Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
The U.S. Codex Office
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Federal Emergency Management Agency
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Land Management Bureau
National Indian Gaming Commission
Ocean Energy Management Bureau
Labor Statistics Bureau
Mine Safety and Health Administration
Institute of Museum and Library Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
United States Mint
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule establishes, amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPS) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure procedures (ODPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective November 9, 2023. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 9, 2023.
Availability of matters incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30. 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone (405) 954-1139.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by establishing, amending, suspending, or removes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPS. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP and its associated Takeoff Minimums or ODP for an identified airport is listed on FAA form documents which are incorporated by reference in this amendment under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The applicable FAA Forms 8260-3, 8260-4, 8260-5, 8260-15A, 8260-15B, when required by an entry on 8260-15A, and 8260-15C.
The large number of SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPS, Takeoff Minimums and/or ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP, Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. Some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and textual ODP amendments may have been issued previously by the FAA in a Flight Data Center (FDC) Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) as an emergency action of immediate flights safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for some SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments may require making them effective in less than 30 days. For the remaining SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, an effective date at least 30 days after publication is provided.
Further, the SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs contained in this amendment are based on the criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied to the conditions existing or anticipated at the affected airports. Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by establishing, amending, suspending, or removing Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and/or Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This rule amends, suspends, or removes Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) and associated Takeoff Minimums and Obstacle Departure Procedures for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of the adoption of new or revised criteria, or because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, adding new obstacles, or changing air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide for the safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.
This rule is effective November 9, 2023. The compliance date for each SIAP, associated Takeoff Minimums, and ODP is specified in the amendatory provisions.
The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in the regulations is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of November 9, 2023.
Availability of matter incorporated by reference in the amendment is as follows:
1. U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket Ops-M30, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, West Bldg., Ground Floor, Washington, DC 20590-0001;
2. The FAA Air Traffic Organization Service Area in which the affected airport is located;
3. The office of Aeronautical Information Services, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., Oklahoma City, OK 73169 or,
4. The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email
All SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs are available online free of charge. Visit the National Flight Data Center online at
Thomas J. Nichols, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, Flight Technologies and Procedures Division, Flight Standards Service, Federal Aviation Administration. Mailing Address: FAA Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center, Flight Procedures and Airspace Group, 6500 South MacArthur Blvd., STB Annex, Bldg. 26, Room 217, Oklahoma City, OK 73099. Telephone: (405) 954-1139.
This rule amends 14 CFR part 97 by amending the referenced SIAPs. The complete regulatory description of each SIAP is listed on the appropriate FAA Form 8260, as modified by the National Flight Data Center (NFDC)/Permanent Notice to Airmen (P-NOTAM), and is incorporated by reference under 5 U.S.C. 552(a), 1 CFR part 51, and 14 CFR 97.20. The large number of SIAPs, their complex nature, and the need for a special format make their verbatim publication in the
The material incorporated by reference is publicly available as listed in the
The material incorporated by reference describes SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs as identified in the amendatory language for part 97 of this final rule.
This amendment to 14 CFR part 97 is effective upon publication of each separate SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as amended in the transmittal. For safety and timeliness of change considerations, this amendment incorporates only specific changes contained for each SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP as modified by FDC permanent NOTAMs.
The SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, as modified by FDC permanent NOTAM, and contained in this amendment are based on criteria contained in the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). In developing these changes to SIAPs and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, the TERPS criteria were applied only to specific conditions existing at the affected airports. All SIAP amendments in this rule have been previously issued by the FAA in a FDC NOTAM as an emergency action of immediate flight safety relating directly to published aeronautical charts.
The circumstances that created the need for these SIAP and Takeoff Minimums and ODP amendments require making them effective in less than 30 days.
Because of the close and immediate relationship between these SIAPs, Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, and safety in air commerce, I find that notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are impracticable and contrary to the public interest and, where applicable, under 5 U.S.C. 553(d), good cause exists for making these SIAPs effective in less than 30 days.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore—(1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. For the same reason, the FAA certifies that this amendment will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air Traffic Control, Airports, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, 14 CFR part 97 is amended by amending Standard Instrument Approach Procedures and Takeoff Minimums and ODPs, effective at 0901 UTC on the dates specified, as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40106, 40113, 40114, 40120, 44502, 44514, 44701, 44719, 44721-44722.
By amending: § 97.23 VOR, VOR/DME, VOR or TACAN, and VOR/DME or TACAN; § 97.25 LOC, LOC/DME, LDA, LDA/DME, SDF, SDF/DME; § 97.27 NDB, NDB/DME; § 97.29 ILS, ILS/DME, MLS, MLS/DME, MLS/RNAV; § 97.31 RADAR SIAPs; § 97.33 RNAV SIAPs; and § 97.35 COPTER SIAPs, Identified as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final amendment; final order.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is classifying the container system for the processing and storage of Red Blood Cell components under reduced oxygen conditions into class II (special controls). The special controls that apply to the device type are identified in this order and will be part of the codified language for the classification of the container system for the processing and storage of Red Blood Cell components under reduced oxygen conditions. We are taking this action because we have determined that classifying the device into class II (special controls) will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness of the device. We believe this action will also enhance patients' access to beneficial innovative devices.
This order is effective November 9, 2023. The classification was applicable on September 15, 2023.
Karen Fikes, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7911.
Upon request, FDA has classified the container system for the processing and storage of Red Blood Cell components under reduced oxygen conditions as class II (special controls), which we have determined will provide a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. The automatic assignment of class III occurs by operation of law and without any action by FDA, regardless of the level of risk posed by the new device. Any device that was not in commercial distribution before May 28, 1976, is automatically classified as, and remains within, class III and requires premarket approval unless and until FDA takes an action to classify or reclassify the device (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(f)(1)). We refer to these devices as “postamendments devices” because they were not in commercial distribution prior to the date of enactment of the Medical Device Amendments of 1976, which amended the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act).
FDA may take a variety of actions in appropriate circumstances to classify or reclassify a device into class I or II. We may issue an order finding a new device to be substantially equivalent under section 513(i) of the FD&C Act (see 21 U.S.C. 360c(i)) to a predicate device that does not require premarket approval. We determine whether a new device is substantially equivalent to a predicate device by means of the procedures for premarket notification under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360(k)) and part 807 (21 CFR part 807).
FDA may also classify a device through “De Novo” classification, a common name for the process authorized under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act; (see also 21 CFR part 860, subpart D). Section 207 of the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (Pub. L. 105-115) established the first procedure for De Novo classification. Section 607 of the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (Pub. L. 112-144) modified the De Novo application process by adding a second procedure. A device sponsor may utilize either procedure for De Novo classification.
Under the first procedure, the person submits a 510(k) for a device that has not previously been classified. After receiving an order from FDA classifying the device into class III under section 513(f)(1) of the FD&C Act, the person then requests a classification under section 513(f)(2).
Under the second procedure, rather than first submitting a 510(k) and then a request for classification, if the person determines that there is no legally marketed device upon which to base a determination of substantial equivalence, that person requests a classification under section 513(f)(2) of the FD&C Act.
Under either procedure for De Novo classification, FDA is required to classify the device by written order within 120 days. The classification will be according to the criteria under section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act. Although the device was automatically placed within class III, the De Novo classification is considered to be the initial classification of the device.
When FDA classifies a device into class I or II via the De Novo process, the device can serve as a predicate for future devices of that type, including for 510(k)s (see section 513(f)(2)(B)(i) of the FD&C Act). As a result, other device sponsors do not have to submit a De Novo request or premarket approval application to market a substantially equivalent device (see section 513(i) of the FD&C Act, defining “substantial equivalence”). Instead, sponsors can use the 510(k) process, when necessary, to market their device.
On January 5, 2022, FDA received Hemanext, Inc.'s request for De Novo classification of the Hemanext One. FDA reviewed the request in order to classify the device under the criteria for classification set forth in section 513(a)(1) of the FD&C Act.
We classify devices into class II if general controls by themselves are insufficient to provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness, but there is sufficient information to establish special controls that, in combination with the general controls,
Therefore, on September 15, 2023, FDA issued an order to the requester classifying the device into class II. In this final order, FDA is codifying the classification of the device by adding 21 CFR 864.9115.
FDA has identified the following risks to health associated specifically with this type of device and the measures required to mitigate these risks in table 1.
FDA has determined that special controls, in combination with the general controls, address these risks to health and provide reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness. For a device to fall within this classification, and thus avoid automatic classification in class III, it would have to comply with the special controls named in this final order. The necessary special controls appear in the regulation codified by this order. This device is subject to premarket notification requirements under section 510(k) of the FD&C Act. At the time of classification, container system for the processing and storage of Red Blood Cell components under reduced oxygen conditions is for prescription use only. Prescription devices are exempt from the requirement for adequate directions for use for the layperson under section 502(f)(1) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)) and 21 CFR 801.5, as long as the conditions of 21 CFR 801.109 are met.
The Agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.34(b) that this action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required.
This final order establishes special controls that refer to previously approved collections of information found in other FDA regulations and guidance. These collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 860, subpart D, regarding De Novo classification have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0844; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 814, subparts A through E, regarding premarket approval, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0231; the collections of information in part 807, subpart E, regarding premarket notification submissions, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0120; the collections of information in 21 CFR part 820, regarding quality system regulation, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0073; and the collections of information in 21 CFR part 801, regarding labeling, have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0485.
Blood, Medical devices, Packaging and containers.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 864 is amended as follows:
21 U.S.C. 351, 360, 360c, 360e, 360j, 360l, 371.
(a)
(b)
(1) The intended use of the device must specify:
(i) The Red Blood Cell components that can be processed and stored including acceptable anticoagulants and additive solutions;
(ii) The hold time after Red Blood Cell component collection;
(iii) The processing capacity (volume) of the device; and
(iv) The storage temperature and dating period of processed Red Blood Cell components.
(2) Studies must demonstrate that the device is biocompatible and include detailed documentation of the biocompatibility evaluation.
(3) Performance testing and nonclinical studies must include a detailed study of leached materials extracted under conditions similar to clinical usage of the device, and a toxicologic risk assessment of those extracted or leached materials.
(4) Performance testing must support sterility of the device and include sterilization validation, endotoxin testing, and container closure integrity evaluation.
(5) Nonclinical and clinical studies must include evaluation of red blood cell quality throughout the duration of storage based on in vitro and in vivo studies, including hemolysis and red blood cell survival and recovery.
(6) Performance studies must include:
(i) Detailed documentation of functional and mechanical testing, including evaluation of oxygen and, if applicable, carbon dioxide levels during Red Blood Cell components storage; and
(ii) Detailed documentation of device shelf-life testing demonstrating continued sterility, package integrity, and functionality over the identified shelf life.
(7) The labeling must include a contraindication against processing Red Blood Cell components collected from donors with hemoglobin S.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations for the OPA World Championships to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Seventh Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Englewood Beach, FL. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 100.703 will be enforced daily from 8 a.m. until 6 p.m. on November 18, 2023, through November 19, 2023, for the location identified in Item 8 in table 1 to § 100.703.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Marine Science Technician First Class Mara Brown, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone 813-228-2191, email
In addition to this notice of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in the navigable waters of Suisun Bay, off Concord, CA, in support of explosive on-loading to Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) on November 13, 2023, through November 20, 2023. This safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential explosion within the explosive arc. The safety zone is open to all persons and vessels for transitory use, but vessel operators desiring to anchor or otherwise loiter within the safety zone must obtain the permission of the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative. All persons and vessels operating within the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1198 will be enforced from 12:01 a.m. on November 13, 2023, until 11:59 p.m. on November 20, 2023.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call, or email LT Abby Hamann, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Management Division, at 415-399-3585,
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1198 for the Military Ocean Terminal Concord, CA (MOTCO) regulated area from 12:01 a.m. on November 13, 2023, until 11:59 p.m. on
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing temporary security zones in the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, and the Pacific Ocean within the San Francisco Captain of the Port (COTP) zone. The security zones are along San Francisco Pier 15/17, approximately 1,000 yards from shore, and the Legion of Honor, approximately 450 yards from shore. The security zones are necessary to protect the harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities during a visit from high-ranking government officials and members of the official party. Entry of vessels or persons into these zones is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from November 15, 2023, through November 18, 2023.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email LT William Harris, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Management Division; telephone 415-399-7443, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard was not notified with ample time to allow for public comment. The visit by high-ranking government officials and members of their official party will conclude prior to the publication and completion of a comment period. Additionally, it is impracticable to publish a NPRM because the visit is scheduled to occur from November 15 through November 16, 2023, and we must establish these security zones by those dates. We lack sufficient time to solicit comments and review prior to issuing a final action.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124. The Captain of the Port San Francisco (COTP) has determined that high-ranking government officials and members of their official party plan to visit the San Francisco area and will be in the areas of San Francisco Pier 15/17, and the Legion of Honor. These are located adjacent to U.S. navigable waters in the San Francisco COTP Zone. This rule is needed to ensure the safety of the high-ranking government officials and members of their official party.
