vertical spread to buy a higher (lower) strike put and sell a lower (higher) strike put and the ECO sender would receive (pay) a net premium (proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(3)(B)(ii)). The proposed strategy protections for vertical spreads are based on current Rule 980NY, Commentary .06(a)(2), except that, as noted above, the proposed Rule is written from the standpoint of the expectation of the ECO sender as opposed to reviewing total net debit or credit price of the strategy.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(3)(C) would provide for the rejection of erroneously-priced “Calendar spreads,” which are defined as consisting of a leg to sell a call (put) option and a leg to buy a call (put) option in the same option class at the same strike price but with different expirations. As proposed, the Exchange would reject as erroneously-priced: (i) an ECO for a calendar spread to buy a call leg with a shorter (longer) expiration while selling a call leg with a longer (shorter) expiration and the ECO sender would pay (receive) a net premium (proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(3)(C)(i)); and (ii) an ECO for a calendar spread to buy a put leg with a shorter (longer) expiration while selling a put leg with a longer (shorter) expiration and the ECO sender would pay (receive) a net premium (proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(3)(C)(ii)). The proposed strategy protections for calendar spreads are based on current Rule 980NY, Commentary .06(a)(3), except that, as noted above, the proposed Rule is written from the standpoint of the expectation of the ECO sender as opposed to reviewing the total net debit or credit price of the strategy. The Exchange has also not retained discretion to disable the strategy protections for calendar spreads (as contained in Commentary .06(a)(3)(i) of the current Rule) because since adopting this provision in 2017, the Exchange has never exercised this discretion and therefore has determined that such discretion is no longer needed.
Proposed Rule 980NYP(g)(3)(D) would provide that any ECO that is not rejected by the complex strategy protections would still be subject to the ECO Price Protection, per paragraph (g)(2) of this Rule, which proposed text is based on Rule 980NY, Commentary .06(b) without any substantive difference.
The Exchange also proposes conforming, non-substantive amendments to Rule 935NY, regarding order exposure, to add a cross-reference to new Pillar Rule 980NYP. Current Rule 6.47A-O(iv) exempts orders submitted to the COA Process, (per current Rule 980NY) from its one-second order exposure requirements. This proposed amendment would extend the exemption from the order exposure requirements to orders submitted to a COA on Pillar.
As discussed above, because of the technology changes associated with the migration to the Pillar trading platform, subject to approval of this proposed rule change, the Exchange will announce by Trader Update when rules with a “P” modifier will become operative and for which symbols. The Exchange believes that keeping existing rules on the rulebook pending the full migration of Pillar will reduce confusion because it will ensure that the rules governing trading on the Exchange's current system will continue to be available pending the full migration to Pillar.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that adding new Rule 980NYP with the modifier “P” to denote that this rule would be operative for the Pillar trading platform would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing transparency of which rules would govern trading once a symbol has been migrated to the Pillar platform. The Exchange similarly believes that adding a preamble to current Rule 980NY stating that it would not be applicable to trading on Pillar would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would promote transparency regarding which rules would govern trading on the Exchange during and after the transition to Pillar.
The Exchange believes that incorporating Pillar functionality currently available for trading of electronic complex orders on the Exchange's affiliated options exchange (in Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the Exchange would be able to offer consistent functionality across its options trading platforms for trading of electronic complex orders. As discussed herein, and unless otherwise specified herein, the Exchange is not proposing fundamentally different functionality regarding how ECOs would trade on Pillar than is currently available on the Exchange. Accordingly, with the transition to Pillar, the Exchange would use Pillar terminology to describe functionality that is not changing and also introduce certain new or updated functionality for Electronic Complex Orders (
The Exchange believes that the proposed definitions in Rule 980NYP(a) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed changes are designed to promote clarity and transparency by consolidating existing defined terms related to electronic complex trading into one section of the proposed rule. The Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive amendments to those terms currently defined in Rule 980NYwould promote clarity and transparency by using Pillar terminology. The Exchange further believes consolidating defined terms in proposed Rule 980NYP(a) (including alphabetizing the proposed terms) would make the proposed rule more transparent and easier to navigate.
The Exchange believes that the proposed new definition of Away Market Deviation would further remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would promote clarity and transparency to market participants regarding how the Exchange would calculate this additional protection against ECOs being executed on the Exchange at prices too far away from the current market.
The Exchange believes that the proposed new definition of DBBO (and related terms of DBB and DBO) would further remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would promote clarity and transparency to market participants regarding how the DBBO would be calculated under Pillar. The proposed definition is not novel and is identical to how Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(a)(5) defines DBBO and is also consistent with similarly defined terms used on Cboe. The Exchange believes that providing an alternative means of calculating the DBBO (
In addition, the Exchange believes that setting forth additional definitions in proposed Rule 980NYP(a), including those that are used on other options exchanges (
The Exchange believes that the proposed types of ECOs available per Rule 980NYP(b) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would describe the ECOs and time-in-force modifiers that would be available on Pillar, as well as specifying additional ECO types. The Exchange believes that the non-substantive differences to use Pillar terminology to describe the available ECO order types would promote transparency and clarity in Exchange rules. The Exchange believes that the proposed Complex Only Order is not novel because it would operate in a manner identical to how such orders function per Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O (
The Exchange believes that proposed new Rule 980NYP(c) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed rules would set forth a Customer priority and size pro rata allocation model for Pillar and pricing requirements for ECO trading that are substantively the same as the Exchange's current Customer priority model and pricing requirements as set forth in Rule 980NY(b) and Commentaries .01 and .02(i) and (ii) to Rule 980NY. The Exchange proposes certain modified functionality, including the Complex Only Order as noted above, and regarding ECO trading vis a vis the DBBO (and binding such DBBO by the maximum allowable Away Market Deviation when the Exchange BBO is used to calculate the DBBO for a leg), which would benefit market participants as the proposed features would provide additional price protection in ECO trading and would add clarity and transparency to the rules. The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 980NYP(c) would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because they would promote transparency and clarity in Exchange rules regarding how ECOs would trade with the leg markets and with other ECOs.
The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 980NYP(d) regarding the ECO Opening Auction Process would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed rule maintains the fundamentals of an auction process that the Exchange currently uses for ECOs, as described in Rule 980NY(c)(i)(B), while at the same time enhancing the process by incorporating Pillar auction functionality that is identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(d). For example, the Exchange proposes to use Pillar functionality to determine how to price an ECO Opening Auction Process, as described in proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(3), including using proposed “ECO Auction Collars” and an “ECO Auction Price,” which are consistent with the core functionality for opening ECOs, with additional detail that would promote clarity and transparency to market participants regarding this process. The Exchange believes it is appropriate to refrain from opening a series when there is a lack of reliable pricing indication(s) regarding the price at which a complex strategy should execute because doing so would protect market participants from potentially erroneous executions, thereby promoting a fair and orderly ECO Opening Auction Process.
Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposal to use the DBBO (as opposed to the currently used Complex NBBO) for the ECO Opening Process would allow the Exchange to open a series based on the Exchange BBO, bound by the Away Market Deviation (or, the ABBO if the Exchange BBO is not available), which is consistent with ECO handling during Core Trading (per proposed Rule 980NYP(e)). The Exchange believes this proposed change would better align the permissible opening price for a series with the permissible execution price during Core Trading, which adds consistency to ECO order handling (as well as internal consistency to Exchange rules) to the benefit of investors. As such, this proposed change would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system.
In addition, the Exchange believes that requiring that the opening price for a complex strategy must improve the DBBO if there is displayed Customer interest on all legs of the strategy on the Exchange would protect displayed Customer interest, and protect investors in general, while ensuring a fair and orderly ECO Opening Process.
The Exchange also proposes to process ECOs received during an ECO Opening Auction Process, as described in proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(4), and transition to continuous trading following an ECO Opening Auction Process, as described in proposed Rule 980NYP(d)(5), in a manner that is identical to how ECOs are processed at the open per Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(d)(4) and (d)(5). The Exchange believes that using similar functionality for ECO auctions would promote consistency across the Exchange's options trading platforms. The Exchange believes that the additional detail regarding the ECO Opening Auction Process for electronic complex options trading on Pillar would promote transparency in the Exchange's trading rules.
The Exchange further believes that the proposed Rules 980NYP(d)(1) and (2), which describe when the Exchange would initiate an ECO Opening Auction Process and which ECOs would be eligible to trade in that process, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because they would provide clarity and transparency of the conditions required before the Exchange would initiate an ECO Opening Auction Process. The Exchange further believes that those conditions are not novel and are based on existing conditions specified in Rule 980NY(c)(i)(A) and (B), with additional specificity designed to promote clarity and transparency. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that the ECO Opening Auction Process for ECOs trading on Pillar would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed process is based on the current opening process, including that orders would be matched based on price-time priority at a price at which the maximum volume can be traded.
The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 980NYP(e), setting forth the execution of ECOs during Core Trading Hours, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed functionality would incorporate the Exchange's existing Customer priority and size pro rata allocation model for trading ECOs and would provide that the leg markets would have priority at a price. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change to add text to specify that an ECO may trade with another ECO at the leg market price if the interest in the leg markets is insufficient to trade at that price (
In addition, the Exchange believes that allowing Complex Only Orders to trade up to the DBBO unless there is displayed Customer interest on each leg on the Exchange at the DBBO (as described above) would provide market participants additional trading opportunities while still protecting Customer interest on the Exchange, which would, in turn, remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system.
The Exchange believes that it would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system to specify that ECOs will not trade with orders in the leg markets designated AON, FOK or with an MTS modifier (consistent with Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O) because it would add clarity and transparency regarding the handling of ECOs vis a vis these single-leg order types that are conditional based on order size. The Exchange further believes that it would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system for ECOs to trade as Complex Only Orders (rather than be rejected as they would under current rules) if they have a complex strategy that could result in a Market Maker breaching their established risk settings.
Overall, the Exchange believes the proposal for ECO trading during Core Trading Hours would help maintain a fair and orderly market and would benefit investors by facilitating increased interaction between ECOs (not designated as Complex Only) and leg markets interest. In particular, such ECOs would execute against interest in the leg markets for all of the quantity available at the best price in a permissible ratio until the quantities remaining on such leg markets are insufficient to execute against the ECO while respecting the spread ratio. The Exchange believes that requiring Complex Only Orders to improve at least a portion of the displayed Customer interest on the leg markets when all legs of a complex strategy contain displayed Customer interest would provide market participants with additional trading opportunities while still protecting displayed Customer interest on the Exchange. To the extent that this proposed handling of ECOs on the Exchange during Core Trading Hours results in greater liquidity (because of increased opportunity for order execution) this increased liquidity should, in turn, enhance execution quality.
The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 980NYP(f), setting forth the execution of ECOs during a COA, would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and promote just and equitable principles of trade because the proposed functionality would both incorporate existing functionality to provide that COA Orders would trade solely with other ECOs (and not the leg markets) during the auction. The Exchange believes that relying on the proposed DBBO (and binding such DBBO by the maximum allowable Away Market Deviation when the Exchange BBO is used to calculate the DBBO for a leg) would benefit market participants as the proposed operation of the DBBO would provide additional price protection in ECO trading, including during a COA, and would add clarity and transparency to the rules. The Exchange also believes that the proposed text would make clear that the COA Order would trade with the best-priced RFR Responses received in the COA, beginning with Customer interest at a price followed by same-priced non-Customer interest. In addition, the proposed text would also include the additional detail that non-Customer RFR Responses are capped at the remaining size of the COA Order for purposes of pro rata allocation, which is consistent with current functionality as relates to non-Customer RFR Responses. However, on Pillar, Customer RFR Responses would trade in time and would not be subject to a pro rata allocation, which proposed handling is consistent with the Exchange's Customer priority model, which change would add clarity, transparency and internal consistency to Exchange rules.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed change to add reference to quotes (in addition to orders) to Rule 980NYP(f)(5) (Prohibited Conduct) regarding the COA Process, would benefit market participants as it would broaden the scope of such the prohibition. Overall, the Exchange believes the proposed rule, which is substantively identical to Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(f) except for the difference to account for the Exchange Customer priority/pro rata allocation model, would add clarity and transparency to ATP Holders utilizing the COA process.
In addition, the Exchange further believes that the proposed changes to the COA process on Pillar that either differ from current functionality or that would be new would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system because:
• Requiring that a COA Order initiate a COA on arrival, or else be treated as a standard ECO, is new under Pillar as, per the current Rule, a COA Order may sit on the Consolidated Book until market conditions change such that it may initiate a COA. The Exchange believes the proposed change would provide ATP Holders with a higher level of transparency and determinism of when a COA Order could initiate a COA and would also encourage market participants to submit aggressively-priced orders in order to qualify for initiation of a COA, which better-priced interest benefits all investors and improves market quality.
• Making explicit that COA Orders may only execute with ECOs (and not the leg markets) until after the COA ends is consistent with current functionality, per Rule 980NY(e)(2), but is designed to make clear that ECOs have priority during a COA.
• Streamlining the rule text that would describe the market events that, under Pillar, would cause an early end to a COA would simplify the COA process and would provide ATP Holders with a higher level of transparency and determinism regarding the handling of COA Orders.
• Allowing a COA to end early based on the DBBO, which may be calculated using ABBO leg prices, would benefit market participants and promote internal consistency because, as proposed, such early termination would prevent COA Orders from executing at prices too far away from the prevailing market for that complex strategy. In addition, the DBBO is used to determine the execution of ECOs on the Exchange, including whether such ECO may initiate a COA as a COA Order. As such, the Exchange believes it is appropriate and to the benefit of market participants that the early termination of a COA likewise be based on the DBBO—regardless of whether the prices used to calculate such DBBO include (or consist entirely of) ABBO prices.
• Requiring that a COA Order end early upon receipt of a Complex CUBE Order would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would allow the Exchange to simplify technology on Pillar and would allow the Exchange to determine the viability of a CUBE Order (
The Exchange believes that proposed Rule 980NYP(g), setting forth ECO Risk Checks, which are identical to those set forth per Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(g), would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and promote just and equitable principles of trade because the proposed functionality would incorporate existing risk controls, without any substantive differences. The Exchange further believes that the proposed changes to ECO Risk Checks on Pillar that either differ from current functionality or would be new would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and national market system because:
• The Exchange believes that the new Complex Strategy Limit (which is conceptually similar to the Complex Order Table Cap under the current Rule) would help maintain a fair and orderly market because it would operate as a system protection tool that enables the Exchange to prevent any single MPID from creating more than a limited number of complex strategies during the trading day. The proposed limits are not novel and are based on limits imposed in Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O(g)(1) as well as by other options exchanges on new complex order strategies.
• The proposed ECO Price Protection on Pillar would work similarly to how the current ECO price protection mechanism functions on the Exchange because an ECO would be rejected if it is priced a specified percentage away from the contra-side Complex NBB or NBO.
• The proposed Pillar Complex Strategy Protections would function similarly to the current Debit/Credit Reasonability Checks because erroneously priced incoming ECOs would be rejected. Consistent with current functionality, the proposed Complex Strategy Protections are designed to prevent the execution of ECOs at prices that are inconsistent with/not aligned with their strategies to the benefit of market participants. The Exchange believes that the non-substantive differences to focus on the expectation of the ECO sender and what would result if the ECO were not rejected rather than refer to specified debit or credit amounts as a way to determine whether a given strategy is erroneously priced would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market system because it would promote clarity and transparency in Exchange rules.
The Exchange believes that the proposed non-substantive change to Rule 935NY to update references to “COA” (versus COA Process) and “the Exchange,” to delete reference to “System,” and add the reference to Rule 980NYP would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system and, in general, protect investors and the public interest because the proposed conforming changes would add clarity, transparency and consistency to the Exchange's rules. The Exchange believes that market participants would benefit from the increased clarity, thereby reducing potential confusion. Similarly, the Exchange believes that adding a cross-reference to proposed Rule 980NYP(f) and extending the exemption from the one-second order exposure requirement of Rule 935NY would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because it would promote clarity and transparency of which Pillar rules would be eligible for the exception specified in that Rule.
As previously stated, the Exchange believes that the proposed Response Time Interval for a COA (
For the reasons set forth above, the Exchange believes proposed Rule 980NYP, regarding ECO trading, including the priority and execution of such ECOs vis a vis the leg markets, is consistent with the goals of the Act to remove impediments to and to perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and to protect investors and the public interest.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange operates in a competitive market and regularly competes with other options exchanges for order flow. The Exchange believes that the transition to Pillar for trading of ECOs on its options trading platform would promote competition among options exchanges by offering a low-latency platform that offers more deterministic outcomes for trading interest, which, in turn, facilities ECO trading on a continuous and real-time basis on the Exchange.
The proposed rule changes would support that inter-market competition by allowing the Exchange to offer additional functionality to its ATP Holders, thereby potentially attracting additional order flow to the Exchange. Otherwise, the proposed changes are not designed to address any competitive issues, but rather to amend the Exchange's rules relating to trading of ECOs to support the transition to Pillar. As discussed in detail above, with this rule filing, the Exchange is not proposing to change its core functionality regarding the treatment of ECOs. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule changes would promote consistent use of terminology to support options trading on the Exchange (and to promote uniformity with its affiliated exchange Arca Options), making the Exchange's rules easier to navigate. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule changes would raise any intra-market competition as the proposed rule changes would be applicable to all ATP Holders, and reflects the Exchange's existing treatment of ECOs, without proposing any material substantive changes. As noted herein, proposed Rule 980NYP is substantively the same as Arca Options Rule 6.91P-O except as noted herein (including to account for the Exchange's Customer priority/pro rata allocation model).
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On January 17, 2023, MEMX LLC (“MEMX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
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 delay the implementation of certain trading functionality rule changes.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
In connection with a technology migration to an enhanced Nasdaq, Inc. (“Nasdaq”) functionality, the Exchange filed various rule changes to adopt certain trading functionality currently utilized at Nasdaq affiliate exchanges. At this time, the Exchange proposes to delay the implementation of the various rule changes. Each impacted rule change and the new implementation date is described below.
The Exchange filed the following rule changes in connection with its technology migration:
SR-ISE-2022-11 which impacts GEMX routing;
SR-GEMX-2022-10 which amended ATR and Repricing Rules;
SR-GEMX-2022-13 which amended PIM;
SR-GEMX-2023-02 a rule change amending multiple functionalities.
Each of the aforementioned rule changes (collectively “Impacted Rule Changes”) indicated that the technology migration for GEMX would commence prior to September 1, 2023 or Q3.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to delay the implementation of the Impacted Rule Changes, which all relate to GEMX's upcoming technology migration, to a date prior to December 29, 2023. The Exchange will announce the initial migration date and symbol rollout schedule to Members in an Options Trader Alert.
The Exchange proposes to delay the migration to allow the Exchange and its Members additional time to test the new functionality.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange notes that the substance of the impacted rules is not changing, only the implementation timeline is changing with this proposal.
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's proposal to delay the implementation of the Impacted Rule
No written comments were either solicited or received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Regulation S (17 CFR 230.901 through 230.905) sets forth rules governing offers and sales of securities made outside the United States without registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a
An agency may conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
LTSE is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change as modified by Amendment No. 1
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is filing this amendment to SR-LTSE-2023-01 (“Amendment 1”) in order to (i) clarify the purpose and rationale of the proposed rule change; and (ii) make technical changes to improve the structure and clarity of the proposed rules. This Amendment 1 supersedes and replaces the initial rule proposal in its entirety (the “Initial Proposal”).
LTSE filed the Initial Proposal with the Commission on February 27, 2023 pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange is proposing amendments to Chapter 14 of its rules (LTSE Listing Rules) to establish listing standards for the recovery of erroneously awarded executive compensation as required by Rule 10D-1 and to address situations where a listed company has not complied with Rule 10D-1 and the Exchange's listing standards established pursuant thereto.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14.203, Prerequisites for Applying to List on the Exchange, by adding new paragraph (j), which will require that all Companies listing on LTSE must, as required by Rule 10D-1, comply with the requirements of proposed Rule 14.207(f), Recovery of Erroneously Awarded Compensation to Executive Officers.
The Exchange is further proposing to amend LTSE Rules 14.207, Obligations for Companies Listed on the Exchange, paragraph (f), to establish “Listing Standards for the Recovery of Erroneously Awarded Compensation.” The current text of paragraph (f) of Rule 14.207 will be repositioned into a new paragraph (g).
On October 26, 2022, the Commission adopted a new rule and rule amendments
Additionally, as explained in the Rule 10D-1 adopting release
Rule 10D-1 requires that issuers recover reasonably promptly the amount of erroneously-awarded executive compensation. Compliance by an issuer with this obligation will be reviewed in the context of each accounting restatement prepared by the issuer, and will include the means used to seek recovery and whether such means are appropriate based on the discrete circumstances of each executive officer who is determined to be subject to recovery of erroneously awarded compensation.
Rule 10D-1 became effective on January 27, 2023; national securities exchanges and national securities associations that list securities were
As required by Rule 10D-1 and proposed Rule 14.207(f), any Company listed on LTSE must adopt a compensation recovery policy, comply with that policy, and provide the required compensation recovery policy disclosures.
The Exchange is proposing amendments to Chapter 14 of its rules (LTSE Listing Rules) to establish listing standards for the recovery of erroneously awarded executive compensation as required by Rule 10D-1.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14.203, Prerequisites for Applying to List on the Exchange, by adding new paragraph (j), which will require that all Companies listing on LTSE must, as required by Exchange Act Rule 10D-1, comply with the requirements of Rule 14.207(f) (Recovery of Erroneously Awarded Compensation to Executive Officers).
The Exchange is proposing to adopt the specific definitions of certain terms as contained in Rule 10D-1. These new definitions are being proposed solely for purposes of Rule 14.207(f). In new subparagraph (A) of Rule 14.207(f)(1), the Exchange defines “Executive Officer” as the Company's
Proposed subparagraph (B) of Rule 14.207(f)(1) defines “Financial Reporting Measures” as those that are determined and presented in accordance with the accounting principles used in preparing the Company's financial statements, and any measures that are derived wholly or in part from such measures. Stock price and total shareholder return are also financial reporting measures. A financial reporting measure need not be presented within the financial statements or included in a filing with the Commission.
In proposed subparagraph (C) of Rule 14.207(f)(1), the Exchange defines “Incentive-based Compensation” as any compensation that is granted, earned, or vested based wholly or in part upon the attainment of a financial reporting measure. Finally, proposed subparagraph (D) of Rule 14.207(f)(1) provides that the term “Received” with respect to incentive-based compensation as meaning that such compensation is deemed received in the Company's fiscal period during which the financial reporting measure specified in the incentive-based compensation award is attained, even if the payment or grant of the incentive-based compensation occurs after the end of that period. The provision is intended to provide clarification and avoid doubt when determining when incentive based compensation that is subject to the rule was received.
Proposed Rule 14.207(f)(2) requires that every Company that lists its securities on the Exchange must, no later than 60 days of the effective date of this rule, which is the date that the Commission approves this rule filing SR-LTSE-2023-01, adopt and comply with a written policy requiring such issuer to recover reasonably promptly the amount of erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation to any executive officer in the event that the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement due to material non-compliance of the Company with any financial reporting requirement under the securities laws, including any required accounting restatement to correct a material error in previously issued financial statements that is material to the previously issued financial statements, or that would result in a material misstatement if the error were corrected in the current period or left uncorrected in the current period.
This provision is intended to align with the requirements of Rule 10D-1 and embed in the Exchange's listing rules the requirement to establish and enforce a written recovery policy as a requirement for listing on LTSE.
In proposed Rule 14.207(f)(2)(B), the Exchange requires that every Company listed on the Exchange disclose its written recovery policy as part of its reporting obligations to the Commission, as an exhibit to its Annual Report, and to the Exchange. Companies applying for initial listing must include its written recovery policy as part of its listing application. The Exchange will not act on any new listing application unless the recovery policy is included with the initial listing application. Proposed Rule 14.203(j), as discussed above, also notes as part of the prerequisites for applying to list on the Exchange, as required by Rule 10D-1, any Company listing on the Exchange must comply with proposed rule 14.207(f).
In proposed Rule 14.207(f)(3), Application of the Recovery Policy to Executive Officers, the Exchange states that the recovery policy shall apply to all incentive-based compensation received by a person: (A) after beginning service as an executive officer of the Company; (B) who served as an executive officer at any time during the performance period for that incentive-based compensation; (C) while the Company had a class of securities listed on a national securities exchange or a national securities association; and (D), during the three completed fiscal years immediately preceding the date that the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement as described in proposed Rule 14.207(f). In addition to the last three completed fiscal years, the recovery policy must apply to any transition period (that results from a change in the Company's fiscal year) within or immediately following those three completed fiscal years. However, a transition period between the last day of the Company's previous fiscal year end and the first day of its new fiscal year
For purposes of determining the relevant recovery period, the Exchange proposes in Rule 14.207(f)(4) that the date that a Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement as described in paragraph (f) of the Rule is the earlier to occur of: (A) the date the Company's board of directors, a committee of the board of directors, or the officer or officers of the Company authorized to take such action if board action is not required, concludes, or reasonably should have concluded, that the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement as described in paragraph (f) of this Rule; or (B) the date a court, regulator, or other legally authorized body directs the Company to prepare an accounting restatement as described in paragraph (f) of this Rule.