This rule establishes two security zones on November 15 and November 16, 2023. These security zones will cover all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay and Pacific Ocean, from surface to bottom, and be for the areas and times described below or as otherwise noted by Marine Information Broadcast, and will be referred to as Zones A, and B.
Zone A is a security zone along San Francisco Pier 15/17, approximately 1,000 yards from shore. Zone A will be within the area formed by connecting the following latitude and longitude points in the following order: 37°48′29.13″ N, 122°24′10.27″ W; thence to 37°48′34.68″ N, 122°24′3.44″ W; thence to 37°48′39.4″ N, 122°23′47.2″ W; thence to 37°48′28.4″ N, 122°23′19.04″ W; thence to 37°48′9.85″ N, 122°23′10.34″ W; thence to 37°47′47.89″ N, 122°23′41.35″ W; thence along the shore and piers to the point of beginning. This zone will be in effect from 6 a.m. through 11:59 p.m. on November 15, 2023.
Zone B is a security zone along the Legion of Honor in the San Francisco Bay, approximately 450 yards from shore. Zone B will be within the area formed by connecting the following latitude and longitude points in the following order: 37°47′17.72″ N, 122°30′21.74″ W; thence to 37°47′30.86″ N, 122°30′13.6″ W; thence to 37°47′30.87″ N, 122°29′54.91″ W; thence to 37°47′14.68″ N, 122°29′45.43″ W; thence along the shore to the point of beginning. This zone will be in effect
The duration of these zones is intended to protect the harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities during the high-ranking government officials' visit to the local area and to ensure the safety of the official party. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zones except for authorized support vessels, aircraft, and support personnel, or other vessels authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the sizes, locations, and durations of the security zones. The effect of this rule will not be significant because local waterways users will be notified by marine information broadcast and on-scene enforcement to ensure the security zones will result in minimum impact. Additionally, vessels can request permission to transit the security zones in order to mitigate any potential impacts.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the security zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal Government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves security zones in effect during a period of two days in various locations, that will be enforced for less than 30 hours during those two days. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(2) Zone B will be within the area formed by connecting the following latitude and longitude points in the following order: 37°47′17.72″ N, 122°30′21.74″ W; thence to 37°47′30.86″ N, 122°30′13.6″ W; thence to 37°47′30.87″ N, 122°29′54.91″ W; thence to 37°47′14.68″ N, 122°29′45.43″ W; thence along the shore to the point of beginning.
(b)
(c)
(2) The security zones are closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
(3) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative by VHF Marine Radio channel 21A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547. Those in the security zones must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
(1) Zone A will be enforced from 6 a.m. until 11:59 p.m. on November 15, 2023.
(2) Zone B will be enforced from 8 a.m. until 9 p.m. on November 16, 2023.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing two temporary security zones in the navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, San Francisco, CA within the San Francisco Captain of the Port (COTP) zone. The security zones are along U.S. Highway 101 North from Oyster Point to Candlestick Point, and San Francisco Pier 27/29, approximately 200 yards from shore. The security zones are necessary to protect the harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities during a visit from high-ranking government officials and members of their official party. Entry of vessels or persons into these zones is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from November 14, 2023 through November 18, 2023.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email LT Abigail Hamann, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Management Division; telephone 415-399-3585, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable and contrary to the public interest. The Coast Guard was not notified with ample time to allow for public comment. The visit by high-ranking government officials and members of their official party will conclude prior to the publication and completion of a comment period. Additionally, it is impracticable to publish a NPRM because the visit is scheduled to occur from November 14 through November 18, 2023, and we must establish these security zones by those dates. We lack sufficient time to solicit comments and review prior to issuing a final action.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124. High-ranking government officials and members of their official party plan to visit the San Francisco area and will be in the areas of U.S. Highway 101 North from Oyster Point to
This rule establishes two security zones from November 14 through November 18, 2023. These security zones will cover all navigable waters of the San Francisco Bay, from surface to bottom, and be for the areas and times described below or as otherwise noted by Marine Information Broadcast, and will be referred to as Zones A, and B.
Zone A is along U.S. Highway 101 North from Oyster Point to Candlestick Point, San Francisco Pier 27/29, approximately 200 yards from shore. Zone A is within the area formed by connecting the following latitude and longitude points in the following order: 37°42′28.8″ N, 122°21′45.0″ W; thence to 37°42′31.0″ N, 122°22′27.0″ W; thence along the shore to 37°40′37.5″ N, 122°22′45.0″ W; thence to 37°40′20.4″ N, 122°22′10.6″ W and thence to the point of beginning. This zone will be in effect from 12:01 a.m. on November 14, 2023, through 11:59 p.m. on November 18, 2023.
Zone B will be around San Francisco Pier 27/29 and approximately 200 yards from shore. Zone B is within the area formed by connecting the following latitude and longitude points in the following order: 37°48′23.49″ N, 122°24′12.1″ W; thence to 37°48′28.36″ N, 122°24′8.48″ W; thence to 37°48′34.68″ N, 122°24′3.44″ W; thence to 37°48′29.59″ N, 122°23′51.5″ W; thence to 37°48′16.79″ N, 122°23′54.88″ W; thence along the shore and piers to the point of beginning. This zone will be in effect 12:01 a.m. on November 14, 2023, through 11:59 p.m. on November 18, 2023.
The duration of these zones is intended to protect the harbors, ports, and waterfront facilities during the high-ranking government officials' visit to the local area and to ensure the safety of the official party. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the security zone except for authorized support vessels, aircraft, and support personnel, or other vessels authorized by the COTP or a designated representative.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the sizes, locations, and durations of the security zones. The effect of this rule will not be significant because local waterways users will be notified by marine information broadcast and on-scene enforcement to ensure the security zones will result in minimum impact.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the security zones may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538 requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal Government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(1) Zone A is within the area formed by connecting the following latitude and longitude points in the following order: 37°42′28.8″ N, 122°21′45.0″ W; thence to 37°42′31.0″ N, 122°22′27.0″ W; thence along the shore to 37°40′37.5″ N, 122°22′45.0″ W; thence to 37°40′20.4″ N, 122°22′10.6″ W and thence to the point of beginning.
(2) Zone B is within the area formed by connecting the following latitude and longitude points in the following order: 37°48′23.49″ N, 122°24′12.1″ W; thence to 37°48′28.36″ N, 122°24′8.48″ W; thence to 37°48′34.68″ N, 122°24′3.44″ W; thence to 37°48′29.59″ N, 122°23′51.5″ W; thence to 37°48′16.79″ N, 122°23′54.88″ W; thence along the shore and piers to the point of beginning.
(b)
(c)
(2) The security zones are closed to all vessel traffic, except as may be permitted by the COTP or a designated representative.
(3) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's designated representative by VHF Marine Radio channel 21A or through the 24-hour Command Center at telephone (415) 399-3547. Those in the security zones must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
(1) Zone A will be enforced from 12:01 a.m. on November 14, 2023, until 11:59 p.m. on November 18, 2023.
(2) Zone B will be enforced from 12:01 a.m. on November 14, 2023, until 11:59 p.m. on November 18, 2023.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for all navigable waters of Tampa Bay between the Tampa Convention Center and the Tampa General Hospital at the base of Seddon Channel. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the police exercise. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, St. Petersburg or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 7 a.m. through 3 p.m. on November 29, 2023.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Marine Science Technician First Class Mara J. Brown, Sector St. Petersburg Prevention Department, Coast Guard; telephone 813-228-2191, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port St Petersburg (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the police on November 29, 2023, will be a safety concern for anyone within the waters of the Tampa Convention Center and Tampa General Hospital. This rule is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in the navigable waters within the safety zone while the exercise is being conducted.
This rule establishes a safety zone from 7 a.m. until 3 p.m. on November 29, 2023. The safety zone will cover all navigable waters between the Tampa Convention Center and the Tampa General Hospital at the base of Seddon Channel. The duration of the zone is intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters while the Tampa Police exercise is being conducted. No vessel or person will be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. Vessels may be directed through the safety zone by on scene law enforcement personnel.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, duration, and time-of-day of the safety zone. Vessel traffic will be able to safely transit around this safety zone which would impact a small, designated area where the Hillsborough River and Seddon Channel meet. Moreover, the Coast Guard would issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via BHF-FM marine channel 16 about the zone, and the rule would allow vessels to seek permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal Government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule involves a safety zone lasting only 8 hours during the police exercise. It is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) Under the general safety zone regulations in subpart C of this part, you may not enter the safety zone described in paragraph (a) of this section unless authorized by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(2) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative via VHF radio on channel 16. Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a safety zone in the navigable waters of Suisun Bay, off Concord, CA, in support of explosive on-loading to Military Ocean Terminal Concord (MOTCO) on November 7, 2023, through November 10, 2023. This safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential explosion within the explosive arc. The safety zone is open to all persons and vessels for transitory use, but vessel operators desiring to anchor or otherwise loiter within the safety zone must obtain the permission of the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative. All persons and vessels operating within the safety zone must comply with all directions given to them by the Captain of the Port San Francisco or a designated representative.
The regulations in 33 CFR 165.1198 will be enforced from 12:01 a.m. on November 7, 2023, until 11:59 p.m. on November 10, 2023.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call, or email LT Abby Hamann, U.S. Coast Guard Sector San Francisco, Waterways Management Division, at 415-399-3585,
The Coast Guard will enforce the safety zone in 33 CFR 165.1198 for the Military Ocean Terminal Concord, CA (MOTCO) regulated area from 12:01 a.m. on November 7, 2023, until 11:59 p.m. on November 10, 2023, or as announced via marine local broadcasts. This safety zone is necessary to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential explosion within the explosive arc. The regulation for this safety zone, § 165.1198, specifies the location of the safety zone which encompasses the navigable waters in the area between 500 yards of MOTCO Pier in position 38°03′30″ N, 122°01′14″ W and 3,000 yards of the pier. During the enforcement periods, as reflected in § 165.1198(d), if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with the instructions of the COTP or the designated on-scene patrol personnel. Vessel operators desiring to anchor or otherwise loiter within the safety zone must contact Sector San Francisco Vessel Traffic Service at 415-556-2760 or VHF Channel 14 to obtain permission.
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Final rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of New York for purposes of certifying and meeting the requirements for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the Serious classification of the 2008 and Moderate classification of the 2015 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). The EPA is also approving that this SIP revision fulfills SIP requirements pertaining to the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. The EPA is approving the demonstration portion of the comprehensive SIP revision submitted by New York that certifies that the State has satisfied the requirements for an Ozone nonattainment new source review program, certifies that the State has satisfied the requirements for a nonattainment emission inventory, and certifies that the State has satisfied the requirements for clean fuels for fleets. In addition, the EPA is approving New York's reasonable further progress plans and motor vehicle emissions budgets for both the Moderate and Serious classifications of the 2008 ozone NAAQS. These actions are being taken in accordance with the requirements of the Clean Air Act.
This final rule is effective on December 11, 2023.
The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2022-0648. All documents in the docket are listed on the
Fausto Taveras, Environmental Protection Agency, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at (212) 637-3378, or by email at
Throughout this document, whenever “we,” “us,” or “our” is used, we mean EPA.
On August 25, 2023 (88 FR 58202), the EPA proposed to approve a SIP revision submitted by the State of New York on January 29, 2021, for purposes of meeting the requirement for Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT)
In the August 25, 2023, notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA also proposed to approve portions of a comprehensive SIP revision submitted by the State of New York on November 29, 2021, certifying that the State has satisfied the requirements for: (1) An Ozone nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program which applies to NO
In New York's January 29, 2021, RACT submittal for the Serious classification of the 2008 Ozone standard, Moderate classification for the 2015 Ozone Standard, and OTR requirements related to the 2015 ozone NAAQS, New York recertified that its previously approved negative declaration for various CTGs remain valid. New York certified that there are no sources located in the State for the following six CTGs: Manufacture of Vegetable Oils; Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene and Polystyrene Resins; Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants; Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry; Fiberglass Boat Manufacturing Materials; Agricultural Pesticides. In the August 25, 2023, notice of proposed rulemaking, the EPA proposed that the State's negative declaration for the six CTGs listed above remain valid and satisfies the requirements for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Serious classification, the 2015 Ozone Standard Moderate classification and requirements associated with the OTR for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS. Therefore, within this action the EPA is certifying that the previously approved State's negative declaration remains valid for these six CTGs for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS Serious classification, the 2015 Ozone Standard Moderate classification and the requirements associated with the OTR for the 2015 Ozone NAAQS.