Proposed Rule 14.207(f)(5)(A) states that the amount of incentive-based compensation that must be subject to the Company's recovery policy (“erroneously awarded compensation”) is the amount of incentive-based compensation received that exceeds the amount of incentive-based compensation that otherwise would have been received had it been determined based on the restated amounts, and must be computed without regard to any taxes paid. Proposed subparagraph (B) states that, for incentive-based compensation based on stock price or total shareholder return, where the amount of erroneously awarded compensation is not subject to mathematical recalculation directly from the information in an accounting restatement: (i) the amount must be based on a reasonable estimate of the effect of the accounting restatement on the stock price or total shareholder return upon which the incentive-based compensation was received; and (ii) the Company must maintain documentation of the determination of that reasonable estimate and provide such documentation to the Exchange. These provisions are intended to address and clarify how erroneously awarded compensation calculations will be treated when it involves factors not readily obtained through an analysis of the accounting restatement.
Rule 10D-1 requires that a listed Company recover the amount of erroneously-awarded incentive-based compensation reasonably promptly
Proposed Rule 14.207(f)(6), Exceptions to Requirement to Recover Erroneously Awarded Compensation, allows for certain exceptions to the application of the recovery policy. Specifically, Companies must recover erroneously awarded compensation in compliance with its recovery policy except to the extent that the conditions described subparagraphs (A), (B), or (C) of proposed Rule 14.207(f)(6) are met and the Company's Compensation Committee, or in the absence of such a committee, a majority of the independent directors serving on the board, has made a determination that recovery would be impracticable in consideration of those conditions.
Under subparagraph (A) of proposed Rule 14.207(f)(6), the direct expense paid to a third party to assist in enforcing the policy would exceed the amount to be recovered. Before concluding that it would be impracticable to recover any amount of erroneously awarded compensation based on expense of enforcement, the Company must make a reasonable attempt to recover such erroneously awarded compensation, document such reasonable attempt(s) to recover, and provide that documentation to the exchange or association. Under subparagraph (B), recovery would violate home country law where that law was adopted prior to November 28, 2022. Before concluding that it would be impracticable to recover any amount of erroneously awarded compensation based on violation of home country law, the Company must obtain an opinion of home country counsel, acceptable to the Exchange, that recovery would result in such a violation, and must provide such opinion to the Exchange. Under subparagraph (C), recovery would likely cause an otherwise tax-qualified retirement plan, under which benefits are broadly available to employees of the registrant, to fail to meet the requirements of 26 U.S.C. 401(a)(13) or 26 U.S.C. 411(a) and regulations thereunder.
In proposed Rule 14.207(f)(7), Indemnification Of Executive Officers by the Company Prohibited, the Exchange makes clear that a Company is prohibited from indemnifying any executive officer or former executive officer against the loss of erroneously awarded compensation. This provision is intended to assure that executive officers who otherwise would be subject to the recovery rule do not avoid a financial consequence by having the Company indemnify them. Absent this provision, the recovery rule would lose substantial impact and would not be as effective in influencing executive management actions.
Proposed Rule 14.207(f)(8) reinforces the disclosure requirements and provides that Companies are required to file all disclosures with respect to its Recovery Policy in accordance with the requirements of the Federal securities laws, applicable Commission filings, and the Rules of the Exchange.
The Exchange further proposes certain general exemptions in Rule 14.207(f)(9): that the requirements of Rule 14.207(f) shall not apply to the listing of any security issued by a unit investment trust, as defined in 15 U.S.C. 80a-4(2) and any security issued by a management company as defined in 15 U.S.C. 80(a)-4(3) that is registered under Section 8 of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (15 U.S.C. 80a-8, if such management company has not awarded incentive-based compensation to any executive officer of the Company in any of the last three fiscal years, or in the case of a Company that has been listed less than three fiscal years, since the listing of the Company. These exemptions are proposed to align with
As provided in Rule 10D-1, LTSE proposes to require under Rule 14.207(f)(10) that each Company is required to (i) adopt a policy governing the recovery of erroneously awarded compensation as required by this rule no later 60 days following the effective date of this rule (the date of the Commission's approval of SR-LTSE-2023-01); and (ii) provide the disclosures required by this rule and in the applicable Commission filings on or after such effective date of this rule (the date of the Commission's approval of SR-LTSE-2023-01). Notwithstanding the look-back requirements in Rule 14.207(f), a Company is only required to apply the recovery policy to incentive-based executive compensation received after the effective date of this rule (the date of the Commission's approval of SR-LTSE-2023-01).
As proposed, a Company will be subject to delisting by the Exchange if it does not adopt, comply with, and disclose its policy on recovery of erroneously awarded executive compensation. Any Company that has failed to meet the requirements of the Rule will not be allowed to list on LTSE or, if listed, will be subject to provisions of LTSE Rule 14.500 (Failure to Meet Listing Standards) and the procedures set forth in Rules 14.501, 14.502 and 14.503. The Exchange is proposing to amend Rule 14.501(d)(2)(A)(iii) to provide that a Company that has failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 14.207(f) is required to submit to LTSE a plan to regain compliance. The Exchange proposes to utilize its existing administrative process for addressing corporate governance deficiencies for violations of Rule 10D-1, subject to certain amendments described below. The Exchange believes that using the existing process is appropriate in that it applies a consistent process for rectifying corporate governance deficiencies to which listed Companies are already subject.
However, the Exchange is proposing amendments to Rule 14.500(b)(5), which defines a Public Reprimand Letter, and Rule 14.501, Notification of Deficiency by LTSE Regulation, to exclude a violation of Rule 10D-1 from the deficiencies in listing standards for which a Public Reprimand Letter is appropriate under Rule 14.500 and state that Public Reprimand Letters may not be issued for violations of the listing standards required by Rule 10D-1 and proposed LTSE Rule 14.207(f). A conforming amendment is proposed for Rule 14.502, Review of Staff Determination by the Listings Review Committee. Currently, the rule text in Rule 14.502(1)(C), states that the Exchange's Listing Review Committee may, where it deems appropriate: “issue a decision that serves as a Public Reprimand letter in cases where the Company has violated an Exchange corporate governance or notification Listing standard (other than one required by Rule 10A-3 of the Act) and the Listing Review Committee determines that delisting is an inappropriate sanction. . . .” The Exchange proposes to include Rule 10D-1 as a governance and notification listing standard that is ineligible for the disposition by a Public Reprimand Letter upon a review or a delisting proceeding by the Listings Review Committee.
The Exchange is proposing these amendments because it does not believe that issuance of a Public Reprimand Letter in situations where a listed Company has failed to meet its obligations regarding the recovery of erroneously awarded executive compensation is consistent with the provisions of Rule 10D-1.
The Exchange believe that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
First, and importantly, the Exchange is proposing to adopt these rules as required under Section 10D of the Act and Rule 10D-1. The requirement that national securities exchanges that list equity securities, such as LTSE, embed the requirements of the statute and the regulation into its listing rules is intended to effectuate compliance and ensure consistency across the rules of every exchange. The Exchange believes that these proposals protect investors and the public interest by requiring Companies, with certain exemptions, that in the event the Company is required to prepare an accounting restatement, to recover reasonably promptly erroneously awarded incentive-based compensation paid to current or former executive officers based on any misstated financial measure. These proposed amendments will also help to foster effective oversight of executive compensation and provide increased accountability and transparency to investors by not allowing executive officers to retain compensation that they were awarded erroneously. The Exchange believes that the recovery requirement will operate to provide executive officers with an increased incentive to take steps to reduce the likelihood of inadvertent misreporting and will reduce the financial benefits to executive officers who pursue impermissible accounting methods, which the Commission expects will further reduce such behavior.
LTSE further believes that the proposal to provide that a Company that had failed to comply with the requirements of Rule 14.207(f) is required to submit to the Exchange a plan to regain compliance is consistent with the investor protection objectives of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act
The Exchange believes that its proposed rule change is fair and not unfairly discriminatory. As stated in the Adopting Release, “[t]o assure that issuers listed on different exchanges are subject to the same disclosure requirements regarding erroneously awarded compensation recovery, amendments to the Commission's disclosure rules require all issuers listed on any exchange to file their written compensation policies as an exhibit to their annual reports. . . .”
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. In fact, as discussed in the Statutory Basis section, LTSE believes that the proposed amendments will impose no burden on competition in that every publicly traded company will be required to comply with the Rule 10D-1, and every national securities exchange that lists securities will be required to adopt essentially the same rules regarding erroneously awarded compensation as part of their original and continued listing requirements. Given these factors, the Exchange does not believe that there will be any burden on competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the 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, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members
The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Fee Schedule to adopt fees the Exchange will charge to Members and non-Members for each of its three proprietary market data feeds, namely MEMOIR Depth, MEMOIR Top, and MEMOIR Last Sale (collectively, the “Exchange Data Feeds”). The Exchange is proposing to implement the proposed fees immediately.
The Exchange previously filed the proposal on March 24, 2022 (SR-MEMX-2022-03) (the “Initial Proposal”). The Exchange withdrew the Initial Proposal and replaced the proposal with SR-MEMX-2022-14 (the “Second Proposal”). The Exchange withdrew the Second Proposal and replaced the proposal with SR-MEMX-2022-19 (the “Third Proposal”). The Exchange withdrew the Third Proposal and replaced the proposal with SR-MEMX-2022-28 (the “Fourth Proposal”). The Exchange withdrew the Fourth Proposal and replaced the proposal with SR-MEMX-2022-32 (the “Fifth Proposal”). The Exchange withdrew the Fifth Proposal and replaced the proposal with SR-MEMX-2023-02 (the “Sixth Proposal”). The Exchange recently withdrew the Sixth Proposal and is replacing it with the current proposal (SR-MEMX-2023-04).
The Exchange notes that it has previously included a cost analysis in connection with the proposed fees for the Exchange Data Feeds, however, the prior cost analysis coupled costs related to operating its trading system, or transaction services, with costs of producing market data. As described more fully below, in the Fifth Proposal, the Sixth Proposal, and this filing, the Exchange provides an updated cost analysis that focuses solely on costs related to the provision of the Exchange Data Feeds (the “Cost Analysis”). Although the baseline Cost Analysis used to justify the fees was made with the Fifth Proposal, the fees themselves have not changed since the Initial Proposal and the Exchange still proposes fees that are intended to cover the Exchange's cost of producing the Exchange Data Feeds with a reasonable mark-up over those costs. Before setting forth the additional details regarding the proposal as well as the updated Cost Analysis conducted by the Exchange, immediately below is a description of the proposed fees.
The Exchange offers three separate data feeds to subscribers—MEMOIR Depth, MEMOIR Top and MEMOIR Last Sale. The Exchange notes that there is no requirement that any Firm subscribe to a particular Exchange Data Feed or any Exchange Data Feed whatsoever, but instead, a Firm may choose to maintain subscriptions to those Exchange Data Feeds they deem appropriate based on their business model. The proposed fee will not apply differently based upon the size or type of Firm, but rather based upon the subscriptions a Firm has to Exchange Data Feeds and their use thereof, which are in turn based upon factors deemed relevant by each Firm. The proposed pricing for each of the Exchange Data Feeds is set forth below.
The MEMOIR Depth feed is a MEMX-only market data feed that contains all displayed orders for securities trading on the Exchange (
1.
2.
3.
4.
• In connection with a Distributor's distribution of the MEMOIR Depth feed, the Distributor must count as one User each unique User that the Distributor has entitled to have access to the MEMOIR Depth feed.
• Distributors must report each unique individual person who receives access through multiple devices or multiple methods (
• If a Distributor entitles one or more individuals to use the same device, the Distributor must include only the individuals, and not the device, in the count. Thus, Distributors would not be required to report User device counts associated with a User's display use of the data feed.
5.
6.
The MEMOIR Top feed is a MEMX-only market data feed that contains top of book quotations based on equity orders entered into the System as well as administrative messages.
1.
2.
3.
4.
• In connection with an External Distributor's distribution of the MEMOIR Top feed, the Distributor must count as one User each unique User that the Distributor has entitled to have access to the MEMOIR Top feed.
• External Distributors must report each unique individual person who receives access through multiple devices or multiple methods (
• If an External Distributor entitles one or more individuals to use the same device, the Distributor must include only the individuals, and not the device, in the count. Thus, Distributors would not be required to report User device counts associated with a User's display use of the data feed.
5.
6.
The MEMOIR Last Sale feed is a MEMX-only market data feed that contains only execution information based on equity orders entered into the System as well as administrative messages.
1.
2.
3.
4.
• In connection with an External Distributor's distribution of the MEMOIR Last Sale feed, the Distributor must count as one User each unique User that the Distributor has entitled to have access to the MEMOIR Last Sale feed.
• External Distributors must report each unique individual person who receives access through multiple devices or multiple methods (
• If an External Distributor entitles one or more individuals to use the same device, the Distributor must include only the individuals, and not the device, in the count. Thus, Distributors would not be required to report User device counts associated with a User's display use of the data feed.
5.
6.