The specific details of New York's SIP submittals and the rationale for the EPA's approval action are explained in the EPA's proposed rulemaking and are not restated in this final action. For this detailed information, the reader is referred to the EPA's August 25, 2023, proposed rulemaking (88 FR 58202).
In response to EPA's August 25, 2023, proposed rulemaking on New York's SIP revisions, the EPA received only one comment during the 30-day public comment period. The specific comment may be viewed under Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2022-0648 on the
This concludes our response to the comments received. No changes have been made to the proposed rule as a result of the comments received.
The EPA is approving New York's RACT certification submittal dated January 29, 2021, for purposes of meeting the requirements for RACT for the 2008 8-hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS or standard) in New York's portion of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area for the Serious classification. The EPA is also approving that this RACT certification submittal also satisfies New York's requirement for RACT for the 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS in the NYMA and the requirements for RACT for the 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS throughout the State of New York's commitment to meet RACT within the OTR.
The EPA is also approving portions of a comprehensive SIP revision submitted by New York on November 29, 2021, which includes: (1) The reasonable further progress plan and transportation conformity budgets for the 2008 8-hour Ozone Serious classification of the NYMA; (2) an Ozone nonattainment new source review (NNSR) program which applies state-wide for emissions to NO
In addition, the EPA is also approving a portion of a comprehensive SIP revisions submitted by New York on November 13, 2017, which include New York's reasonable further progress plan and transportation conformity budgets for the 2008 8-hour Ozone Moderate classification of the NYMA.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a State program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act.
In addition, this final rulemaking action, pertaining to New York's submissions, is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its SIP submittal; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
42 U.S.C. 7401
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7401
(e) * * *
The addition reads as follows:
(w)(1) The January 29, 2021, New York Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) analysis plan, submitted pursuant to the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) Serious classification, which applies to the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) nonattainment area is approved as it continues to meet the RACT requirements for the two precursors for ground-level ozone,
(2) The January 29, 2021, New York Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) analysis plan, submitted pursuant to the 2015 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) Serious classification, which applies to the entire State, including the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island (NY-NJ-CT) nonattainment area is approved as it applies to the Clean Air Act control technique guidelines (CTG) requirements for major sources of volatile organic compounds (VOC).
(3) The reminder of New York's January 29, 2021, RACT analysis plan, pursuant to the 2015 8-hour ozone NAAQS as applied to the entire State, including the New York portion of the NY-NJ-CT moderate nonattainment area, and as it applies to non-CTG major sources of VOCs and to major sources of oxides of nitrogen (NO
(4) The November 29, 2021, New York plan submittal providing a certification that the State has satisfied the requirements for an ozone nonattainment new source review program as sufficient for purposes of the State-wide 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS Serious classification, including the New York portion of the NY-NJ-CT nonattainment area, is approved.
(5) The Reasonable Further Progress Plans for milestone years 2017 and 2020 pursuant to the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, included in New York's November 13, 2017, and November 29, 2021, State Implementation Plan submittals for the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area are approved.
(6) The 2017 and 2020 motor vehicle emission budgets used for transportation conformity purposes for the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area contained in New York's November 13, 2017, and November 29, 2021, SIP submittals are approved.
(7) New York's certification that the State has satisfied the requirements for Clean Fuel for Fleets under the Clean Air Act for the 2008 8-hour Ozone NAAQS, included in the State's November 29, 2021, SIP submittal for the New York portion of the New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island nonattainment area is approved.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects technical errors in the final rule that appeared in the August 28, 2023
Mady Hue, (410) 786-4510, and Andrea Hazeley, (410) 786-3543, MS-DRG Classifications.
This correcting document identifies and corrects errors in FR Doc. 2023-16252 of August 28, 2023 (88 FR 58640). The corrections in this correcting document are applicable to discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2023, as if they had been included in the document that appeared in the August 28, 2023
On pages 58734 and 58735, we are correcting the omission of a comment and response with respect to the request for MS-DRG reassignment of cases reporting spinal fusion procedures utilizing an aprevo
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), the agency is required to publish a notice of the proposed rulemaking in the
We believe that this final rule correction does not constitute a rule that would be subject to the notice and comment or delayed effective date requirements. This document corrects technical errors in the preamble of the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule, but does not make substantive changes to the policies or payment methodologies that were adopted in the final rule. As a result, this final rule correction is intended to ensure that the information in the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects the policies adopted in that document.
In addition, even if this were a rule to which the notice and comment procedures and delayed effective date requirements applied, we find that there is good cause to waive such requirements. Undertaking further notice and comment procedures to incorporate the corrections in this document into the final rule or delaying the effective date would be contrary to the public interest because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive information regarding the relevant Medicare payment policy in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects our policies. Furthermore, such procedures would be unnecessary, as we are not altering our payment methodologies or policies, but rather, we are simply implementing correctly the methodologies and policies that we previously proposed, requested comment on, and subsequently finalized. This final rule correction is intended solely to ensure that the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects these payment methodologies and policies. Therefore, we believe we have good cause to waive the notice and comment and effective date requirements. Moreover, even if these corrections were considered to be retroactive rulemaking, they would be authorized under section 1871(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the Act, which permits the Secretary to issue a rule for the Medicare program with retroactive effect if the failure to do so would be contrary to the public interest. As we have explained previously, we believe it would be contrary to the public interest not to implement the corrections in this final rule correction for discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2023, because it is in the public's interest for providers to receive information regarding the relevant Medicare payment policy in as timely a manner as possible, and to ensure that the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS final rule accurately reflects our policies.
In FR Doc. 2023-16252, appearing on page 58640 in the
1. On page 58734, third column, after the fourth full paragraph, the language is corrected by adding the following:
“Another commenter (the manufacturer of the aprevo
The commenter expressed strong disagreement with CMS' characterization of the reliability of the Medicare claims data and stated that it can verify the utilization of the aprevo
The commenter provided findings from its own analysis of claims in CMS's SAF data and stated an analysis of the customer claims in CMS's SAF
The commenter also stated that CMS has a long-standing policy of using external data to inform MS-DRG reclassification as a way of addressing concerns about the timeliness of data from the MedPAR file. According to the commenter, CMS accepts the submission of external data that is intended to demonstrate that inpatient stays involving a new technology are costlier on average than the other inpatient stays in the same MS-DRG.
With respect to the revised code proposal, the commenter stated that while it agreed that the revised procedure code descriptions will improve the reporting of procedures that utilize the aprevo
Additionally, the commenter stated that while the new technology add-on payment for the transforaminal interbody fusion (TLIF) indication will continue for FY 2024, the new technology add-on payment for the anterior lumbar interbody fusion (ALIF) and lateral lumbar interbody fusion (LLIF) procedures, which represent 70 percent of aprevo
2. On page 58735, top half of the page, third column, after the first partial paragraph, and before the first full paragraph, the language is corrected by adding the following paragraphs:
“As discussed in the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule and prior rulemaking, we generally utilize MedPAR data when considering changes to the MS-DRG classifications, which includes an analysis of the volume of cases, the average length of stay, and average costs, with consideration of other factors. For the FY 2024 IPPS/LTCH PPS proposed rule, our initial analysis of potential changes to the MS-DRG classifications was based on ICD-10 claims data from the September 2022 update of the FY 2022 MedPAR file, with certain additional analysis based on ICD-10 claims data from the December 2022 update of the FY 2022 MedPAR file.
In the July 30, 1999 IPPS final rule (64 FR 41499 through 41500), we stated that in order for us to consider using non-MedPAR data, the non-MedPAR data must be independently validated, meaning when an entity submits non-MedPAR data, we must be able to independently review the medical records and verify that a particular procedure was performed for each of the cases that purportedly involved the procedure. In this particular circumstance, where external data for cases reporting the use of an aprevo
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) amends its rules to retain the radiotelephone requirements for vessels subject to the current Great Lakes Agreement (GLA or Agreement). The GLA is a treaty between the United States and Canada. In relevant part, the GLA established requirements regarding the usage and maintenance of radiocommunications equipment for safety purposes aboard certain vessels navigating on the Great Lakes. Pursuant to Canada's notice of termination on November 2, 2022, the GLA will cease to be effective on November 2, 2023. As a result, the FCC takes expedited action in this order to amend subpart T and certain other parts of the Commission's rules to remove the references to the GLA and maintain the applicability of rules in the Great Lakes.
Effective November 9, 2023.
For additional information on this proceeding, contact Erin McGrath of the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau, Mobility Division, at (202) 418-2042 or
This is a summary of Commission's Order, in WT Docket No. 23-357; FCC 23-90, adopted on October 30, 2023 and released on October 31, 2023. The full text of this document is available for public inspection online at
1. In this Order, the Commission takes action to ensure the continued safety of vessels navigating the Great Lakes by amending part 0 and part 80 of the Commission's rules to retain the radiotelephone requirements for vessels subject to the current Great Lakes Agreement (GLA or Agreement). The GLA is a treaty between the United States and Canada that, among other things, established requirements regarding the “usage and maintenance of radiocommunications equipment for safety purposes aboard” certain vessels navigating on the Great Lakes. Agreement Between Canada and the United States for the Promotion of Safety on the Great Lakes by Means of Radio, art. II, U.S.-Canada, April 26, 1973, 25 UST 935, T.I.A.S. 7837, amended 30 UST 2523, T.I.A.S. 9352 (GLA). These requirements are codified primarily in subpart T of part 80 of the
2. Further, after careful consideration of information the Commission has recently received from the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), which also contains information from the Canadian government, the Commission finds it to be necessary and in the public interest to amend one of the subpart T rules requiring an inspection of the required radiotelephone installation at least once every 13 months by extending the time period to once every 48 months. As described in further detail herein, the Commission takes this action to align its rules with the Canadian inspection interval that will apply upon termination of the GLA and to more closely conform to the current needs of the industry given improvements in maritime safety and equipment. The USCG supports this change, noting that the GLA's termination was prompted after the Canadian Government's attempt to renegotiate the terms of the inspection requirement for three years.
3. Ensuring the availability of critical maritime communications has been one of the Commission's fundamental obligations since the earliest days of the Communications Act. The Act not only charges the Commission generally with making available wire and radio service for the purpose of promoting safety of life and property, but it also specifically entrusts us with obligations relating to maritime radio communications. Today, similar to the terrestrial emergency 911 system, the maritime services provide for the unique distress, as well as the operational and personal communications, needs of vessels at sea and on inland waterways. While the maritime community has pioneered the use of radio for safety purposes, maritime services also provide a wide range of communications services to vessels to support a multibillion-dollar industry. Along with other applicable rule parts, part 80 of the Commission's rules contains the requirements for stations in the maritime services, and specifically states that the rules are promulgated under the provisions of the Communications Act of 1934, which provides the Commission authority to regulate radio transmissions and to issue licenses for radio stations, and in accordance with various applicable statutes, treaties, and agreements, including the GLA. It also notes that the USCG also has rules that affect radiotelecommunication equipment carriage and power source requirements on certain ships. This extensive history and these requirements reflect the importance of having radio equipment aboard vessels to facilitate communication and promote maritime safety without causing harmful interference to each other or to other spectrum users.
4. The GLA was signed on February 26, 1973, entered into force on May 6, 1975, and was amended in 1978 and 1988. The GLA is generally intended to promote the safety of life and property and efficiency of navigation on the Great Lakes and their connecting and tributary waters by coordinating the use of radiocommunications equipment for distress, safety, and navigational purposes. The purposes of the GLA include not only ensuring the operability of radiocommunication and associated equipment during maritime distress and safety and efficiency while navigating on the Great Lakes, but also ensuring that all vessel on the Great Lakes are operating under uniform regulations on radiocommunications to maintain the safety of all ships operating on the Great Lakes. Both the United States and Canada agreed to cooperate to maintain similar rules to the greatest extent possible.
5. The GLA provides that vessels of all countries must comply with its requirements while operating on the Great Lakes if they fall within certain specific categories. The GLA requires, among other things, that all vessels 65 feet or over in length, most towing vessels, and vessels carrying more than six passengers for hire be equipped with a marine VHF radiotelephone installation. In order to further the purposes of the GLA, applicable vessels also need to comply with certain other requirements, such as meeting listening and frequency requirements, having at least one certified radio operator, and retaining certain records on the use of the radiotelephone station for safety purposes, among others.