In two years, MEMX has grown from 0% to monthly market share ranging between 3-4% of consolidated trading volume. During that same period, the Exchange has had a steady increase in the number of subscribers to Exchange Data Feeds. Until April of 2022, MEMX did not charge fees for market data provided by the Exchange. The objective of this approach was to eliminate any fee-based barriers for Members when MEMX launched as a national securities exchange in 2020, which the Exchange believes has been helpful in its ability to attract order flow as a new exchange. The Exchange also did not initially charge for market data because MEMX believes that any exchange should first deliver meaningful value to Members and other market participants before charging fees for its products and services. As discussed more fully below, the Exchange recently calculated its annual aggregate costs for providing the Exchange Data Feeds at approximately $3 million. In order to establish fees that are designed to recover the aggregate costs of providing the Exchange Data Feeds plus a reasonable mark-up, the Exchange is proposing to modify its Fee Schedule, as described above. In addition to the Cost Analysis, described below, the Exchange believes that its proposed approach to market data fees is reasonable based on a comparison to competitors.
The proposed fee structure is not novel but is instead comparable to the fee structure currently in place for the equities exchanges operated by Cboe Global Markets, Inc., in particular
The fees for the BZX Depth feed—which like the MEMOIR Depth feed, includes top of book, depth of book, trades, and security status messages—consist of an internal distributor access fee of $1,500 per month (the same as the Exchange's proposed rate), an external distributor access fee of $5,000 per month (two times the Exchange's proposed rate), a non-display usage fee for non-Trading Platforms of $2,000 per month ($500 less than the Exchange's proposed rate), a non-display usage fee for Trading Platforms of $5,000 per month ($2,500 more than the Exchange's proposed rate), a Professional User fee (per User) of $40 per month ($10 more than the Exchange's proposed rate), and a Non-Professional User fee (per User) of $5 per month ($2 more than the Exchange's proposed rate).
The comparisons of the MEMOIR Last Sale feed and MEMOIR Top feed to the BZX Last Sale feed and BZX Top feed, respectively, are similar in that BZX generally maintains the same fee structure proposed by the Exchange and BZX charges fees that are comparable to, but in most cases higher than, the Exchange's proposed fees. Notably, the User fees proposed by the Exchange for External Distributors of MEMOIR Last Sale and MEMOIR Top ($0.01 for both Professional Users and Non-Professional Users) are considerably lower than those charged by BZX for BZX Top and BZX Last Sale ($4 for Professional Users and $0.10 for Non-Professional Users).
By charging the same low rate for all Users of MEMOIR Top and MEMOIR Last Sale the Exchange believes it is proposing a structure that is not only lower cost but that will also simplify reporting for subscribers who externally distribute these data feeds to Users, as the Exchange believes that categorization of Users as Professional and Non-Professional is not meaningful for these products and requiring such categorization would expose Firms to unnecessary audit risk of paying more for mis-categorization. However, the Exchange does not believe this is equally true for MEMOIR Depth, as most individual Users of MEMOIR Depth are likely to be Professional Users and the Exchange has proposed pricing for such Users that the Exchange believes is reasonable given the value to Professional Users (
In general, the Exchange believes that exchanges, in setting fees of all types, should meet very high standards of transparency to demonstrate why each new fee or fee increase meets the Exchange Act requirements that fees be reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not create an undue burden on competition among members and markets. In particular, the Exchange believes that each exchange should take extra care to be able to demonstrate that these fees are based on its costs and reasonable business needs. Accordingly, in proposing to charge fees for market data, the Exchange has sought to be especially diligent in assessing those fees in a transparent way against its own aggregate costs of providing the related service, and also carefully and transparently assessing the
As noted above, MEMX has conducted and recently updated a study of its aggregate costs to produce the Exchange Data Feeds—the Cost Analysis. The Cost Analysis required a detailed analysis of MEMX's aggregate baseline costs, including a determination and allocation of costs for core services provided by the Exchange—transactions, market data, membership services, physical connectivity, and application sessions (which provide order entry, cancellation and modification functionality, risk functionality, ability to receive drop copies, and other functionality). MEMX separately divided its costs between those costs necessary to deliver each of these core services, including infrastructure, software, human resources (
By allocating segmented costs to each core service, MEMX was able to estimate by core service the potential margin it might earn based on different fee models. The Exchange notes that as a non-listing venue it has four primary sources of revenue that it can potentially use to fund its operations: transaction fees, fees for connectivity services, membership and regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the Exchange generally must cover its expenses from these four primary sources of revenue.
Through the Exchange's extensive Cost Analysis, which was again recently updated to focus solely on the provision of the Exchange Data Feeds, the Exchange analyzed every expense item in the Exchange's general expense ledger to determine whether each such expense relates to the provision of the Exchange Data Feeds, and, if such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports the provision of the Exchange Data Feeds, and thus bears a relationship that is, “in nature and closeness,” directly related to the Exchange Data Feeds. Based on its analysis, MEMX calculated its aggregate annual costs for providing the Exchange Data Feeds, at $3,014,348. This results in an estimated monthly cost for providing Exchange Data Feeds of $251,196. In order to cover operating costs and earn a reasonable profit on its market data, the Exchange has determined it necessary to charge fees for its proprietary data products, and, as such, the Exchange is proposing to modify its Fee Schedule, pursuant to MEMX Rules 15.1(a) and (c), as set forth above.
The following chart details the individual line-item (annual) costs considered by MEMX to be related to offering the Exchange Data Feeds to its Members and other customers as well as the percentage of the Exchange's overall costs that such costs represent for such area (
For personnel costs (Human Resources), MEMX calculated an allocation of employee time for employees whose functions include directly providing services necessary to offer the Exchange Data Feeds, including performance thereof, as well as personnel with ancillary functions
The Network Infrastructure cost includes cabling and switches required to generate and disseminate the Exchange Data Feeds. The Network Infrastructure cost was narrowly estimated by focusing on the servers used at the Exchange's primary and back-up data centers specifically for the Exchange Data Feeds. Further, as certain servers are only partially utilized to generate and disseminate the Exchange Data Feeds, only the percentage of such servers devoted to generating and disseminating the Exchange Data Feeds was included (
Data Center costs includes an allocation of the costs the Exchange incurs to provide the Exchange Data Feeds in the third-party data centers where the Exchange maintains its equipment as well as related costs (the Exchange does not own the Primary Data Center or the Secondary Data Center, but instead, leases space in data centers operated by third parties). As the Data Center costs are primarily for space, power, and cooling of servers, the Exchange applied the same percentage calculated above with respect to servers,
Hardware and Software Licenses includes hardware and software licenses used to operate and monitor physical assets necessary to offer the Exchange Data Feeds. Because the hardware and software license fees are correlated to the servers used by the Exchange, the Exchange again applied an allocation of 9.8% of its costs for Hardware and Software Licenses to the Exchange Data Feeds.
The vast majority of the software the Exchange uses with respect to its operations, including the software used to generate and disseminate the Exchange Data Feeds has been developed in-house and the cost of such development is depreciated over time. Accordingly, the Exchange included Depreciation cost related to depreciated software used to generate and disseminate the Exchange Data Feeds. The Exchange also included in the Depreciation costs certain budgeted improvements that the Exchange intends to capitalize and depreciate with respect to the Exchange Data Feeds in the near-term. As with the other allocated costs in the Exchange's updated Cost Analysis, the Depreciation cost was therefore narrowly tailored to depreciation related to the Exchange Data Feeds.
Finally, certain general shared expenses were allocated to the Exchange Data Feeds. However, contrary to its prior cost analysis, rather than taking the whole amount of general shared expenses and applying an allocated percentage, the Exchange has narrowly selected specific general shared expenses relevant to the Exchange Data Feeds. The costs included in general shared expenses allocated to the Exchange Data Feeds include office space and office expenses (
In conducting its Cost Analysis, the Exchange did not allocate any of its expenses in full to any core service and did not double-count any expenses. Instead, as described above, the Exchange identified and allocated applicable cost drivers across its core services and used the same approach to analyzing costs to form the basis of a separate proposal to adopt fees for connectivity services (the “Connectivity Filing”)
The Exchange anticipates that the proposed fees for Exchange Data Feeds will generate approximately $262,500 monthly ($3,150,000 annually) based on billing and reporting that has taken place since the Exchange commenced billing for such data feeds. The proposed fees for Exchange Data Feeds are designed to permit the Exchange to cover the costs allocated to providing Exchange Data Feeds with a mark-up that the Exchange believes is modest (approximately 4%), which the Exchange believes is fair and reasonable after taking into account the costs related to creating, generating, and disseminating the Exchange Data Feeds and the fact that the Exchange will need to fund future expenditures (increased costs, improvements, etc.). The Exchange also reiterates that prior to April of 2022 the Exchange has not previously charged any fees for Exchange Data Feeds and its allocation of costs to Exchange Data Feeds was part of a holistic allocation that also allocated costs to other core services without double-counting any expenses.
The Exchange like other exchanges is, after all, a for-profit business. Accordingly, while the Exchange believes in transparency around costs and potential margins, as well as periodic review of revenues and applicable costs (as discussed below),
As a general matter, the Exchange believes that its costs will remain relatively similar in future years. It is possible however that such costs will either decrease or increase. To the extent the Exchange sees growth in use of Exchange Data Feeds it will receive additional revenue to offset future cost increases. However, if use of Exchange Data Feeds is static or decreases, the Exchange might not realize the revenue that it anticipates or needs in order to cover applicable costs. Accordingly, the Exchange is committing to conduct a one-year review after implementation of these fees. The Exchange expects that it may propose to adjust fees at that time, to increase fees in the event that revenues fail to cover costs and a reasonable mark-up of such costs.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6(b)
The Exchange notes prior to addressing the specific reasons the Exchange believes the proposed fees and fee structure are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unreasonably discriminatory, that the proposed definitions and fee structure described above are consistent with the definitions and fee structure used by most U.S. securities exchanges, and Cboe BZX in particular. As such, the Exchange believes it is adopting a model that is easily understood by Members and non-Members, most of which also subscribe to market data products from other exchanges. For this reason, the Exchange believes that the proposed definitions and fee structure described above are consistent with the Act generally, and Section 6(b)(5)
As noted above, the Exchange's executed trading volume has grown from 0% market share to approximately 3-4% market share in two years and the Exchange believes that it is reasonable to begin charging fees for the Exchange Data Feeds. One of the primary objectives of MEMX is to provide competition and to reduce fixed costs imposed upon the industry. Consistent with this objective, the Exchange believes that this proposal reflects a simple, competitive, reasonable, and equitable pricing structure, with fees that are discounted when compared to comparable data products and services offered by competitors.
The Exchange has not determined its proposed overall market data fees based on assumptions about market competition, instead relying upon a cost-plus model to determine a reasonable fee structure that is informed by the Exchange's understanding of different uses of the products by different types of participants. In this context, the Exchange believes the proposed fees overall are fair and reasonable as a form of cost recovery plus the possibility of a reasonable return for Exchange's aggregate costs of offering the Exchange Data Feeds. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable because they are designed to generate annual revenue to recoup some or all of Exchange's annual costs of providing market data with a reasonable mark-up. As discussed in the Purpose section, the Exchange estimates this fee filing will result in annual revenue of approximately $3.15 million, representing a potential mark-up of just 4% over the cost of providing market data. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that this fee methodology is
The Exchange believes the proposed fees for the Exchange Data Feeds are reasonable when compared to fees for comparable products, such as the BZX Depth feed, BZX Top feed, and BZX Last Sale feed, compared to which the Exchange's proposed fees are generally lower, as well as other comparable data feeds priced significantly higher than the Exchange's proposed fees for the Exchange Data Feeds.
The Exchange also believes it is reasonable to charge the same low per User fee of $0.01 for both Professional Users and Non-Professional Users receiving the MEMOIR Top and MEMOIR Last Sale feeds, as this is not only pricing such data at a much lower cost than other exchanges charge for comparable data feeds
The Exchange further believes that its proposal to adopt a Digital Media Enterprise Fee for each of the Exchange Data Feeds is reasonable because it would allow a market participant that wishes to disseminate information from the Exchange Data Feeds through a digital media platform such as a public
The Exchange also believes it is reasonable to adopt an Enterprise Fee for MEMOIR Top and MEMOIR Last Sale because this would allow a market participant to disseminate such data feeds to an unlimited number of Users without the necessity of counting such Users. As this is an optional subscription, a data recipient is able to determine whether it prefers to count Users and report such Users to the Exchange or not, and also whether it is more economically advantageous to count and pay for specific Users or to subscribe to the Enterprise Fee. The Exchange also notes that given the low cost proposed per User, only a market participant with a substantial number of Users would likely choose to subscribe for and pay the Enterprise Fee. The Exchange also believes it is reasonable not to adopt an Enterprise Fee for MEMOIR Depth at this time as the Exchange does not believe there is sufficient demand for an Enterprise Fee given relatively low User counts for subscribers of MEMOIR Depth. While MEMOIR Top and MEMOIR Last Sale also currently have relatively low User counts, the Exchange does believe that there is potential demand for a market data recipient that wishes to disseminate top of book and last sale information to a large subscriber base, and thus again believes it is reasonable to offer an Enterprise Fee option for such a market data recipient.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Non-Display Usage fees for the MEMOIR Depth feed reflect the significant value of the non-display data use to data recipients, most of whom purchase such data on a voluntary basis. Non-display data can be used by data recipients for a wide variety of profit-generating purposes, including proprietary and agency trading and smart order routing, as well as by data recipients that operate Trading Platforms that compete directly with the Exchange for order flow. The data also can be used for a variety of non-trading purposes that indirectly support trading, such as risk management and compliance. Although some of these non-trading uses do not directly generate revenues, they can nonetheless substantially reduce a recipient's costs by automating such functions so that they can be carried out in a more efficient and accurate manner and reduce errors and labor costs, thereby benefiting recipients. The Exchange believes that charging for non-trading uses is reasonable because data recipients can derive substantial value from such uses, for example, by automating tasks so that can be performed more quickly and accurately and less expensively than if they were performed manually.