6. The GLA also requires that radiotelephone stations be inspected at least once every thirteen months either by officers of the United States or Canada or by persons nominated for that purpose or organizations recognized by either the United States or Canada. Following inspection, the inspector must certify that the relevant provisions of the GLA have been complied with, and that certification must be kept on board the vessel and available for inspection.
7. The Commission adopted rules implementing the GLA primarily in subpart T of part 80 and in other scattered sections of part 0 and part 80. The subpart T rules apply to vessels to which the GLA applies that fit into the specific GLA categories—
8. Besides the rules in subpart T, the GLA is mentioned in and effectuated by other sections of part 80 and part 0 of the Commission's rules. In part 0, sections 0.131(s)(2) and 0.491 specifically mention the GLA in delegating authority to the Wireless Telecommunications Bureau to grant emergency exemption requests, extensions or waivers of inspection to ships and in providing filing instructions for exemption requests, respectively. Apart from subpart T, the following rules in part 80, in most cases, contain references to the GLA that need to be replaced, but, in some cases, augment subpart T by clarifying technical and other requirements applicable to Great Lakes vessels. These rules are as follows: 80.1(a) (referencing the GLA in a list of documents providing the basis for the Commission's maritime rules), 80.5 (referencing the GLA in the definition of passenger carrying vessel in the categories of ships section and the Great Lakes definition and defining compulsory ships in the categories of ships section), 80.59 (identifying the inspection requirements for the various categories of compulsory vessels and referencing the GLA), 80.161 (referencing the GLA in an operator requirement rule), 80.308 (referencing the GLA in a watch requirement rule), 80.401 (referencing the GLA in a station document requirement rule), 80.409(f)
9. With regard to inspection and certification, section 80.953 describes the requirements that apply to each vessel subject to the GLA. As described in further detail below, each vessel subject to the GLA must have a radiotelephone installation inspection at least once every 13 months.
10. Article XXI of the GLA provides that the Agreement may be terminated unilaterally by either the United States or Canada upon written notice, with termination taking effect twelve months after the date of such notification. As noted above, on November 2, 2022, Canada provided written notice to the United States of the termination of the GLA. Accordingly, the GLA will cease to be effective on November 2, 2023. The Commission and the USCG have been working diligently during this time to arrive at a solution that will maintain safety and regulatory certainty for how maritime radio equipment aboard vessels in the Great Lakes operates to permit communications, including but not limited to during emergencies.
11. The Commission's rules promoting the safety of vessels navigating the Great Lakes generally would not be valid and in effect after the termination of the GLA on November 2, 2023, without today's action to extend these safety measures. The subpart T rules, by their terms, apply only to vessels that are subject to the GLA, not to all vessels that are on voyages in those specific waters. Section 80.951 specifically states that vessels to which the GLA applies must comply with subpart T while navigating on the Great Lakes. Other rules in part 0 and part 80 use similar terminology to establish their applicability to vessels that are subject to the GLA. Furthermore, in adopting many of these rules, the Commission stated that its purpose was to implement the GLA. Accordingly, given that the applicability of the current subpart T rules and certain other rules in part 0 and part 80 is predicated on the continued existence of the GLA, the effective date of termination of the GLA on November 2, 2023, would render those rules a nullity with no practical effect on any vessels, leaving the Commission with no means of carrying forward the enforcement of important Great Lakes-specific radiotelephone installation requirements in the absence of replacement rules. To remedy a situation that could negatively impact safety on the Great Lakes, the Commission finds it necessary and in the public interest to amend the subpart T rules and certain other rules in part 0 and part 80—
12. The Commission finds that these rules are necessary and in the public interest, first and foremost, to preserve safety of life and property on the Great Lakes. As noted above, the rules at issue implemented the GLA requirements to install, use, and maintain basic equipment (marine VHF radio) as a means of serving safety, as well as operational and business, purposes for vessel operators. The installation and maintenance of VHF radios are critical to navigation safety on the Great Lakes for purposes including intership navigation, port safety, and operation in vessel traffic areas. Due to limits on coverage from land-based mobile networks over the Great Lakes waters, the USCG operates an extensive network of towers to listen to distress calls and the Rescue 21 network to locate those in danger, and in addition, others, such as commercial ships and bridge tenders rely on VHF marine radio. VHF radios operating in compliance with the GLA rules are essential to Search and Rescue proceedings and other important emergency and non-emergency safety functions including navigation, Vessel Traffic Service (VTS), port operations, port safety, and the dissemination of Urgent Marine Information Broadcasts and weather warnings. For example, vessels entering the Great Lakes traffic areas need radios to check into the VTS centers. VTS, the primary tool used by operators to communicate with mariners in a VTS operating area, provides a wide range of techniques and capabilities aimed at preventing vessel collisions, rammings, and groundings in the harbor, expedites ship movements, increases transportation systems efficiency, and improves operating capability. While it is unlikely that vessel operators would stop carrying and using basic VHF radio equipment immediately upon the effective date of the GLA's termination on November 2, 2023, over time, it is possible that some vessels would stop installing or maintaining VHF radio equipment if it is not required, affecting the efficiency of navigation and making essential communications challenging. The Commission finds that, as a result, safety would be compromised in both emergency and non-emergency situations.
13. Existing rules also provide for inspections of required equipment, maintenance contracts, reserve power, use of licensed operators, or maintenance of a continuous watch on certain frequencies. The USCG demonstrates that, if the pending termination of the GLA is not immediately addressed, mariner's safety will be at risk. While the GLA has been successful in promoting safety on the Great Lakes, USCG data demonstrates that there are a few vessels that are not in compliance. Not only do some of these vessels not have VHF radios or FCC licenses, but some also have faulty equipment or do not have reserve power, the required certifications, or radio logs. These failures were discovered during USCG inspections, demonstrating the general importance of inspection requirements as a vital means of maintaining safety and ensuring compliance with rules. Thus, the amendment of subpart T and certain part 0 and part 80 rules is necessary to maintain these important safety requirements.
14. Further, one of the primary purposes of the GLA—and, thus, of our implementing rules—is to provide uniform radiocommunications regulations for all vessels operating on the Great Lakes, regardless from which nation the vessel originates. Uniformity is important not only for distress situations, but also to ensure maritime safety and efficiency of navigation. Canada has recently adopted rules that are similar to the GLA requirements and, therefore, the equipment carriage requirements will remain the same even after the GLA terminates. Accordingly, with the exception of a modification to the inspection interval explained below,
15. Maintaining uniformity in regulations between the United States and Canada simplifies the obligations of vessel operators on the Great Lakes and prevents unnecessary confusion, delay, and cost. If the Commission were not to maintain the GLA rules in the same way as implemented under the GLA, vessel operators subject to current GLA requirements could be confused about which rules apply as they voyage on the Great Lakes—the Canadian rules that are based on the GLA, or different, non-GLA rules in the United States that apply to some U.S. vessels in the Great Lakes. For example, a U.S. vessel that is not subject to the GLA rules in U.S. waters and may no longer be in compliance with existing GLA rules, could be detained or subject to penalties for violations of the radio and inspection requirements in Canadian waters where the Canadian GLA rules do apply. Indeed, because there is no “innocent passage” in the Great Lakes, a vessel navigating the Great Lakes passes through both U.S. and Canadian waters multiple times, subjecting that vessel to multiple rule violations. Vessels would need to be cognizant of which set of rules they need to follow and what equipment needs to be on board based on whether they are in the U.S. or Canadian waters of the Great Lakes or if they are going to a port in the other country. By amending the Commission's rules to retain generally the requirements already applicable to these vessels, the Commission promotes clarity, certainty, and ultimately safety while minimizing burdens on operators.
16. Additionally, if the Commission were not to maintain the current Great Lakes rules that are consistent with the GLA and Canada's requirements, commerce and travel could be adversely affected as a result of the lack of certainty to vessels navigating the Great Lakes and going between ports in the United States and Canada. After the effective date of termination of the GLA, unless the Commission maintains the existing GLA rules to match Canada's rules, vessels on the Great Lakes may have the burden and cost of complying with two different and possibly conflicting sets of requirements. Vessels may be refused access to or detained at the foreign port if they are not in compliance with the other country's rules. Not only is detention and delay of vessels a possibility, but also vessels could be subject to monetary fines for violations of rules governing VHF radio installations and inspections, along with other GLA requirements. This scenario could hinder trade if vessels cannot freely travel on the Great Lakes between ports in the United States and Canada in the absence of a certain, uniform set of applicable rules.
17. Although the Commission is amending subpart T and certain part 0 and part 80 rules to retain the existing requirements in their entirety, the Commission hereby amends the inspection requirement in section 80.951 by changing the required inspection interval from at least once every 13 months, to at least once every 48 months. Certifications of inspection that are valid on the effective date of the GLA termination—therefore, dated between October 2, 2022 and November 2, 2023—will be valid for 48 months from the date of inspection, as opposed to 13 months. The Commission takes this action to align its requirement with Canada's inspection interval currently applicable to inland waterways that will be applicable to GLA vessels upon the effective termination of the GLA. This alignment will promote uniformity and more closely conform to the current needs of the industry and the realistic practices of both the United States and Canada in maintaining safety and beneficial commerce for vessels navigating on the Great Lakes.
18. This inspection requirement change is supported by the USCG, which has had extensive conversations with Great Lakes mariners regarding concerns about the 13-month-inspection requirement, and has stated that changing the inspection requirement will not hinder the safety of life and property. As the USCG explains, improvements in maritime safety and equipment have resulted in the GLA's inspection interval requirement becoming antiquated and in need of revision to allow a longer period of time between required inspections. Specifically, although the original 13-month-inspection interval may have been necessary decades ago when the GLA was first executed and vessels used crystal radios requiring more frequent monitoring and adjusting, improvements in VHF radio technology mean that the equipment is reliable for a significantly longer period of time. Thus, the USCG states that changing the inspection interval from 13 months to 48 months will not affect mariner's safety because of the improved reliability and stability of current VHF equipment.
19. The Commission notes that a 48-month inspection interval for Great Lakes vessels that are likely within range of VHF radio communications, and therefore available for quicker safety response according to the USCG, is appropriate in contrast to vessels subject to the Safety Convention (SOLAS) and subpart W of the Commission's rules. These SOLAS and subpart W vessels have an annual inspection requirement, but they travel further offshore, navigate the oceans and typically are outside of VHF range, and travel for longer time periods. In contrast to Great Lakes vessels that solely navigate the Great Lakes and are specifically exempt from SOLAS, SOLAS vessels must carry longer range communications and more complex navigation equipment. Accordingly, SOLAS vessels are subject to a more stringent annual inspection interval, which will continue to apply separate from vessels navigating the Great Lakes.
20. By lengthening the inspection interval for Great Lakes vessels, the Commission intends to lessen the costs and burdens for applicable vessel owners and operators, but without any decrease in safety. Inspections of Great Lakes vessels cost on average $300 per vessel. Accordingly, as an example, if a company operates 20 vessels, it would be required by pay $6,000 (20 × $300) for the 13-month inspection, and $24,000 (4 × $6,000) over the course of 48 months. By changing the inspection interval to once every 48 months, that vessel company would only be required to pay $6,000 over the course of 48 months, saving $18,000 ($24,000−$6,000). This burden reduction will not negatively impact safety because, as noted above, technological advances in radio installations have translated to a reduced need for frequent inspections. The Commission notes that in 1996, when the Commission privatized the inspection of GLA vessels, it stated that, over a five year period, only one percent of the vessels failed the radio inspection. As stated above, USCG data supports that, while some vessels fail inspection, there is a low failure rate of the equipment. Still, the Commission continues to believe that inspections are an integral part of the Commission's rules and necessary to ensure that vessels navigating the Great Lakes have a reliable means of communications to support efficient and safe navigation and to notify others when in distress.
21. The Commission also makes corresponding changes to the requirement that vessels must retain a log entry or issuance of a Great Lakes certificate from two years until the date of the next radio inspection. This rule change conforms the log retention rule with the 48-month inspection requirement.
22. The Commission finds good cause, pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), to conclude that prior notice and comment are unnecessary before adopting these amendments because the amended rules will simply retain existing legal requirements, except for the amendment to the inspection requirement adopted herein. Notice and comment are unnecessary when “the administrative rule is a routine determination, insignificant in nature and impact, and inconsequential to the industry and to the public.”
23. Moreover, given the safety concerns, the Commission finds good cause to conclude that prior notice and comment would be contrary to the public interest. The Commission is faced with a potential emergency situation where serious harm could result if the rules ensuring the safety of vessels navigating the Great Lakes were suddenly not applicable and enforceable beginning on November 2, 2023. Good cause has been found to exist in emergency situations in which a rule responds to an immediate threat to safety or physical property. As explained above, these rules were put in place to ensure the safety of life and property on the Great Lakes and to ensure communications when vessels are in distress or facing emergency situations, including with the USCG and their Canadian counterparts. The USCG stresses the importance of maintaining the requirements beyond November 2, 2023, particularly because properly placed and operating VHF radiocommunications not only permits vessels to seek help in emergencies, but also allows authorities and other vessels in the vicinity to facilitate the assistance of nearby vessels in distress. The USCG also notes that there is limited cell phone coverage on the Great Lakes, making VHF radios the only reliable means to make contact if vessel is in distress. The Commission, therefore, finds good cause to forgo notice and comment to ensure, in particular, that these communications and public safety rules designed to address distress situations are effective and continue to be applicable to vessels on the Great Lakes after the effective date of termination of the GLA.
24. Additionally, the Commission had limited time to coordinate a joint regulatory response to Canada's termination of the GLA, making public participation impracticable in this case. Good cause has been found to exist when a rule is necessary, due to circumstances beyond the agency's control, to avoid or ameliorate expected harm to important public interests. On November 2, 2022, Canada unilaterally terminated the GLA in a letter to the U.S. Department of State. Since the date of Canada's termination letter, the Commission has expended considerable time and effort in coordinating with the various interested stakeholders, including the U.S. Department of State, USCG, and Canada, to determine the appropriate regulatory paradigm going forward. These events, including the termination of the treaty, were largely beyond the Commission's control. Once that coordination process was completed, there was insufficient time for public participation in this rulemaking proceeding. Doing so would have significantly delayed the Commission's effort to ensure that there will be rules in place beginning on the effective date of termination of the GLA. Allowing the GLA to terminate without having rules in place would not be in the public interest, as it would endanger public safety, cause commercial harm, and cause confusion for vessel owners and operators as to what regulations applied in the Great Lakes.
25. This Order substantively amends only one existing rule by relaxing the inspection requirement for applicable vessels on the Great Lakes from once every 13 months to once every 48 months, at the request of the USCG. As stated above, Canada terminated the GLA because of concerns about the frequency of a 13-month inspection requirement, which Canada will replace with a 48-month inspection requirement currently applicable to inland waterways. If the Commission does not amend its inspection interval to mirror Canada's interval, then there will be an inconsistency between Canada's requirement and the United States's current 13-month requirement. The Commission, therefore, makes this same change to its rules to maintain uniformity in the inspection interval rules between the United States and Canada, which will benefit international relations between the two countries.
26. If the United States and Canada maintain different inspection requirements, vessel owners and operators could be fined or detained for unwittingly following the wrong rules when unknowingly crossing into U.S. or Canadian waters or when entering the other country's port. Both the USCG and Canadian government have stated that they will fully enforce their rules. Therefore, as the USCG explains, a vessel traveling from Cleveland, Ohio to Duluth, Minnesota will pass between the countries' waters numerous times, potentially resulting in multiple violations for each transit which could lead to excessive fines or being detained. Such enforcement actions by the United States and Canada involving the other country's flagged vessels could harm commerce by raising prices and halting the transport of goods, travel, and foreign relations between the countries. The USCG states that “[i]n the spirit of cooperation with our Canadian counterparts over the shared coverage of the Great Lakes, we implore that our requirements are in sync with Canada.” Letter from Jerry L. Ulcek, Chief, Spectrum Management and Communications Policy Division,
27. For similar reasons, the Commission finds good cause to make these rules effective immediately upon publication in the
28. The Commission also concludes that the revised inspection requirement should likewise become effective immediately upon publication in the
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
Authority delegations (Government agencies), Organization and functions (Government agencies).
Marine safety, Radio, Communications equipment, Great Lakes, Vessels.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR parts 0 and 80 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), 154(j), 155, 225, and 409, unless otherwise noted.
(s) * * *
(2) Grants emergency exemption requests, extensions or waivers of inspection to ships in accordance with applicable provisions of the Communications Act, the Safety Convention, or the Commission's rules.
Applications for exemption filed under the provisions of sections 352(b) or 383 of the Communications Act; Regulation 4, chapter I of the Safety Convention; Regulation 5, chapter IV of the Safety Convention; or subpart T of Part 80, must be filed as a waiver request using the procedures specified in § 0.482. Emergency requests must be filed via the Universal Licensing System or at the Federal Communications Commission, Office of the Secretary.
47 U.S.C. 151-155, 301-609; 3 U.S.T. 3450, 12 U.S.T. 2377.
(a)
(1) Communications Act of 1934, as amended—(Communications Act).
(2) Communications Satellite Act of 1962, as amended—(Communications Satellite Act).
(3) International Telecommunication Union Radio Regulations, in force for the United States—(Radio Regulations).
(4) International Convention for Safety of Life at Sea, 1974, as amended, and the Annex thereto—(Safety Convention).
(5) Vessel Bridge-to-Bridge Radiotelephone Act—(Bridge-to-Bridge Act).
(3) The term
(6)
(a) Inspection of ships subject to part II or III of title III of the Communications Act or the Safety Convention.
(1) The FCC will not normally conduct the required inspections of ships subject to the inspection requirements of part II or III of title III of Communications Act or the Safety Convention.
(b) Inspection and certification of a ship subject to subpart T of this part. The FCC will not inspect vessels that are subject to subpart T of this part. An inspection and certification of a ship subject to subpart T of this part must be made by a technician holding one of the following: an FCC General Radiotelephone Operator License, a GMDSS Radio Maintainer's License, a Second Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificate, a First Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificate, or a Radiotelegraph Operator License. The certification required by § 80.953 must be entered into the ship's log. The technician conducting the inspection and providing the certification must not be the vessel's owner, operator, master, or an employee of any of them. Additionally, the vessel owner, operator, or ship's master must certify that the inspection was satisfactory. There are no FCC prior notice requirements for any inspection under this section.
(c) * * *
(1) Applications for exemption from the radio provisions of part II or III of title III of the Communications Act, the Safety Convention, or subpart T of this part, or for modification or renewal of an exemption previously granted must be filed as a waiver request using FCC Form 605. Waiver requests must include the following information:
Each ship subject to subpart T of this part must have on board an officer or member of the crew who holds a marine radio operator permit or higher class license.
(a) Each ship of the United States that is equipped with a radiotelephone station for compliance with subpart T of this part must when underway keep a watch on:
Licensees of radio stations are required to have current station documents as indicated in the following table:
2. Alternatively, a list of coast stations maintained by the licensee with which communications are likely to be conducted, showing watch-keeping hours, frequencies and charges, is authorized.
3. Required only if station provides a service to ocean-going vessels.
4. Certification of a Great Lakes inspection may be made by either a log entry or issuance of a Great Lakes certificate. The ship's radiotelephone logs containing entries certifying that a Great Lakes safety inspection has been conducted must be retained on board and available for inspection until the next radio inspection.
5. The requirements for having the GMDSS Master Plan, NGA Publication 117, Admiralty List of Radio Signals or IMO Circ. 7 are satisfied by having any one of those four documents.
(f) * * *
(1) Radiotelephony stations subject to part II or III of title III of the Communications Act and/or the Safety Convention must record entries indicated by paragraphs (e)(1) through (13) of this section. Additionally, the radiotelephone log must provide an easily identifiable, separate section relating to the required inspection of the ship's radio station. Entries must be made in this section giving at least the following information.
(2) Radiotelephony stations subject to subpart T of this part and the Bridge-to-Bridge Act must record entries indicated by paragraphs (e)(1), (3), (5), (6), (7), (8), (10), (11), and (13) of this section. Additionally, the radiotelephone log must provide an easily identifiable, separate section relating to the required inspection of the ship's radio station. Entries must be made in this section giving at least the following information:
(v) The inspector's signed and dated certification that the vessel meets the requirements for certain vessels operating in the Great Lakes and of the Bridge-to-Bridge Act contained in subparts T and U of this part and has successfully passed the inspection; and
(b)
The rules in this subpart apply to vessels of all countries when navigated on the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are defined as all waters of Lakes Ontario, Erie, Huron (including Georgian Bay), Michigan, Superior, their connecting and tributary waters and the River St. Lawrence as far east as the lower exit of the St. Lambert Lock at Montreal in the Province of Quebec, Canada, but do not include any connecting and tributary waters except the St. Marys River, the St. Clair River, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River and the Welland Canal. A vessel that falls into a category specified in paragraph (a), (b), or (c) of this section and is not excepted by paragraph (d) or (e) of this section must comply with this subpart while navigated on the Great Lakes.
(a) Every vessel 20 meters (65 feet) or over in length (measured from end to end over the deck, exclusive of sheer).
(b) Every vessel engaged in towing another vessel or floating object, except:
(1) Where the maximum length of the towing vessel, measured from end to end over the deck exclusive of sheer, is less than 8 meters (26 feet) and the length or breadth of the tow, exclusive of the towing line, is less than 20 meters (65 feet);
(2) Where the vessel towed complies with this subpart;
(3) Where the towing vessel and tow are located within a booming ground (an area in which logs are confined); or
(4) Where the tow has been undertaken in an emergency and neither the towing vessel nor the tow can comply with this part
(c) Any vessel carrying more than six passengers for hire.
(d) The requirements of this subpart do not apply to:
(1) Ships of war and troop ships;
(2) Vessels owned and operated by any national government and not engaged in trade.
(e) The Commission may if it considers that the conditions of the voyage or voyages affecting safety (including but not necessarily limited to the regularity, frequency and nature of the voyages, or other circumstances) are such as to render full application of the rules of this subpart unreasonable or unnecessary, exempt partially, conditionally or completely, any individual vessel for one or more voyages or for any period of time not exceeding one year.
(a) Each U.S. flag vessel subject to this subpart must have an inspection of the required radiotelephone installation at least once every 48 months. This inspection must be made while the vessel is in active service or within not more than one month before the date on which it is placed in service.
(b) An inspection and certification of a ship subject to this subpart must be made by a technician holding one of the following: a General Radiotelephone Operator License, a GMDSS Radio Maintainer's License, a Radiotelegraph Operator License, a Second Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificate, or a First Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificate. Additionally, the technician must not be the vessel's owner, operator, master, or an employee of any of them. The results of the inspection must be recorded in the ship's radiotelephone log and include:
(1) The date the inspection was conducted;
(2) The date by which the next inspection needs to be completed;
(3) The inspector's printed name, address, class of FCC license (including the serial number);
(4) The results of the inspection, including any repairs made; and
(5) The inspector's signed and dated certification that the vessel meets the requirements contained in this subpart and the Bridge-to-Bridge Act contained in subpart U of this part and has successfully passed the inspection.
(c) The vessel owner, operator, or ship's master must certify that the inspection required by paragraph (b) of this section was satisfactory.
(d) The ship's radiotelephone logs containing entries certifying that a Great Lakes safety inspection has been conducted must be retained on board and available for inspection until the next radio inspection.
(a) Each U.S. flag vessel of less than 38 meters (124 feet) in length while subject to this subpart must have a radiotelephone meeting the provisions of this subpart in addition to the other rules in this part governing ship stations using telephony.
(b) Each U.S. flag vessel of 38 meters (124 feet) or more in length while subject to this subpart must have a minimum of two VHF radiotelephone installations in operating condition meeting the provisions of this subpart. The second VHF installation must be electrically separate from the first VHF installation. However, both may be connected to the main power supply provided one installation can be operated from a separate power supply located as high as practicable on the vessel.
(c) This paragraph does not require or prohibit the use of other frequencies for use by the same “radiotelephone installation” for communication authorized by this part.
(a) Each VHF radiotelephone installation must be capable of transmitting and receiving G3E emission as follows:
(1) Channel 16—156.800 MHz—Distress, Safety and Calling; and
(2) Channel 6—156.300 MHz—Primary intership.
(b) The radiotelephone station must have additional frequencies as follows:
(1) Those ship movement frequencies appropriate to the vessel's area of operation: Channel 11—156.550 MHz, Channel 12—156.600 MHz, or Channel 14—156.700 MHz.
(2) The navigational bridge-to-bridge frequency, 156.650 MHz (channel 13).
(3) Such other frequencies as required for the vessel's service.
(4) One channel for receiving marine navigational warnings for the area of operation.
(c) Every radiotelephone station must include one or more transmitters, one or more receivers, one or more sources of energy and associated antennas and control equipment. The radiotelephone station, exclusive of the antennas and source of energy, must be located as high as practicable on the vessel, preferably on the bridge, and protected from water, temperature, and electrical and mechanical noise.
(a) The principal operating position of the radiotelephone installation must be on the bridge, convenient to the conning position.