Previously, the non-display use data pricing policies of many exchanges required customers to count, and the exchanges to audit the count of, the number of non-display devices used by a customer. As non-display use grew more prevalent and varied, however, exchanges received an increasing number of complaints about the impracticality and administrative burden associated with that approach. In response, several exchanges developed a non-display use pricing structure that does not require non-display devices to be counted or those counts to be audited, and instead categorizes different types of use. The Exchange proposes to distinguish between non-display use for the operation of a Trading Platform and other non-display use, which is similar to exchanges such as BZX and EDGX,
The Exchange believes that it is reasonable to segment the fee for non-display use into these two categories. As noted above, the uses to which customers can put the MEMOIR Depth feed are numerous and varied, and the Exchange believes that charging separate fees for these separate categories of use is reasonable because it reflects the actual value the customer derives from the data, based upon how the customer makes use of the data.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for non-display use other than operation of a Trading Platform are reasonable. These fees are comparable to the fees charged by at least one other exchange of comparable size for a comparable data product,
The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to charge the proposed fees for non-display use for operation of a Trading Platform because the proposed fees are comparable to, and lower than, the fees charged at least one other exchange of comparable size for a comparable data product,
The proposed Non-Display Usage fees for the MEMOIR Depth feed are also reasonable because they take into account the extra value of receiving the data for Non-Display Usage that includes a rich set of information including top of book quotations, depth-of-book quotations, executions and other information. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees directly and appropriately reflect the significant value of using the MEMOIR Depth feed on a non-display basis in a wide range of computer-automated functions relating to both trading and non-trading activities and that the number and range of these functions continue to grow through innovation and technology developments.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for the Exchange Data Feeds are reasonable.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees are equitably allocated because they will apply uniformly to all data recipients that choose to subscribe to the Exchange Data Feeds. Any subscriber or vendor that chooses to subscribe to one or more Exchange Data Feeds is subject to the same Fee Schedule, regardless of what type of business they operate, and the decision to subscribe to one or more Exchange Data Feeds is based on objective differences in usage of Exchange Data Feeds among different Firms, which are still ultimately in the control of any particular Firm. The Exchange believes the proposed pricing between Exchange Data Feeds is equitably allocated because it is based, in part, upon the amount of information contained in each data feed and the value of that information to market participants. The MEMOIR Top and Last Sale data feeds, as described above, can be utilized to trade on the Exchange but contain less information than that is available on the MEMOIR Depth feed (
The Exchange also believes the proposed User fees for MEMOIR Top and MEMOIR Last Sale are equitable because the Exchange has proposed to charge Professional Users and Non-Professional Users the same low rate of $0.01 per month. In addition, the Exchange believes it is equitable to charge User fees only for External Distribution of the MEMOIR Top and MEMOIR Last Sale feeds, and not charge User fees for Internal Distribution of such market data feeds, because vendors receive additional value from being able to redistribute such data to their customers and can recoup associated expenses by passing on such fees either directly to those customers or indirectly
Finally, the Exchange believes it is equitable to adopt User fees for the Memoir Depth feed that are significantly higher than the User fees for the MEMOIR Top and MEMOIR Last Sale feeds because, as described above, MEMOIR Depth contains significantly more data than such data feeds. The Exchange believes it is equitable to have pricing based, in part, upon the amount of information contained in each data feed and the value of that information to market participants.
The Exchange further believes that its proposal to adopt a Digital Media Enterprise Fee for each of the Exchange Data Feeds is equitable because it would allow a market participant that wishes to disseminate information from the Exchange Data Feeds through a digital media platform such as a public website without determining the number of Users, which would be practically impossible. The Exchange further believes it is equitable for the Digital Media Enterprise Fee to be higher for MEMOIR Depth than MEMOIR Top or MEMOIR Last Sale because of the additional information that is contained in MEMOIR Depth, and in turn, the potential additional value to data recipients.
The Exchange also believes it is equitable to adopt an Enterprise Fee for MEMOIR Top and MEMOIR Last Sale because this would allow a market participant to disseminate such data feeds to an unlimited number of Users without the necessity of counting such Users. As this is an optional subscription, a data recipient is able to determine whether it prefers to count Users and report such Users to the Exchange or not, and also whether it is more economically advantageous to count and pay for specific Users or to subscribe to the Enterprise Fee. The Exchange also believes it is equitable not to adopt an Enterprise Fee for MEMOIR Depth at this time as the Exchange does not believe there is sufficient demand for an Enterprise Fee given relatively low User counts for subscribers of MEMOIR Depth, as described above.
The Exchange further believes that the fees for non-display use for operation of a Trading Platform and for non-display use other than operation of a Trading Platform are equitable because the Exchange is imposing the same flat fee for each category of non-display use.
The Exchange believes that it is equitable to charge a single fee per Firm rather than multiple fees for a Firm that operates more than one Trading Platform because operators of Trading Platforms are many times viewed as a single competing venue or group, even if there are multiple liquidity pools operated by the same competitor.
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for the Exchange Data Feeds are equitably allocated.
The Exchange believes the proposed fees for the Exchange Data Feeds are not unfairly discriminatory because any differences in the application of the fees are based on meaningful distinctions between customers, and those meaningful distinctions are not unfairly discriminatory between customers.
The Exchange further believes that its proposal to adopt a Digital Media Enterprise Fee for each of the Exchange Data Feeds and an Enterprise Fee for MEMOIR Top and MEMOIR Last Sale is not unfairly discriminatory because these optional alternatives to counting and paying for specific Users will provide market participants the ability to provide information from the Exchange Data Feeds to large numbers of Users without counting and paying for such Users. The Exchange also believes it is not unfairly discriminatory not to adopt an Enterprise Fee for MEMOIR Depth at this time as the Exchange does not believe there is sufficient demand for an Enterprise Fee given relatively low User counts for subscribers of MEMOIR Depth, as described above.
The Exchange further believes that the fees for non-display use for operation of a Trading Platform and for non-display use other than operation of a Trading Platform are not unreasonably discriminatory because the Exchange is imposing the same flat fee for each category of non-display use.
The Exchange believes that it is not unreasonably discriminatory to charge a single fee for an operator of Trading Platforms that operates more than one Trading Platform because operators of Trading Platforms are many times viewed as a single competing venue or group, even if there a multiple liquidity pools operated by the same competitor. The Exchange again notes that certain competitors to the Exchange charge for non-display usage per Trading Platform,
For all of the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees for the Exchange Data Feeds are not unfairly discriminatory.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed fees for Exchange Data Feeds place certain market participants at a relative disadvantage to other market participants because, as noted above, the proposed fees are associated with usage of Exchange Data Feeds by each market participant based on the type of business they operate, and the decision to subscribe to one or more Exchange Data Feeds is based on objective differences in usage of Exchange Data Feeds among different Firms, which are still ultimately in the control of any particular Firm, and such fees do not impose a barrier to entry to smaller participants. Accordingly, the proposed fees for Exchange Data Feeds do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the allocation of the proposed fees reflects the types of Exchange Data Feeds consumed by various market participants and their usage thereof.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed fees place an undue burden on competition on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate. In particular, market participants are not forced to subscribe to any of the Exchange Data Feeds, as described above. Additionally, other exchanges have similar market data fees in place for their participants, but with comparable and in many cases higher rates for market data feeds.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the
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 the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to amend the fee schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) applicable to MIAX Pearl Equities, an equities trading facility of the Exchange.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change is to amend the Exchange's Fee Schedule to: (i) reduce the Adding Liquidity Non-Displayed Order rebate in Section 1(a); (ii) increase the Removing Liquidity fee in Section 1(a); (iii) make conforming reductions to certain associated rebates and increases in certain associated fees in the Liquidity Indicator Codes and Associated Fees Table in Section 1(b); and (iv) amend the Remove Volume Tiers for executions of orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 in Section 1(d).
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 18% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading.
The Exchange proposes to reduce the standard rebate for executions of Added Non-Displayed Volume. Currently, the Exchange provides a standard rebate of ($0.0021) per share for executions of Added Non-Displayed Volume for securities priced at or above $1.00. The Exchange now proposes to reduce the standard rebate for executions of Added Non-Displayed Volume to ($0.00205) per share.
The purpose of reducing the standard rebate for executions of Added Non-Displayed Volume is for business and competitive reasons. The Exchange notes that despite the modest reduction proposed herein, the proposed standard rebate for execution of Added Non-Displayed Volume (
The Exchange also proposes to increase the standard fee charged for executions of Removed Volume. Currently, the Exchange charges a standard fee of $0.0029 per share for executions of Removed Volume in securities priced at or above $1.00. The Exchange now proposes to increase the standard fee charged for executions of Removed Volume to $0.00295 per share.
The purpose of increasing the standard fee for executions of Removed Volume is for business and competitive reasons. The Exchange notes that despite the modest increase proposed herein, the Exchange's proposed standard fee for executions of Removed Volume $0.00295 remains competitive with the standard fee to remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share charged by other equity exchanges.
In conjunction with the Exchange's proposal to (i) reduce the rebate for Non-Displayed Orders that Add Liquidity from ($0.0021) to ($0.00205), and (ii) increase the fee for Removing Liquidity from $0.0029 to $0.00295, the Exchange now proposes to update the Liquidity Indicator Codes and Associated Fees table to reflect the aforementioned changes. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to reduce certain Adding Liquidity Non-Displayed Order rebates in Section 1(b), and increase certain Removing Liquidity fees in Section 1(b). The Exchange proposes to update the liquidity indicator codes as follows:
• Liquidity indicator code Aa, Adds Liquidity, Non-Displayed Order (Tape A). The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Aa would receive a rebate of ($0.00205) per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.10% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code Ab, Adds Liquidity, Non-Displayed Order (Tape B). The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Ab would receive a rebate of ($0.00205) per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.10% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code Ac, Adds Liquidity, Non-Displayed Order (Tape C). The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Ac would receive a rebate of ($0.00205) per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.10% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code Ap, Adds Liquidity and Executes at the Midpoint, Non-Displayed Midpoint Peg Order (All Tapes). The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Ap would receive a rebate of ($0.00205) per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 or 0.10% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code Ar, Retail Order, Adds Liquidity, Non-Displayed Order (All Tapes). The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Ar would receive a rebate of ($0.00205) per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.10% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code RA, Removes Liquidity, Displayed Order (Tape A). The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code RA would be subject to a fee of $0.00295 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.20% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code RB, Removes Liquidity, Displayed Order (Tape B). The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code RB would be subject to a fee of $0.00295 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.20% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code RC, Removes Liquidity, Displayed Order (Tape C). The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code RC would be subject to a fee of $0.00295 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.20% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code RR, Retail Order, Removes Liquidity, Displayed Order (All Tapes). The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code RR would be subject to a fee of $0.00295 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.20% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code Ra, Removes Liquidity, Non-Displayed Order (Tape A). The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Ra would be subject to a fee of $0.00295 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.20% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code Rb, Removes Liquidity, Non-Displayed Order (Tape B). The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Rb would be subject to a
• Liquidity indicator code Rc, Removes Liquidity, Non-Displayed Order (Tape C). The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Rc would be subject to a fee of $0.00295 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.20% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
• Liquidity indicator code Rr, Retail Order, Removes Liquidity, Non-Displayed Order (All Tapes). The Liquidity Indicator Code and Associated Fees table would specify that orders that yield liquidity indicator code Rr would be subject to a fee of $0.00295 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 and 0.20% of the transaction's dollar value in securities priced below $1.00.
In conjunction with the Exchange's proposal to (i) reduce the rebate for Non-Displayed Orders that Add Liquidity from ($0.0021) to ($0.00205), and (ii) increase the fee for Removing Liquidity from $0.0029 to $0.00295, the Exchange also proposes to amend its volume-based tiered pricing structure applicable to the fees charged for executions of Removed Volume on the Exchange. Currently, the Exchange charges either: a fee of $0.0028 per share for executions of Removed Volume for Equity Members
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the Remove Volume Tiers table provides an incentive for Members to strive for higher ADV on the Exchange in order to qualify for the proposed lower fee for executions of Removed Volume. As such, the Remove Volume Tiers is designed to encourage Members to maintain or increase their order flow directed to the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue. The Exchange notes that the proposed fees for executions of Remove Volume applicable to Members that qualify for one of the Remove Volume Tiers (
The Exchange proposes to implement the changes to the Fee Schedule pursuant to this proposal on March 1, 2023.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange operates in a highly fragmented and competitive market in which market participants can readily direct their order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of sixteen registered equities exchanges, and there are a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues, to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than approximately 18% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading.