(b) When the radiotelephone station is not located on the bridge, operational control of the equipment must be provided at the location of the radiotelephone station and at the bridge operating position. Complete control of the equipment at the bridge operating position must be provided.
(a) The transmitter must be capable of transmission of G3E emission on the required frequencies.
(b) The transmitter must deliver a carrier power of between 10 watts and 25 watts into 50 ohms nominal resistance when operated with its rated supply voltage. The transmitter must be capable of readily reducing the carrier power to one watt or less.
(c) To demonstrate the capability of the transmitter, measurements of primary supply voltage and transmitter output power must be made with the equipment operating on the vessel's main power supply, as follows:
(1) The primary supply voltage measured at the power input terminals to the transmitter terminated in a matching artificial load, must be measured at the end of 10 minutes of continuous operation of the transmitter at its rated power output.
(2) The primary supply voltage, measured in accordance with the procedures of this paragraph, must be not less than 11.5 volts.
(3) The transmitter at full output power measured in accordance with the procedure of this paragraph must not be less than 10 watts.
(a) The receiver must be capable of reception of G3E emission on the required frequencies.
(b) The receiver must have a sensitivity of at least 2 microvolts across 50 ohms for a 20 decibel signal-to-noise ratio.
(a) A main power supply must be available at all times while the vessel is subject to the requirements of this subpart.
(b) Means must be provided for charging any batteries used as a source of energy. A device which during charging of the batteries gives a continuous indication of charging current must be provided.
(a) Each passenger vessel of more than 100 gross tons and each cargo vessel of more than 300 gross tons must be provided with a reserve power supply independent of the vessel's normal electrical system and capable of energizing the radiotelephone installation and illuminating the operating controls at the principal operating position for at least 2 continuous hours under normal operating conditions. When meeting this 2-hour requirement, such reserve power supply must be located on the bridge level or at least one deck above the vessel's main deck.
(b) Instead of the independent power supply specified in paragraph (a) of this section, the vessel may be provided with an auxiliary radiotelephone installation having a power source independent of the vessel's normal electrical system. Any such installation must comply with §§ 80.955, 80.956, 80.957, 80.959, 80.961, 80.969 and 80.971, as well as the general technical standards contained in this part. Additionally, the power supply for any such auxiliary radiotelephone must be a “reserve power supply” for the purposes of paragraphs (c), (d) and (e) of this section.
(c) Means must be provided for adequately charging any batteries used as a reserve power supply for the required radiotelephone installation. A device must be provided which, during charging of the batteries, gives a continuous indication of charging.
(d) The reserve power supply must be available within one minute.
(e) The station licensee, when directed by the Commission, must prove by demonstration as prescribed in paragraphs (e)(1), (2), (3), and (4) of this section that the reserve power supply is capable of meeting the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section as follows:
(1) When the reserve power supply includes a battery, proof of the ability of the battery to operate continuously for the required time must be established by a discharge test over the required time, when supplying power at the voltage required for normal operation to an electric load as prescribed by paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(2) When the reserve power supply includes an engine driven generator, proof of the adequacy of the engine fuel supply to operate the unit continuously for the required time may be established by using as a basis the fuel consumption during a continuous period of one hour when supplying power, at the voltage required for normal operation, to an electrical load as prescribed by paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(3) For the purposes of determining the electrical load to be supplied, the following formula must be used:
(i) One-half of the current of the radiotelephone while transmitting at its rated output, plus one-half the current while not transmitting; plus
(ii) Current of the required receiver; plus
(iii) Current of the source of illumination provided for the operating controls prescribed by § 80.969; plus
(iv) The sum of the currents of all other loads to which the reserve power supply may provide power in time of emergency or distress.
(4) At the conclusion of the test specified in paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) of this section, no part of the reserve power supply must have excessive temperature rise, nor must the specific gravity or voltage of any battery be below the 90 percent discharge point.
The antenna must be omnidirectional, vertically polarized and located as high as practicable on the masts or superstructure of the vessel.
(a) The radiotelephone must have dial lights which illuminate the operating controls at the principal operating position.
(b) Instead of dial lights, a light from an electric lamp may be provided to illuminate the operating controls of the radiotelephone at the principal operating position. If a reserve power supply is required, arrangements must permit the use of that power supply for illumination within one minute.
At least once during each calendar day a vessel subject to this subpart must test communications on 156.800 MHz to demonstrate that the radiotelephone installation is in proper operating condition unless the normal daily use of the equipment demonstrates that this installation is in proper operating condition. If equipment is not in operating condition, the master must have it restored to effective operation as soon as possible.
The bridge-to-bridge radiotelephone station will be inspected on vessels subject to regular inspections pursuant to the requirements of Parts II and III of Title III of the Communications Act, the Safety Convention, or subpart T of this part at the time of the regular inspection. If after such inspection, the Commission determines that the Bridge-to-Bridge Act, the rules of the Commission and the station license are met, an endorsement will be made on the appropriate document. The validity of the endorsement will run concurrently with the period of the regular inspection. Each vessel must carry a certificate with a valid endorsement while subject to the Bridge-to-Bridge Act. All other bridge-to-bridge stations will be inspected from time-to-time. An inspection of the bridge-to-bridge station on a vessel subject to subpart T of this part must normally be made at the same time as the inspection required under subpart T of this part and must be conducted by a technician holding one of the following: a General Radiotelephone Operator License, a GMDSS Radio Maintainer's License, a Radiotelegraph Operator License, a Second Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificate, or a First Class Radiotelegraph Operator's Certificate. Additionally, the technician must not be the vessel's owner, operator, master, or an employee of any of them. Ships subject to the Bridge-to-Bridge Act may, in lieu of an endorsed certificate, certify compliance in the station log required by section 80.409(f).
(b) The requirements of this subpart do not modify the requirements for ships navigated on the Great Lakes or small passenger boats. The requirements contained in subpart T of this part continue to apply. The requirements contained in part III of title III of the Communications Act continue to apply (see subpart S of this part).
Department of Defense (DoD), General Services Administration (GSA), and National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Interim rule, correction.
DoD, GSA, and NASA are issuing an interim rule amending the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) to implement supply chain risk information sharing and exclusion or removal orders consistent with the Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act of 2018 and a final rule issued by the Federal Acquisition Security Council.
For clarification of content, contact Ms. Marissa Ryba, Procurement Analyst, at 314-586-1280 or by email at
DoD, GSA, and NASA are correcting amendatory instructions under part 52, for sections 52.212-5, 52.213-4 and 52.244-6.
In the FR Doc. 2023-21320, published in the
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(b) * * *
_ (10) 52.204-28, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders—Federal Supply Schedules, Governmentwide Acquisition Contracts, and Multi-Agency Contracts. (DEC 2023) (Pub. L. 115-390, title II).
_ (11)(i) 52.204-30, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders—Prohibition. (DEC 2023) (Pub. L. 115-390, title II).
_ (ii) Alternate I (DEC 2023) of 52.204-30.
(e)(1) * * *
(vii)(A) 52.204-30, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders—Prohibition. (DEC 2023) (Pub. L. 115-390, title II).
(B) Alternate I (DEC 2023) of 52.204-30.
(e)(1) * * *
(ii) * * *
(G)(
(
The revision and addition read as follows:
(c)(1) * * *
(ix)(A) 52.204-30, Federal Acquisition Supply Chain Security Act Orders—Prohibition. (DEC 2023) (Pub. L. 115-390, title II).
(B) Alternate I (DEC 2023) of 52.204-30.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), U.S. Department of Transportation.
Final rule.
This final rule announces NHTSA's determination that there are no new model year (MY) 2021 light duty truck lines subject to the parts-marking requirements of the Federal motor vehicle theft prevention standard. The agency determined no new models were high-theft or had major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of passenger car or multipurpose passenger vehicle lines. This final rule also identifies those vehicle lines that have been granted an exemption from the parts-marking requirements because they are equipped with antitheft devices determined to meet certain criteria. Lastly, this final rule identifies vehicle lines that have not been manufactured for the United States market in over 5 years.
This final rule is effective November 9, 2023.
Ms. Carlita Ballard, Office of International Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer Programs, NHTSA, West Building, W43-439, NRM-310, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590. Ms. Ballard's phone number is (202) 366-5222. Her fax number is (202) 493-2990.
The theft prevention standard (49 CFR part 541) applies to (1) all passenger car lines; (2) all multipurpose passenger vehicle (MPV) lines with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 6,000 pounds or less; (3) low-theft light-duty truck (LDT) lines with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less that have major parts that are interchangeable with a majority of the covered major parts of passenger car or MPV lines; and (4) high-theft LDT lines with a GVWR of 6,000 pounds or less.
The purpose of the theft prevention standard is to reduce the incidence of motor vehicle theft by facilitating the tracing and recovery of parts from stolen vehicles. The standard seeks to facilitate such tracing by requiring that vehicle identification numbers (VINs), VIN derivative numbers, or other symbols be placed on major component vehicle parts. The theft prevention standard requires motor vehicle manufacturers to inscribe or affix VINs onto covered original equipment major component parts, and to inscribe or affix a symbol identifying the manufacturer and a common symbol identifying the replacement component parts for those original equipment parts, on all vehicle lines subject to the requirements of the standard.
The statue at 49 U.S.C. 33104(d) provides that once a line has become subject to the theft prevention standard, the line remains subject to the requirements of the standard unless it is exempted under 49 U.S.C. 33106. Section 33106 provides that a manufacturer may petition annually to have one vehicle line exempted from the requirements of section 33104, if the line is equipped with an antitheft device meeting certain conditions as standard equipment. The exemption is granted if NHTSA determines that the antitheft device is likely to be as effective as compliance with the theft prevention standard in reducing and deterring motor vehicle thefts.
The regulations at 49 CFR part 543 establish the process through which manufacturers may seek an exemption from the theft prevention standard. Manufacturers may request an exemption under 49 CFR 543.6 by providing specific information about the antitheft device, its capabilities, and the reasons the petitioner believes the device to be as effective at reducing and deterring theft as compliance with the parts-marking requirements,
NHTSA annually publishes the names of LDT lines NHTSA has determined to be high theft pursuant to 49 CFR part
For MY 2021, there are no new LDT lines that will be subject to the theft prevention standard in accordance with the procedures published in 49 CFR part 542.
Appendix A-I identifies those vehicle lines that have been exempted by the agency from the parts-marking requirements of part 541 and is amended to include eight MY 2021 vehicle lines newly exempted in full. The eight exempted vehicle lines are the GM Chevrolet Trailblazer, Toyota Venza, Mazda CX-30, Jaguar Land Rover I-Pace, Hyundai Sonata Hybrid, Ford Bronco Sport, Volkswagen ID.4 and the Honda HR-V. NHTSA has either previously granted these exemption requests and published the determination in the
Each year the agency also amends the appendices to part 541 to remove vehicle lines that have not been manufactured for the United States market in over 5 years. The agency believes that including those vehicle lines in the part 541 appendices would be unnecessary. Therefore, the agency is removing the BMW X1, Chrysler 200, Chrysler Jeep Patriot, Chrysler Town and Country MPV, GM Buick LaCrosse/Regal, GM Cadillac SRX, GM Chevrolet Malibu, Hyundai Azera, Hyundai Equus, Mazda 5, Mercedes E320 BLUETEC, Mitsubishi iMiEV, Mitsubishi Lancer, Nissan Juke, Nissan Quest and the Volkswagen Eos vehicle lines from the appendix A-I listing. However, NHTSA will continue to maintain a comprehensive database of all exemptions on our website.
The changes made in this rule are purely informational. The eight vehicle lines that will be added to appendix A-I of part 541 were granted exemptions in accordance with the procedures of 49 CFR part 543 and 49 U.S.C. 33106 and notices of the grants of those exemptions were published in the
This rulemaking document was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866. It is not considered to be significant under E.O. 12866 or of significant note to the Department under DOT Order 2100.6A (“Rulemaking Guidance and Procedures”). The purpose of this final rule is to provide information to the public about vehicle lines that must comply with the parts-marking requirements of NHTSA's theft prevention standard and vehicles that NHTSA has exempted from those requirements. Since the purpose of the final rule is to inform the public of actions NHTSA has already taken, either determining that new lines are subject to parts-marking requirements or exempting vehicle lines from those requirements, the final rule will not impose any new burdens.
NHTSA has analyzed this final rule for the purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act. The agency has determined that implementation of this action will not have a significant impact on the quality of the human environment as it merely informs the public about previous agency actions.