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue to reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to new or different pricing structures being introduced into the market. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees and rebates, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable. The Exchange believes the proposal reflects a reasonable and competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance liquidity and market quality to
The Exchange believes that the proposed reduced standard rebate for executions of Added Non-Displayed Volume ($0.00205 per share) is reasonable and appropriate because it represents a modest decrease from the current standard rebate for executions of Added Non-Displayed Volume, and remains competitive with the standard rebates provided by at least one other exchange for orders in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share that add liquidity.
The Exchange believes the proposed increased standard fee for executions of Removed Volume is reasonable and appropriate because it represents a modest increase from the current standard fee and, as noted above, remains lower than, and competitive with, the standard fee charged by several other exchanges to remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share.
The Exchange believes its proposal to decrease the rebate provided for Non-Displayed Orders that add liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 from ($0.0021) to ($0.00205) per share is reasonable and equitably allocated among all Members of the Exchange. Liquidity indicator codes Aa, Ab, Ac, Ap, and Ar are appended to orders that add non-displayed liquidity. The Exchange believes its proposal is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it will apply to all Members equally.
The Exchange believes its proposal to increase the fee applied for orders that remove liquidity in securities priced at or above $1.00 per share is reasonable and equitably allocated among all Members of the Exchange. The Exchange believes its proposal to update the Liquidity Indicator Codes and Associated Fees table to reflect the new rate of $0.00295 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 with liquidity indicator codes RA, RB, RC, RR, Ra, Rb, Rc, and Rr is equitable and reasonable because it will apply equally to all Members of the Exchange. Additionally, the Exchange believes its proposed change is reasonable as the Exchange is also proposing to amend the Remove Volume Tiers by which a Member can achieve reduced fees of $0.00285 or $0.0275 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 upon satisfying certain criteria.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the Remove Volume Tiers is reasonable because it would provide Members with an additional incentive to achieve certain volume thresholds on the Exchange. The modest increase in the fee to $0.00285 per share for executions of Removed Volume Members that qualify for Tier 1 and $0.00275 per share for Members that qualify for Tier 2 are reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory because they are open to all Members on an equal basis and provide additional benefits or discounts that are reasonably related to the value to an exchange's market quality associated with higher levels of market activity, such as higher levels of liquidity provision and the introduction of higher volumes of orders into the price and volume discovery processes. The Exchange believes the proposed change to the Remove Volume Tier is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for these same reasons, as it is open to all Members and is designed to encourage Members to maintain or increase their order flow directed to the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue. Moreover, the Exchange believes the proposed change to the Remove Volume Tiers is a reasonable means to incentivize such increased activity, as it provides two different thresholds that a Member may achieve by increasing their ADV to an amount equal to or greater than the specified TCV threshold.
For the reasons discussed above, the Exchange submits that the proposal satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act in that it provides for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges among its Members and other persons using its facilities and is not designed to unfairly discriminate between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers. As described more fully below in the Exchange's statement regarding the burden on competition, the Exchange believes that its transaction pricing is subject to significant competitive forces, and that the proposed fees and rebates described herein are appropriate to address such forces.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange believes the proposed change would encourage Members to maintain or increase their order flow to the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue. As a result, the Exchange believes the proposal would enhance its competitiveness as a market that attracts actionable orders, thereby making it a more desirable destination venue for its customers. For these reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposal furthers the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange believes that the proposed changes would incentivize market participants to direct order flow to the Exchange, thereby contributing to a deeper and more liquid market to the benefit of all market participants and enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange. Greater liquidity benefits all Members by providing more trading opportunities and encourages Members to send orders to the
The opportunity to qualify for the Remove Volume Tiers, and thus receive the proposed lower fees for executions of Removed Volume, would be available to all Members that meet the associated volume requirement in any month. The Exchange believes that meeting the volume requirement of the Remove Volume Tiers is attainable for market participants, as the Exchange believes the thresholds are relatively low and reasonably related to the enhanced liquidity and market quality that the Remove Volume Tiers is designed to promote. Similarly, the proposed increased standard fee for executions of Removed Volume would apply equally to all Members. As such, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Exchange believes its proposal will benefit competition as the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues they may participate on and direct their order flow to, including fifteen other equities exchanges and numerous alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues. As noted above, no single registered equities exchange currently has more than 18% of the total market share of executed volume of equities trading.
As described above, the proposed changes are competitive proposals through which the Exchange is seeking to encourage additional order flow to the Exchange. Such proposed changes to (i) reduce the Adding Liquidity Non-Displayed Order rebate and (ii) increase the Removing Liquidity fee are comparable to, and competitive with, rates charged by other exchanges.
Additionally, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
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.
Social Security Administration (SSA).
Notice of a modified system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, we are issuing public notice of our intent to modify an existing system of records entitled, Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income Demonstration Projects and Experiments System (60-0218), last published on January 11, 2006. This notice publishes details of the modified system as set forth below under the caption,
The system of records notice (SORN) is applicable upon its publication in today's
The public, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and Congress may comment on this publication by writing to the Executive Director, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, SSA, Room G-401 West High Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, or through the Federal e-Rulemaking Portal at
Tristin Dorsey, Government Information Specialist, Privacy Implementation Division, Office of Privacy and Disclosure, Office of the General Counsel, SSA, Room G-401 West High Rise, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235-6401, telephone: (410) 966-5855, email:
We are modifying the system of records name from “Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income Demonstration Projects and Experiments System, SSA, Deputy Commissioner for Disability Income and Security Programs” to “Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income Demonstration Projects and Experiments System.” We are modifying the system manager and location to clarify the office responsible for maintaining the system and the locations of the records within the system.
We are clarifying the categories of individuals and the purpose of the system for easier reading. We are revising the authority for maintenance of the system to add section 1106 of the Social Security Act, as amended. We are expanding the categories of records to include name; address; and education, criminal justice, and program participation records. We are also updating the record source categories to include other Federal, State, and local agencies; existing SSA systems of records; and cooperative awardees or grantees.
In addition, we are deleting routine use Nos. 1 and Nos. 2 of the previously published notice, as portions of these routine uses are no longer applicable. We are incorporating applicable portions of the deleted routine uses into two new routine uses that will permit disclosures to a congressional office, for the purpose of responding to any inquiries received and to contractors and other Federal agencies, for the purpose of assisting SSA in the efficient administration of our programs.
We are adding six additional routine uses to permit disclosures to contractors, cooperative agreement awardees, Federal, State, and local agencies, and Federal congressional support agencies for research and statistical activities; to the Office of the President, for the purpose of responding to any inquiries received; to Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and private contractors, for the safety and security of SSA employees, customers, and facilities; to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for litigation purposes; to third party contacts that may have information relevant to determining the current contact information for a project participant; and to third parties, when an individual involved with a project needs assistance to communicate because of a hearing impairment or a language barrier. We are expanding the policies and practices for retrieval of records to include case number and other identifiers such as socioeconomic, demographic, medical, and disability characteristics.
Lastly, we are clarifying the policies and practices for the retention and disposal of records to advise of the appropriate records schedules. We are modifying the notice throughout to correct miscellaneous stylistic formatting and typographical errors of the previously published notice, and to ensure the language reads consistently across multiple systems. We are republishing the entire notice for ease of reference.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), we have provided a report to OMB and Congress on this modified system of records.
Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income Demonstration Projects and Experiments System, 60-0218.
Unclassified.
Social Security Administration, Office of Retirement and Disability Policy, Office of Research, Demonstration, and Employment Support, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235.
Contractors, who maintain information on behalf of SSA—contact System Manager for contractor address information.
Social Security Administration, Deputy Commissioner for Retirement and Disability Policy, Office of Research, Demonstration, and Employment Support, 6401 Security Boulevard, Baltimore, Maryland 21235, (410) 966-5855.
Sections 222, 234, 1106, and 1110 of the Social Security Act, as amended; section 505 of the Social Security Disability Amendments of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-265); section 12101 of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99-272); section 10103 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1989 (Pub. L. 101-239); and section 5120 of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Pub. L. 101-508).
We will use the information in this system to perform and evaluate demonstrations and experiments, for the purpose of testing alternative approaches related to the prevention and reduction of dependency, or which will aid in effecting coordination of planning between private and public welfare agencies, or which will help improve the administration and effectiveness of programs carried on or assisted under the Social Security Act and related programs. This includes, but is not limited to, alternative approaches to continuing benefits eligibility during employment, and to the rehabilitation of title II (Disability Insurance (DI)) beneficiaries and individuals who apply for, or receive, title XVI (Supplemental Security Income (SSI)) payments on the basis of a disability or blindness. We will also use the information in this system for congressional reporting.
This system maintains information on participants in demonstrations or experiments, to include those in treatment and comparison groups. Individuals covered by the system include, but are not limited to, applicants, potential applicants, beneficiaries, and recipients of DI and SSI benefits, their representatives and auxiliaries, and those participating in related Federal, State, local, and other programs.
This system consists of records collected and used to conduct and evaluate demonstrations and experiments. Records may include, but are not limited to: name; address; demographic characteristics (
We obtain information in this system of records from existing SSA systems of records including, but not limited to: 60-0044, National Disability Determination Services File; 60-0058, Master Files of Social Security Number (SSN) Holders and SSN Applications; 60-0050, Completed Determination Record—Continuing Disability Determinations; 60-0059, Earnings Recording and Self-Employment Income System; 60-0089, Claims Folder System; 60-0090, Master Beneficiary Record; 60-0103, Supplemental Security Income Record and Special Veterans Benefits; 60-0094, Recovery of Overpayments, Accounting and Reporting/Debt Management System (ROAR/DMS); 60-0221, Vocational Rehabilitation Reimbursement Case Processing System; 60-0295, Ticket-to-Work and Self-Sufficiency Program Payment Database; 60-0300, Ticket-to-Work Program Manager Management Information System; 60-0320, Electronic Disability Claim File; and 60-0330, eWork.
We also obtain information from other sources including, but not limited to: other Federal, State, and local agencies; surveys; the individual to whom the record pertains; case service reports of vocational rehabilitation (VR) agencies and referral and monitoring agencies; employers; and contractors, cooperative awardees, or grantees.
We will disclose records pursuant to the following routine uses; however, we will not disclose any information defined as “return or return information” under 26 U.S.C. 6103 of the IRC, unless authorized by a statute, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), or IRS regulations.
1. To the IRS, Department of the Treasury, for the purpose of auditing SSA's compliance with the safeguard provisions of the IRC of 1986, as amended.
2. To student volunteers, individuals working under a personal services contract, and other workers who technically do not have the status of Federal employees, when they are performing work for us, as authorized by law, and they need access to personally identifiable information (PII) in our records in order to perform their assigned agency functions.
3. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) under 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
4. To the Secretary of Health and Human Services or to any State, the Commissioner shall disclose any record of information requested in writing by the Secretary, for the purpose of administering any program administered by the Secretary, if records or information of such type were so disclosed under applicable rules, regulations, and procedures in effect before the date of enactment of the Social Security Independence and Program Improvements Act of 1994.
5. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when:
(a) SSA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records;
(b) SSA has determined that, as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach, there is a risk of harm to individuals, SSA (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and
(c) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is
6. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when we determine that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in:
(a) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or
(b) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
7. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of the record or third party acting on the subject's behalf.
8. To contractors and other Federal agencies, as necessary, for the purpose of assisting SSA in the efficient administration of its programs. We will disclose information under this routine use only in situations in which SSA may enter into a contractual or similar agreement to obtain assistance in accomplishing an SSA function relating to this system of records.
9. To contractors, cooperative agreement awardees, State agencies, Federal agencies, and Federal congressional support agencies for research and statistical activities that are designed to increase knowledge about present or alternative Social Security programs; are of importance to the Social Security program or beneficiaries; or are for an epidemiological project that relates to the Social Security program or beneficiaries. We will disclose information under this routine use pursuant only to a written agreement between the organization or agency and SSA.
10. To the Office of the President, in response to an inquiry received from that office made on behalf of, and at the request of, the subject of record or a third party acting on the subject's behalf.
11. To Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies and private security contractors, as appropriate, information necessary:
(a) to enable them to protect the safety of SSA employees and customers, the security of our workplace and the operation of our facilities, or
(b) to assist investigations or prosecutions with respect to activities that affect such safety and security or activities that disrupt the operation of our facilities.
12. To DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before such court or tribunal, when:
(a) SSA, or any component thereof; or
(b) any SSA employee in their official capacity; or
(c) any SSA employee in their individual capacity where DOJ (or SSA where it is authorized to do so) has agreed to represent the employee; or
(d) the United States or any agency thereof, where SSA determines the litigation is likely to affect SSA or any of its components, is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and we determine that the use of such records by DOJ, a court or other tribunal, or another party before the tribunal, is relevant and necessary to the litigation, provided, however, that in each case, we determine that such disclosure is compatible with the purpose for which the records were collected.