The agency has analyzed this rulemaking in accordance with the principles and criteria contained in E.O. 13132 and has determined that it does not have sufficient Federal implications to warrant consultation with State and local officials or the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. As discussed above, this final rule only provides information to the public about previous agency actions.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires agencies to prepare a written assessment of the costs, benefits and other effects of proposed or final rules that include a Federal mandate likely to result in the expenditure by State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million annually ($120.7 million as adjusted annually for inflation with base year of 1995). The assessment may be combined with other assessments, as it is here.
This final rule will not result in expenditures by State, local or tribal governments or automobile manufacturers and/or their suppliers of more than $120.7 million annually. This document informs the public of previously granted exemptions. Since the only purpose of this final rule is to inform the public of previous actions taken by the agency, no new costs or burdens will result.
Pursuant to E. O. 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,”
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501,
Administrative practice and procedure, Labeling, Motor vehicles, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 541 is amended as follows:
49 U.S.C. 33101, 33102, 33103, 33104, 33105 and 33106; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95, and 501.5.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Final rule.
NMFS issues this final rule to revise the monitoring requirements for pot gear catcher/processors (CPs) participating in Bering Sea/Aleutian Islands (BSAI) groundfish fisheries. This action is needed to address management challenges created by observer data collection errors that have impacted catch estimates. This action improves observer data collection by requiring participating CPs to carry a Level 2 observer and comply with pre-cruise meeting notifications and by requiring certification and testing standards for participants choosing any of the following voluntary monitoring options: providing observer sampling stations, installing motion-compensated platform and flow scales, and carrying additional observers on the vessel. Additionally, this action changes the location of existing monitoring regulations for longline CPs and halibut deck sorting by moving them under a single, new subpart within the regulations. This action promotes the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), the Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for Groundfish of the BSAI Management Area (BSAI FMP), and other applicable laws.
This rule is effective December 11, 2023.
Electronic copies of the Regulatory Impact Review (RIR; referred to as the Analysis) prepared for this action are available from
Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this final rule may be submitted to NMFS Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21668, Juneau, AK 99802-1668, Attn: Gretchen Harrington; and to
Joel Kraski, 907-586-7228,
NMFS published a proposed rule in the
This final rule is intended to improve data collection by observers deployed by the North Pacific Observer Program (Observer Program) for management of the BSAI pot gear CP sector (referred to as BSAI pot CP sector throughout) by revising the existing observer-associated monitoring requirements for the BSAI pot CP sector. At its February 2023 meeting, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) took final action to recommend additional monitoring requirements for the BSAI pot CP sector. The following sections of this preamble generally describe the following: (1) the North Pacific Observer Program, (2) the BSAI pot CP sector, (3) and this final rule. A more-detailed description of the North Pacific Observer Program, the BSAI pot CP sector, and the need for this action is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule and in the Analysis and is not repeated here.
The Observer Program is an integral component in the management of North Pacific fisheries. The Observer Program was created with the implementation of the Magnuson-Stevens Act in the mid-1970s and has evolved from primarily observing foreign fleets to observing domestic fleets, including the BSAI pot CP sector. Regulations at subpart E of 50 CFR part 679 implement the Observer Program and describe how NMFS-certified observers will be deployed on board vessels and in processing plants to obtain information necessary for the conservation and management of the groundfish and halibut fisheries off Alaska. The information collected by observers contributes to the best available scientific information used to manage the fisheries under the Magnuson-Stevens Act.
Observers collect biological samples and gather information on total catch, including bycatch and interactions with protected species. Fishery managers use data collected by observers to manage groundfish catch and bycatch limits established in regulation and to inform the development of management measures that minimize bycatch and reduce fishery interactions with protected resources. Scientists use observer-collected data for stock assessments and marine ecosystem research.
The BSAI pot CP sector is managed in part under the License Limitation Program (LLP), which requires an LLP license endorsed for the directed fishing of groundfish in the BSAI. The LLP was recommended by the Council and approved and implemented by NMFS to address concerns of excess fishing capacity. The LLP limits the number, size, and specific operation of vessels deployed in the groundfish fisheries in the Exclusive Economic Zone off Alaska (63 FR 52642, October 1, 1998; § 679.4(k)(4)). The BSAI pot CP sector is relatively small, with only eight LLP licenses that are endorsed to allow CPs to fish for Pacific cod with pot gear in the Bering Sea (BS) or Aleutian Islands (AI), and only six of which were actively used to fish in 2022.
The BSAI pot CP sector targets primarily Pacific cod using pot gear with single lines. Each vessel is currently required to deploy a certified observer to monitor their fishing activity. Pacific cod seasons in the BSAI are often short, lasting approximately 1 to 2 weeks during the A season (beginning January 1) and the B season (beginning September 1) in recent years. The fast pace of fishing with pot gear, high sampling workload, and the need for close communication between the captain and observer make the BSAI pot CP sector one of the most difficult fisheries for the Observer Program to sample. This sector is separate from CPs using pot gear to target groundfish in the Community Development Quota (CDQ) Program (63 FR 30381, June 4, 1998), and this action does not change any aspect of the CDQ regulations (§ 679.32). The CDQ Program allocates a percentage of BSAI quota for groundfish, prohibited species, halibut, and crab to eligible communities. The CDQ program, which was established to provide eligible western Alaska villages with the opportunity to participate and invest in BSAI fisheries and to support the economic development of local economies in western Alaska, already
This action requires BSAI Pot CP Pacific Cod directed fishery participants to carry at least one Level 2 observer at all times, requires participants to comply with pre-cruise meeting notifications, and requires certification and testing standards for participants choosing any of the following voluntary monitoring options: providing observer sampling stations, installing motion-compensated platform and flow scales, and carrying additional observers. The three voluntary monitoring options for pot CP vessels included in this final rule establish regulations necessary to ensure the proper testing and maintenance of the equipment voluntarily installed by vessels to further improve the precision of observer data.
This final rule restructures subpart I and subpart K of 50 CFR part 679 to combine three sets of regulations under a single subpart, as follows: (1) existing regulations for longline CPs; (2) this action's regulations for pot CPs; and (3) existing regulations for CPs and motherships participating in the halibut deck sorting program. This restructuring makes no substantive changes to the regulatory requirements for longline CPs or the halibut deck sorting program but is necessary to streamline similar monitoring regulations for CPs and motherships, and thus provide the public easier access to the regulations. This final rule revises subpart I, which currently applies only to equipment and operational requirements for the longline CP subsector, so that subpart I will also apply to the equipment and operational requirements for pot CPs and for (non-pot) CPs and motherships participating in the halibut deck sorting program. This final rule changes the title of § 679.100 (from the current title, “Applicability”) to “Longline Catcher/Processor Subsector,” changes the title of subpart I (from the current title of “Equipment and Operational Requirements for the Longline Catcher/Processor Subsector”) to “Additional Equipment and Operational Requirements for Motherships and Catcher/Processors,” and changes all references to existing subpart I to new § 679.100. The regulations for the halibut deck sorting program, which are currently found at § 679.120 (titled “Halibut deck sorting”) in subpart K (similarly entitled “Halibut Deck Sorting”), are moved to subpart I and redesignated as § 679.102, with no other changes. As described further below, revised subpart I also includes new § 679.101, which contains the new pot CP monitoring requirements and is entitled, “Catcher/processors using pot gear for groundfish fishing.” In conclusion, these changes are intended to streamline and provide the public easier access to the regulations by placing similar monitoring regulations for CPs and motherships together in the same subpart rather than dispersed among other subparts where they are harder to locate.
This final rule includes three new monitoring regulatory elements for the BSAI pot CP sector. The first element adds paragraph (H) in § 679.51(a)(2)(vi) to require a minimum of one Level 2 observer on board a CP vessel using pot gear subject to § 679.101(a) at all times. These changes are intended to reduce the likelihood of fisheries data loss by ensuring experienced observers are deployed on board pot CP vessels. In addition, paragraph § 679.53(a)(5)(iv) (which states when a Level 2 endorsement is required) is revised to add a reference to the new § 679.51(a)(2)(vi)(H) requirement.
The second element of this final rule adds paragraph (a) in new § 679.101 to define the applicability of regulations at § 679.101 to the owner and operator of a vessel named on an LLP license with a Pacific cod CP pot gear endorsement in the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands, or both. In addition, this final rule adds paragraph (b) in § 679.101 to require that vessels provide pre-cruise notification at least 24 hours prior to departure when the vessel will be carrying an observer who has not been deployed on that vessel within the last 12 months. In addition, when a pre-cruise meeting is requested by NMFS, the meeting must include the vessel operator or manager and the observers assigned to that vessel. These changes are intended to reduce the likelihood of data loss by ensuring effective communication and collaboration between the observer(s) and the captain and crew.
The third element of this final rule adds paragraph (c) in § 679.101 to include three additional voluntary monitoring options for pot CPs. The owner or operator of a vessel subject to this section may choose any, all, or none of these voluntary monitoring options: (1) providing a certified observer sampling station with a NMFS-approved motion-compensated platform (MCP) scale for observer use; (2) installing a motion-compensated, NMFS-approved scale to measure the total catch of Pacific cod, in conjunction with an MCP scale for testing, electronic logbook, and video monitoring; and (3) carrying additional observers on board. Each of these options is explained in further detail in the following sections.
The vessel operators have the option to choose to install an observer sampling station in accordance with the specifications and requirements in § 679.28(d), including a working area of 4.5 square meters, a worktable, and a MCP scale, all in proximity to where the observer can see gear retrieved and obtain fish samples (see Section 2.2.3.1 of the Analysis). An observer sampling station provides an organized workspace and higher precision equipment for observer use that improves observer data collection; however, installation of an observer sampling station can be costly. Section 679.101(c)(1) of this final rule applies if a vessel operator chooses to install an observer sampling station.
This final rule adds regulations at § 679.101 to authorize use of a motion-compensated, NMFS-approved total weight scale, such as a flow or hopper scale, to measure total catch of Pacific cod, in conjunction with an MCP scale for testing, electronic logbook, and video monitoring (see Section 2.2.3.2 of Analysis). Use of a NMFS-approved scale to measure total catch of Pacific cod simplifies observer data collection of Pacific cod total haul weights on pot CP vessels and improves precision of catch estimates. Installation of a NMFS-approved scale can be costly. To ensure catch monitoring is effective if a CP vessel uses such a scale, this final rule includes regulations that apply if a vessel operator chooses to install this NMFS-approved MCP scale. With proper maintenance and testing, these types of haul-level measurements eliminate the uncertainty involved in estimating total catch using a randomized sample approach by providing a total weight of all retained catch.
If vessel operators choose to acquire such scales, they are required to maintain them in accordance with the scale requirements at § 679.28(b) to ensure data quality. These requirements include an initial inspection, followed by annual re-inspections by a NMFS-staff scale inspector. Additionally, daily testing by the vessel operator in the presence of an observer is required for each calendar day the scale is used at sea. In this testing, scales must perform within three percent of test weights using a NMFS-approved and certified MCP scale. More information about this testing can be found under the discussion of option 1 of element 3 in
This final rule adds language in paragraph (c) of § 679.101 and in § 679.51(a)(2)(vi) to authorize a vessel to choose to carry one or more additional observers. Any observer in addition to the required Level 2 observer is not required to have observer certification endorsements in addition to the observer certification training endorsement specified at § 679.53(a)(5)(i). Carrying an additional observer could reduce the likelihood of data loss. The addition of observers may reduce observer workload and could allow observers to support and advise each other about their collection duties, and, therefore, potentially could lead to fewer data collection errors and an increase in the number of samples conducted. This option is already available under existing monitoring provisions (§ 679.51) that allow a vessel to choose to contract with an observer provider to carry more than one observer. This final rule adds provisions that expressly authorize and apply to the practice of voluntarily adding observers to increase the number of total hauls that are randomly sampled. If a vessel operator chooses this option, one observer is required to meet the Level 2 endorsement requirement in this final rule.
This final rule includes minor technical and organizational changes to account for the Pacific Cod Trawl Cooperative (PCTC) final rule (88 FR 53704, August 8, 2023). The PCTC final rule implemented Amendment 122 to the BSAI FMP. Amendment 122 established the Pacific Cod Trawl Cooperative Program, a limited access privilege program to harvest Pacific cod in the BSAI trawl catcher vessel sector. Among numerous other regulatory changes, the PCTC final rule modified 679.51(a)(2)(vi) by adding paragraph (G) and defined the “NMFS Alaska Region website” at § 679.2. The PCTC final rule was published after the proposed rule for this action. The paragraph that appeared as § 679.51(a)(2)(vi)(G) in the proposed rule is included in this final rule as § 679.51(a)(2)(vi)(H). Technical changes have been made to the rule in §§ 679.51 and 679.100 to remove the URL for “NMFS Alaska Region website.” Technical changes were also made to 679.101(c)(3)(i)(A) through (C) to clearly show that all three of the paragraphs are part of an additive list of requirements.