13. To third party contacts that may have information relevant to determining the current contact information for a project participant, when the agency has been unsuccessful in establishing contact.
14. To third parties, when an individual involved with a project needs assistance to communicate because of a hearing impairment or a language barrier exists (
We will maintain records in this system in paper form and in electronic form.
We will retrieve records in this system by case number or SSN. We will also retrieve records by other identifiers such as name; date of birth; address; sex; and geographic, socioeconomic, demographic, medical, and disability characteristics, as possible in specific file structures for individual projects.
In accordance with NARA rules codified at 36 CFR 1225.16, we maintain records in accordance with the applicable sections of the approved agency-specific records schedule, N1-047-09-05, Supplemental Security Income Record, and approved NARA General Records Schedule (GRS) 4.2, item 130 and GRS 5.2, item 020.
We retain electronic and paper files with personal identifiers in secure storage areas accessible only by our authorized employees and contractors who have a need for the information when performing their official duties. Security measures include the use of codes and profiles, personal identification numbers and passwords, and personal identification verification cards. We keep paper records in locked cabinets within secure areas, with access limited to only those employees who have an official need for access in order to perform their duties. To the maximum extent consistent with the approved research needs, we purge personal identifiers from micro-data files prepared for purposes of research and subject these files to procedural safeguards to assure anonymity.
We annually provide our employees and contractors with appropriate security awareness training that includes reminders about the need to protect PII and the criminal penalties that apply to unauthorized access to, or disclosure of, PII (5 U.S.C. 552a(i)(1)). Furthermore, employees and contractors with access to databases maintaining PII must sign a sanctions document annually, acknowledging their accountability for inappropriately accessing or disclosing such information.
Individuals may submit requests for notification of, or access to, information about them contained in this system by submitting a written request to the system manager at the above address, which includes their name, SSN, or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them. Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, a record by mail must include (1) a notarized statement to verify their identity or (2) must certify in the request that they are the individual they claim to be and that they understand that the knowing and willful request for, or acquisition of, a record pertaining to another individual under false pretenses is a criminal offense.
Individuals requesting notification of, or access to, records may also make an in-person request by providing their name, SSN, or other information that may be in this system of records that will identify them, as well as provide an identifying document, preferably with a photograph, such as a driver's license. Individuals lacking identification documents sufficient to establish their identity must certify in writing that they
Same as record access procedures. Individuals should also reasonably identify the record, specify the information they are contesting, and state the corrective action sought and the reasons for the correction with supporting justification showing how the record is incomplete, untimely, inaccurate, or irrelevant. These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.65(a).
Same as record access procedures. These procedures are in accordance with our regulations at 20 CFR 401.40 and 401.45.
None.
71 FR 1836, Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income Demonstration Projects and Experiments System.
72 FR 69723, Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income Demonstration Projects and Experiments System.
83 FR 54969, Disability Insurance and Supplemental Security Income Demonstration Projects and Experiments System.
The U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy (ACPD) will hold an in-person public meeting on “The Role of Public Diplomacy in Democracy Promotion” with online (Zoom) access on Thursday, April 13, 2023, from 11:00 a.m. until 12:15 p.m. PT (2:00 p.m. until 3:15 p.m. ET). During the meeting, a distinguished panel of experts, including Larry Diamond, Michael McFaul, and Kathryn Stoner, will discuss how USG public diplomacy programs can most effectively promote and defend democratic values in an increasingly authoritarian and illiberal global context.
This meeting is open to the public, including the media and members and staff of governmental and non-governmental organizations. The event will take place at the Philippines Conference Room, Encina Hall, Third Floor, Central, C330, 616 Jane Stanford Way, Stanford, CA 94305, Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law, Stanford University. Please register for the event at
To request reasonable accommodation, please email ACPD Program Assistant Kristy Zamary at
Since 1948, the ACPD has been charged with appraising activities intended to understand, inform, and influence foreign publics and to increase the understanding of, and support for, these same activities. The ACPD conducts research that provides honest assessments of public diplomacy efforts, and disseminates findings through reports, white papers, and other publications. It also holds public symposiums that generate informed discussions on public diplomacy issues and events. The Commission reports to the President, Secretary of State, and Congress and is supported by the Office of the Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs.
For more information on the U.S. Advisory Commission on Public Diplomacy, please visit
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice and request for comments.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its intent to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of the collection of Rail Depreciation Studies, described below.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by May 16, 2023.
Direct all comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001, or to
Comments are requested concerning each collection as to (1) whether the particular collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) 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, when appropriate. Submitted comments will be included and summarized in the Board's request for OMB approval.
Under the PRA, a Federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), Federal agencies are required to provide, prior to an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 60-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Information from certain schedules contained in these reports is available at the Board's website at
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice and request for comments.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its intent to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the extension (without change) of the collections required by statute for rail or water carrier equipment liens (recordations), water carrier tariffs, and rail agricultural contract summaries, as described in more detail below.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by May 16, 2023.
Direct all comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001, or to
Comments are requested concerning each collection as to (1) whether the particular collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) 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, when appropriate. Submitted comments will be included and summarized in the Board's request for OMB approval.
The Board makes this submission because, under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), federal agencies are required to provide, prior to an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 60-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice and request for comments.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its intent to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of the collection of system diagram maps, described below.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by May 16, 2023.
Direct all comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001, or to
Comments are requested concerning each collection as to (1) whether the particular collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) 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, when appropriate. Submitted comments will be included and summarized in the Board's request for OMB approval.
The Board makes this submission because, under the PRA, a federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), federal agencies are required to provide, prior to an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 60-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice and request for comments.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Surface Transportation Board (STB or Board) gives notice of its intent to seek approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for an extension of the collection of Arbitration “Opt-in” Notices, described below.
Comments on this information collection should be submitted by May 16, 2023.
Direct all comments to Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001, or to
Comments are requested concerning each collection as to (1) whether the particular collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Board, including whether the collection has practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the Board's burden estimates; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information collected; and (4) 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, when appropriate. Submitted comments will be included and summarized in the Board's request for OMB approval.
The Board makes this submission because, under the PRA, a Federal agency that conducts or sponsors a collection of information must display a currently valid OMB control number. A collection of information, which is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c), includes agency requirements that persons submit reports, keep records, or provide information to the agency, third parties, or the public. Under 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A), Federal agencies are required to provide, prior to an agency's submitting a collection to OMB for approval, a 60-day notice and comment period through publication in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice contains a summary of a petition seeking relief from specified requirements of Federal Aviation Regulations. The purpose of this notice is to improve the public's awareness of, and participation in, the FAA's exemption process. Neither publication of this notice nor the inclusion nor omission of information in the summary is intended to affect the legal status of the petition or its final disposition.
Comments on this petition must identify the petition docket number and must be received on or before April 6, 2023.
Send comments identified by docket number FAA-2022-1186 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Nia Daniels, (202) 267-7626, Office of Rulemaking, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591.
This notice is published pursuant to 14 CFR 11.85.
Issued in Washington, DC.
Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to waive aeronautical land use assurance.
The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on a proposal from the Durango-La Plata County Airport, Aviation Director to change a portion of the airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use at Durango-La Plata County Airport, Durango, Colorado. The proposal involves a parcel of airport property on the Southeast side of the airfield.
Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication of this notice in the
Mr. Tony Vicari, Aviation Director, Durango-La Plata County Airport, 1000 Airport Road, Durango, CO 81303,
The FAA invites public comment on the request to change a portion of the airport from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use under the provisions of title 49, U.S.C. 47153(c), and 47107(h)(2). The proposal consists of 25.29 acres located South of County Road 309A. The land is currently identified as non-aeronautical use on the Airport Layout Plan (ALP), although no formal release from aeronautical obligations was previously granted. This section of Parcel Q is separated from the majority of airport property by County Road 309A. The FAA concurs that the parcel is no longer needed for airport purposes. The proposed use of this property is compatible with existing airport operations in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, as published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the Research, Engineering, and Development Advisory Committee (REDAC).
The meeting will be held on April 12, 2023, from 9:30 a.m.-4 p.m. EST.
Requests for accommodations for a disability must be received by March 28, 2023. Individuals requesting to speak during the meeting must submit a written copy of their remarks to DOT by March 28, 2023. Requests to submit written materials to be reviewed during the meeting must be received no later than March 28, 2023.
The meeting will be held in a hybrid setting to permit virtual participation. Virtual attendance information will be provided upon registration. The meeting will be held at the Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591. A detailed agenda will be available on the REDAC internet website at
Chinita Roundtree-Coleman, REDAC PM/Lead, FAA/U.S. Department of Transportation, at
The REDAC was created under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, in accordance with Public Law (Pub. L.) 100-591 (1988) and Public Law 101-508 (1990), to provide advice and recommendations to the FAA Administrator in support of the Agency's Research and Development (R&D) portfolio.
At the meeting, the agenda will cover the following topics:
DOT is committed to providing equal access to this meeting for all participants. If you need alternative formats or services because of a disability, such as sign language, interpretation, or other ancillary aids, please contact the person listed in the
There will be 45 minutes allotted for oral comments from members of the public joining the meeting. To accommodate as many speakers as possible, the time for each commenter may be limited. Individuals wishing to reserve speaking time during the meeting must submit a request at the time of registration, as well as the name, address, and organizational affiliation of the proposed speaker. If the number of registrants requesting to make statements is greater than can be reasonably accommodated during the meeting, the FAA may conduct a lottery to determine the speakers. Speakers are asked to submit a written copy of their prepared remarks for inclusion in the meeting records and for circulation to REDAC members before the deadline listed in the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice; request for comments.
The FHWA is seeking comments on its existing general applicability waiver for manufactured products under its Buy America waiver authorities. Following review and consideration of comments, FHWA will publish a determination on whether to continue, discontinue, or otherwise modify the waiver and will consider other actions related to the implementation of Buy America requirements for manufactured products.
Comments must be received by April 17, 2023.
Please submit your comments to the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
For questions about this notice, please contact Mr. Brian Hogge, FHWA Office of Infrastructure, 202-366-1562, or via email at
A copy of this notice, all comments received on this notice, and all background material may be viewed online at
Confidential Business Information (CBI) is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this notice contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this notice, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. You may ask FHWA to give confidential treatment to information you give to the Agency by taking the following steps: (1) Mark each page of the original document submission containing CBI as “Confidential”; (2) send FHWA, along with the original document, a second copy of the original document with the CBI deleted; and (3) explain why the information you are submitting is CBI. FHWA will protect confidential information complying with these requirements to the extent required under applicable law. If DOT receives a FOIA request for the information that the applicant has marked in accordance with this notice, DOT will follow the procedures described in its FOIA regulations at 49 CFR 7.29. Only information that is marked in accordance with this notice and ultimately determined to be exempt from disclosure under FOIA and § 7.29 will not be released to a requester or placed in the public docket of this notice. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to: Mr. Brian Hogge, FHWA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, HICP-20, Washington, DC 20590. Any comment submissions that FHWA receives that are not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this matter.
FHWA encourages commenters to share all information responsive to the questions below, including confidential information. Doing so will allow FHWA to have a complete picture of the effects of continuing, discontinuing, or modifying the existing general applicability waiver for manufactured products. Submitting information on domestic production or plans to increase domestic production will ensure that FHWA can make informed decisions to protect domestic manufacturers' investments from international competition.
In January 2021, President Biden issued Executive Order (E.O.) 14005, titled Ensuring the Future is Made in All of America by All of America's Workers (86 FR 7475, Jan. 28, 2021). The E.O. sets forth a policy that Agencies should, consistent with applicable law, maximize the use of goods, products, and materials produced in, and services offered in, the United States. The E.O. helps promote private sector investment in the production of goods critical to our national security and economic stability. As we bolster domestic supply chains, we create jobs, strengthen our manufacturing sector, and create economic opportunities for more of America's small businesses. FHWA is committed to ensuring strong and effective Buy America implementation consistent with E.O. 14005.
On November 15, 2021, the President signed into law the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL), enacted as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), (Pub. L. 117-58). The BIL includes the Build America, Buy America Act (“BABA”), which expands the coverage and application of Buy America preferences in Federal financial assistance programs for infrastructure. BIL, div. G §§ 70901-27.
BABA requires that iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials made available for a Federal financial assistance program for infrastructure be produced in the United States. BABA § 70914. However, BABA provides that the preferences under Section 70914 apply only to the extent that a domestic content procurement preference as described in Section 70914 does not already apply to iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials. BABA § 70917(a)-(b). By statute at 23 U.S.C. 313, as discussed below, FHWA has existing Buy America domestic content preferences for steel, iron, and manufactured products.
In the case of manufactured products, the statute defines “produced in the United States” to mean that:
(i) the manufactured product was manufactured in the United States; and (ii) the cost of the components of the
In addition, BABA expresses a general policy preference against general applicability waivers. For example, Section 70913(c) of BABA requires Federal Agencies to identify “deficient programs” for financial assistance, including programs that are “subject to a waiver of general applicability not limited to the use of specific products for use in a specific project.” BABA § 70913(c)(2). Section 70914(d) also requires Federal Agencies to review existing general applicability waivers of Buy America requirements by publishing in the
Following the initial notice and review and consideration of comments received, the Agency must publish in the
Section 313(a) of title 23, U.S.C. requires that all steel, iron, and manufactured products used in FHWA-funded projects be produced in the United States. Under 23 U.S.C. 313(b) and its implementing regulation at 23 CFR 635.410(c), FHWA can waive the application of this requirement if their application would be inconsistent with the public interest, or if products are not produced in the United States in sufficient and reasonably available quantities and of a satisfactory quality.
For all predominantly steel or iron materials, products, or components delivered to a project site for permanent incorporation into a highway project using Title 23, U.S.C. funds, all manufacturing processes, including application of a coating, must occur in the U.S.
In general, FHWA will consider a Buy America waiver only when the conditions of 23 U.S.C. 313(b) and Section 70914(b) of BABA have been met. Section 635.410(c) of Title 23 CFR establishes FHWA's process for consideration of waivers under 23 U.S.C. 313(b). Section 70914(d) of BABA, described above, also sets forth a process for Federal Agencies to review existing general applicability waivers of Buy America requirements. This notice is being issued pursuant to the requirement in Section 70914(d) of BABA that Agencies review general applicability waivers, and in accordance with the process set forth therein. The general applicability waiver being reviewed here is the existing Manufactured Products General Waiver.
FHWA's Buy America requirements for the Federal-aid highway program were first established in 1978 through Section 401 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (1978 STAA), Public Law 95-599 (1978). In 1982, these requirements were modified by Section 165 of the Surface Transportation Assistance Act (1983 STAA), Public Law 97-424 (1983), which provides the basic statutory language for FHWA's current Buy America requirements.
Following the 1978 STAA, FHWA issued an emergency rule to implement the Buy America requirement. Simultaneously, FHWA granted a general waiver for manufactured products. At the time, FHWA explained that foreign structural steel was the only commodity having a significant nationwide effect on the cost of Federal-aid highway construction projects. While natural materials (such as sand, stone, gravel, and earth materials) and petroleum-based products (such as fuels, lubricants, and bituminous
In 1983, following passage of the 1983 STAA, FHWA reaffirmed that it continued to be in the public interest to waive the Buy America requirements for manufactured products.
On July 10, 2013, FHWA published a request for comments in the
• Has the nature of the Federal-aid highway program and the U.S. steel/iron manufacturing industry changed to such a degree that FHWA needs to reconsider its criteria for applying Buy America requirements to manufactured products?
• Are there specific or general types of manufactured products that should not be covered by a public interest waiver and why?
• Are there specific issues that should be considered for manufactured products that include steel or iron components and subcomponents?
FHWA received 81 comments in response to the 2013 RFC. FHWA generally received supportive comments on the continued need for the Manufactured Products General Waiver. Many of the adverse comments FHWA received centered on a 2012 guidance memorandum on steel and iron manufactured products, which FHWA rescinded in December of 2015.
FHWA's Buy America statute at 23 U.S.C. 313(a) and Section 70914(a) of BABA both require that manufactured products used in federally assisted projects be produced in the United States. As described above, Section 70912(6)(B) of BABA additionally defines the term “produced in the United States” to mean that the manufactured product was manufactured in the United States and that the cost of the product's domestically produced components exceeds 55 percent of the total cost of all components. Section 313 of Title 23, however, does not provide a similar definition for the term “produced in the United States,” and FHWA has not promulgated such a definition for manufactured products through regulation.
FHWA also does not currently have a standard for determining the cost of components of a manufactured product. One such potential standard that could be considered for adoption by FHWA is the definition provided at 48 CFR 25.003 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR).
Another issue to consider is how the applicable standards for domestic content in manufactured products would apply to the steel and iron components of those products. Under FHWA's existing practice for iron and steel, Buy America requirements apply to any predominantly steel or iron component of a manufactured product regardless of the overall composition of the product.
Through this notice, FHWA is soliciting information and suggestions from the public and a broad array of stakeholders across public and private sectors regarding whether it should continue, discontinue, or modify, in whole or in part, the Manufactured Products General Waiver. FHWA is also soliciting information on other issues related to the application of Buy America requirements to manufactured products used in Federal-aid highway projects.
In answering the questions below, please also explain the impacts of your suggested course of action for FHWA on administering and delivering Federal-aid highway projects and on supporting domestic manufacturing and jobs.
1. Does the justification that was used by FHWA in granting the General Waiver in 1983 still apply? Specifically, is FHWA's approach to the application of Buy America requirements to manufactured products still appropriate, considering the enactment of the BABA, and standards established therein?
2. What systems or processes do funding recipients, contractors, and manufacturers have to manage compliance with Buy America requirements?
3. With respect to domestic manufacturers of products procured using FHWA financial assistance, please provide information regarding the volume of products procured through FHWA financial assistance.
4. With respect to domestic manufacturers of products previously procured or expected to be procured using FHWA financial assistance, do you expect to expand your domestic manufacturing based on the increase in demand created by recent Federal investments? If so, by how much and over what time period? If applicable, what is the timeline to bring online additional capacity compliant with BABA?
5. Are there specific types of manufactured products that are widely used on Federal-aid highway projects for which a large portion of the components are known to not be produced in the United States or not produced in sufficient quantities? If so, what are those components, what manufacturer produces them, and where are they primarily produced? What are the obstacles to having those components produced in the United States? Please provide data to support your comment.
6. Should FHWA consider defining the term “produced in the United States” for manufactured products via rulemaking? If so, should it consider adopting the definition for the same term that is used in Section 70912(6)(B)
7. With respect to domestic manufacturers of products previously procured or expected to be procured using FHWA financial assistance, are your products “produced in the United States” as defined by Section 70912(6)(B) of BABA? In other words, are your manufactured products manufactured in the United States and the cost of the components of the manufactured product that are mined, produced, or manufactured in the United States is greater than 55 percent of the total cost of all components of the manufactured product?
8. If FHWA were to adopt a definition for manufactured products produced in the U.S., should it consider also defining what it means for a manufactured product to be manufactured in the U.S.? If so, what manufacturing processes or assembly steps should be required to occur domestically? Should the requirement vary by product or product type?
9. Federal financial assistance from FHWA may support the procurement of “rolling stock.” For example, States and local governments may seek to purchase certain electric vehicles under the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program.
10. Are there specific issues that should be considered for manufactured products that include steel or iron components?
11. Should FHWA define the meaning of a “predominantly” steel and iron product? Why or why not? For example, could this help to distinguish between manufactured products and steel and iron products, for the purpose of applying Buy America requirements?
12. If FHWA adopts a definition for manufactured products produced in the U.S. similar to that used in Section 70912(6)(B) of BABA how should that definition be applied to predominantly iron or steel components of manufactured products?
FHWA will consider comments received in the 30-day comment period in determining whether to continue, discontinue, or modify the current Manufactured Products General Waiver, or to consider other actions related to the implementation of Buy America requirements for manufactured products. Comments received after this period will be considered to the extent practicable.
Issued in Washington, DC, under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.85.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
This notice announces final environmental actions taken by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) that are final for the Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project, Livingston Avenue Bridge Replacement Project, and the Aberdeen Carolina & Western Railway Congestion Mitigation Project. The purpose of this notice is to advise the public of the time limit to file any claims that may challenge these decisions and other Federal permits, licenses, and approvals for the Projects.
A claim seeking judicial review of Federal agency actions for the listed rail transportation projects will be barred unless the claim is filed on or before March 17, 2025. If the Federal law that authorizes judicial review of a claim provides a time period of less than two years for filing such claim, then the shorter time period applies.
For further information related to this notice, please contact Pauline Munz, Attorney-Adviser, Office of the Chief Counsel, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, W31-228, Washington, DC 20590; telephone: 202-493-0558 or email:
Notice is given that FRA has taken final agency action(s) by issuing certain approvals for the rail transportation project(s) listed below. The actions on the projects, as well as the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the documentation issued for the projects to comply with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and related environmental laws.
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions on the listed project(s) as of the issuance date of this notice and all Federal laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to, NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321-4375); section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. 303); section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108); the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q); the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531-1544); the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251) and relevant Executive Orders (E.O.) including, E.O. 11990 Protection of Wetlands, E.O. 11988 Floodplain Management, E.O. 13112 Invasive Species, E.O. Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations, and E.O. 13175 Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. This notice does not, however, alter or extend a shorter limitation period that may exist for challenges of project decisions covered by this notice. The projects that are the subject of this notice follow.
FRA issued the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on June 11, 2021, and the public comment period occurred between June 11, 2021 and July 26, 2021. FRA issued a combined Final EIS and Record of Decision on November 22, 2021.
FRA issued the Draft Environmental Assessment (EA) for the Project on May 9, 2022, and the public comment period occurred between May 9 and June 15, 2022. FRA issued a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) on October 31, 2022.
FRA issued the Draft EA on July 29, 2022, and the public comment period occurred between July 29 and August 31, 2022. FRA issued a FONSI on September 30, 2022.
The Surface Transportation Board's Office of Environmental Analysis (OEA) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) jointly issued the Draft EA on November 30, 2018, with FRA serving as a cooperating agency, and the public comment period occurred between November 30 and December 30, 2018. A Final EA was issued by OEA and USACE on April 30, 2019. FRA issued a FONSI on January 3, 2023.
The purpose of the PRCIP is to help determine future transportation investments of vital importance to all people who live, work, and travel in the Atlanta to Charlotte corridor.
FRA issued the draft Tier I environmental impact statement (EIS) on September 20, 2019, and the public comment period occurred between September 20, 2019 and November 4, 2019. FRA issued a combined Final EIS and Record of Decision on June 30, 2021.
In August 2016, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), prepared an EA for the project. FRA was a Cooperating Agency in the development of the EA. FRA approved its own FONSI for the Project on April 28, 2022.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form
Written comments should be received on or before May 16, 2023 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andrés Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Ronald J. Durbala, at (202) 317-5746, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. Currently, the IRS is soliciting comments concerning Form 8316,
Written comments should be received on or before May 16, 2023 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andrés Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of the form and instructions should be directed to Ronald J. Durbala, at (202) 317-5746, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number.
Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained if their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
• Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the ICR for OMB approval of the extension of the information collection; they will also become a matter of public record.
Veterans Benefits Administration; Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Written comments and recommendations on the proposed collection of information should be received on or before May 16, 2023.
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 266-4688 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of VBA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of VBA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or the use of other forms of information technology.
By direction of the Secretary.
(b) The Secretary of Defense; the Attorney General; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Secretary of Health and Human Services, including through the Surgeon General of the United States; the Secretary of Education; and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs shall expand existing Federal campaigns and other efforts to promote safe storage of firearms.
(c) The Secretary of Defense; the Attorney General; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Secretary of Health and Human Services, including through the Surgeon General of the United States; and the Secretary of Education shall undertake efforts to encourage effective use of extreme risk protection orders (“red flag” laws), partnering with law enforcement, health care providers, educators, and other community leaders.
(d) The Attorney General; the Secretary of Health and Human Services, including through the Surgeon General of the United States; the Secretary of Education; the Secretary of Homeland Security; the Director of the Office of Management and Budget; and the heads of other agencies, as appropriate, shall develop a proposal for the President, and submit it no later than September 15, 2023, on how the Federal Government can better support the recovery, mental health, and other needs of survivors of gun violence, families of victims and survivors of gun violence, first responders to incidents of gun violence, and communities affected by gun violence. The proposal should draw on existing evidence, where available, and take into account how to address needs in both the immediate aftermath of mass shootings and in the years following such events. The proposal should recommend any additional executive branch coordination and additional resources or authorities from the Congress needed to implement the proposal, as well as how agencies will assess the outcomes for the activities implemented.
(e) The Secretary of Defense, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security, shall develop and implement principles to further firearm and public safety practices through the Department of Defense's acquisition of firearms, consistent with applicable law.
(f) The heads of Federal law enforcement agencies shall, as soon as practicable, but no later than 180 days from the date of this order, ensure that their respective law enforcement components issue National Integrated Ballistic Information Network (NIBIN) submission and utilization policies with requirements that are equivalent to, or exceed, the requirements of the policy issued by the Department of Justice on December 12, 2022, to ensure the prompt entry of ballistics data recovered in connection with criminal investigations into NIBIN. In consultation with the Department of Justice, the Department of Defense policies may be tailored to address specific operational considerations.
(g) The Secretary of Transportation, in consultation with the Department of Justice, shall work to reduce the loss or theft of firearms during shipment between FFLs and to improve reporting of such losses or thefts, including by engaging with carriers and shippers.
(h) The Federal Trade Commission is encouraged to issue a public report analyzing how gun manufacturers market firearms to minors and how such manufacturers market firearms to civilians, including through the use of military imagery.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.