NMFS received one comment letter in support of the action during the comment period. The comment letter was from a fishing company that operates a vessel impacted by this action and the letter contained one substantive comment that is summarized and responded to below.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(3) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator (AA) has determined that this final rule is consistent with Amendment 122 to the BSAI FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law.
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866.
A Regulatory Impact Review (RIR or Analysis) was prepared to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. A copy of this Analysis is available from NMFS (see
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration during the proposed rule stage that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The factual basis for the certification was published in the proposed rule and is not repeated here. No comments were received regarding this certification. As a result, a regulatory flexibility analysis was not required and none was prepared.
This final rule contains collection-of-information requirements subject to review and approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This final rule revises existing collection-of-information requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0318 (North Pacific Observer Program), and revises and extends for 3 years existing collection-of-information requirements for OMB Control Numbers 0648-0330 (NMFS Alaska Region Scale and Catch Weighing Requirements) and 0648-0515 (Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System). However, because the collection of information authorized by 0648-0318 is concurrently being revised by a separate action, the revision to that collection of information for this final rule will be assigned a temporary control number, 0648-0815, that will later be merged into 0648-0318. The public reporting burden estimates for the collection-of-information requirements provided below include the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
This final rule revises the collection of information under OMB Control Number 0648-0318, associated with the North Pacific Observer Program. Due to a concurrent action for this collection, the collection-of-information requirements will be assigned a temporary control number, 0648-0815, that will later be merged into OMB Control Number 0648-0318. This final rule requires that the North Pacific Observer Program be notified by phone at least 24 hours prior to departure when a vessel will carry an observer who has not deployed on that vessel in the past 12 months. The public reporting burden per notification to the North Pacific Observer Program by phone is estimated to be 5 minutes.
NMFS revises and extends by 3 years the existing requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0330. This collection contains catch weighing and monitoring requirements for catch share programs in the BSAI and Gulf of Alaska. This collection is revised to include two of the voluntary monitoring options for BSAI pot CPs: the option to provide a certified observer sampling station with a NMFS-approved MCP scale for observer use; and the option to install a motion-compensated, NMFS-approved scale to measure the total catch of Pacific cod, in conjunction with an MCP scale for testing and video monitoring. This final rule requires testing and inspections of the observer
NMFS revises and extends by 3 years the existing requirements for OMB Control Number 0648-0515. This collection contains the landing reports, production reports, and logbooks submitted through the Alaska Interagency Electronic Reporting System, which provides the Alaska fishing industry with a consolidated, electronic means of reporting commercial fish and shellfish information to multiple management agencies through a single reporting system. This collection is being revised because one of the voluntary monitoring options requires use of an electronic logbook. This final rule does not change the public reporting burdens for the collection-of-information requirements under this control number. The public reporting burden per individual response is estimated to average 15 minutes for the electronic logbooks, 15 minutes to register for eLandings, 10 minutes for the shoreside processor production report, 20 minutes for the at-sea production report, 10 minutes for the mothership landing report, 20 minutes for the out-of-state landing report, 30 minutes each for the shoreside processors landing report and the CP landing report, 35 minutes for the tender landing report, and 1 hour each for the registered buyer landing report for individual fishing quota (IFQ)/community development quota (CDQ) and the registered crab receiver landing report for IFQ/CDQ.
We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Written comments and recommendations for this information collection should be submitted at the following website:
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, and no person shall be subject to penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Alaska, Fisheries, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS amends 50 CFR part 679 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 773
(a) § 679.2;
(b) § 679.7(e)(1), (2), (3), and (10), and (m)(4)(iv);
(c) § 679.28(d)(9), (d)(10)(iii)(A), and (l);
(d) § 679.32(c)(3)(i)(C)(
(e) § 679.51(a)(2)(vi)(F);
(f) § 679.63(a)(1);
(g) § 679.84(c)(1); and
(h) § 679.93(c)(1).
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(vi) * * *
(H)
The owner and operator of a vessel named on an LLP license with a Pacific cod catcher/processor hook-and-line endorsement for the Bering Sea, Aleutian Islands or both the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands subareas (BSAI) must comply with the requirements of this section.
(a)
(b)
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1)
(2)
(3)
(i) A vessel owner and operator with an approved Scale Inspection Report must ensure that—
(A) All Pacific cod brought on board the vessel is weighed on a NMFS-approved scale in compliance with the scale requirements at § 679.28(b), and that each set is weighed and recorded separately;
(B) The vessel is in compliance with the video monitoring requirements described at § 679.28(k); and
(C) The vessel is in compliance with the requirements for electronic logbooks at § 679.5(f) at all times during that year.
(ii) [Reserved]
Agricultural Marketing Service, Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Proposed rule.
This proposed rule would implement a recommendation from the Hazelnut Marketing Board (Board) to decrease the assessment rate established for the 2023-2024 marketing year and subsequent marketing years. The proposed assessment rate would remain in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated.
Comments must be received by December 11, 2023 to be assured consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this proposed rule. Comments can be sent to the Docket Clerk, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237. Comments can also be submitted to the Docket Clerk electronically by Email:
Virginia Tjemsland, Marketing Specialist, or Gary Olson, Chief, West Region Branch, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326-2724, or Email:
Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Richard Lower, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; Telephone: (202) 720-8085, or Email:
This action, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, proposes to amend regulations issued to carry out a marketing order as defined in 7 CFR 900.2(j). This proposed rule is issued under Marketing Agreement No. 115 and Order No. 982, both as amended (7 CFR part 982), regulating the handling of hazelnuts grown in Oregon and Washington. Part 982 (referred to as the “Order”) is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Board locally administers the Order and comprises growers and handlers of hazelnuts operating within the area of production, and a public member.
The Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) is issuing this proposed rule in conformance with Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and promoting flexibility. Executive Order 14094 supplements and reaffirms Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and directs agencies to conduct proactive outreach to engage interested and affected parties through a variety of means, such as through field offices, and alternative platforms and media. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, which requires agencies to consider whether their rulemaking actions would have Tribal implications. AMS has determined that this proposed rule is unlikely to have substantial direct effects on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under the Order now in effect, hazelnut handlers are subject to assessments. Funds to administer the Order are derived from such assessments. It is intended that the assessment rate would be applicable to all assessable hazelnuts for the 2023-2024 marketing year, and continue until amended, suspended, or terminated.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. Such handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing, USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Section 982.61 provides authority for the Board, with the approval of AMS, to formulate an annual budget of expenses and collect assessments from handlers to administer the program. Members are familiar with the Board's needs and with the costs of goods and services in their local area and are, thus, in a position to formulate an appropriate budget and assessment rate. The assessment rate is formulated and
For the 2017-2018 marketing year and subsequent marketing years, the Board recommended, and AMS approved, an assessment rate of $12 per ton (equivalent to $0.006 per pound) of hazelnuts. That rate continues in effect from marketing year to marketing year until modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other information available to AMS. This proposed rule would decrease the assessment rate from $0.006 per pound to $0.005 per pound for the 2023-2024 marketing year and subsequent marketing years.
The Board met on June 29, 2023, and recommended 2023-2024 marketing year expenditures of $1,815,000 and an assessment rate of $10 per ton (the equivalent of $0.005 per pound) of hazelnuts handled for the 2023-2024 marketing year and subsequent marketing years. In comparison, last year's budgeted expenditures were $2,378,550. The proposed assessment rate of $0.005 per pound is $0.001 lower than the rate currently in effect. The Board recommended decreasing the assessment rate to better align assessment revenue with budgeted expenses and to reduce the financial burden on the industry in a period of low commodity prices. The Board projects handler receipts of 85,000 tons (170 million pounds) of hazelnuts for the 2023-2024 marketing year, which is 10,000 tons (20 million pounds) more than was projected for the 2022-2023 marketing year.
The expenditures totaling $1,815,000 recommended by the Board for the 2023-2024 marketing year include $670,000 for promotional activities, $300,000 for contingency/undesignated, $100,000 for marketing research, $100,000 for research endowment, $378,000 for administrative activities, and $267,000 for miscellaneous expenses. By comparison, budgeted expenditures for the 2022-2023 marketing year for promotional activities, contingency, marketing research, research endowment, administrative activities and miscellaneous expenses were $1,251,200, $200,000, $150,000, $100,000, $347,350, and $330,000, respectively. The Board's 2023-2024 marketing year budget was reduced to account for generally lower commodity prices and decreased industry revenue.
The expected 170 million pounds of assessable hazelnuts from the 2023 crop would generate $850,000 in assessment revenue at the proposed assessment rate (170 million pounds multiplied by $0.005 assessment rate). The remaining $965,000 needed to cover budgeted expenditures would come from new grant funds and reserve funds carried over from previous marketing years. The Board anticipates $495,000 in federal grants administered by USDA's Foreign Agricultural Service.
The Board derived the recommended assessment rate by considering anticipated expenses, an estimated 2023 crop volume of 170 million pounds of assessable hazelnuts, grants that have been awarded, and the amount of funds available in the authorized reserve. Income derived from handler assessments ($850,000), and funds from other sources ($965,000), is expected to be adequate to cover budgeted expenses ($1,815,000).
The proposed assessment rate would continue in effect indefinitely unless modified, suspended, or terminated by AMS upon recommendation and information submitted by the Board or other available information.
Although this assessment rate would be in effect for an indefinite period, the Board would continue to meet prior to or during each marketing year to recommend a budget of expenses and consider recommendations for modification of the assessment rate. The dates and times of Board meetings are available from the Board or AMS. Board meetings are open to the public and interested persons may express their views at these meetings. AMS would evaluate Board recommendations and other available information to determine whether modification of the assessment rate is needed. Further rulemaking would be undertaken as necessary. The Board's 2023-2024 marketing year budget and those for subsequent marketing years will be reviewed and, as appropriate, approved by AMS.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS has considered the economic impact of this proposed rule on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of businesses subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of typically small entities acting on their own behalf.
There are approximately 1,103 producers of hazelnuts in the production area and 14 handlers subject to regulation under the Order. At the time this analysis was prepared, small agricultural producers of hazelnuts were defined by the Small Business Administration (SBA) as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $3,750,000 (North American Industry Classification System code 111335), and small agricultural service firms were defined as those whose annual receipts are equal to or less than $34,000,000 (North American Industry Classification System code 115114) (13 CFR 121.201).
According to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS), the average producer price received for hazelnuts sold in Oregon specifically in 2022 was $1,300 per ton. Total production of hazelnuts for the 2022 season was reported by the NASS to be 68,000 tons. Using the average price and production data from the 2022 crop year, the most recent year for which there is NASS data available, the total 2022 crop value of hazelnuts could be estimated to be $88,400,000 (68,000 tons times $1,300 per ton). Dividing the crop value by the estimated number of producers (1,103) yields estimated average receipts per hazelnut producer of $80,145, which is well below the SBA threshold for small producers.
In addition, according to AMS Market News data, the reported average 2021-2022 marketing year shipping point price for hazelnuts was $126.82 per 50-pound container, or $2.54 per pound ($126.82 per 50-pound container divided by 50 pounds). Multiplying the 2022 hazelnut production of 136,000,000 pounds (68,000 tons) by the estimated average price per pound of $2.54 equals $345,440,000 of estimated handler receipts. Dividing this figure by the 14 regulated handlers yields estimated average annual handler receipts of approximately $24,674,286 ($345,440,000 divided by 14 handlers), which is below the SBA threshold for small agricultural service firms. Therefore, using the above data, most of
This proposal would decrease the assessment rate collected from handlers for the 2023-2024 marketing year and subsequent marketing years from $0.006 to $0.005 per pound of assessable hazelnuts. The Board unanimously recommended 2023-2024 marketing year expenditures of $1,815,000 and an assessment rate of $10 per ton ($0.005 per pound) of assessable hazelnuts. The proposed assessment rate of $0.005 per pound is $.001 lower than the current rate. The Board expects the industry to handle 85,000 tons (170 million pounds) of assessable hazelnuts during the 2023-2024 marketing year. Thus, at the $0.005 per pound rate, the Board anticipates $850,000 in assessment income (170 million pounds multiplied by $0.005 per pound). The Board also expects to use grant funds and the Board's monetary reserve to cover the remaining $965,000 of expenses. Income derived from handler assessments, along with grants and reserve funds, should be adequate to meet budgeted expenditures for the 2023-2024 marketing year.
The major expenditures recommended by the Board for the 2023-2024 marketing year include $670,000 for promotional activities, $300,000 for contingency/undesignated, $100,000 for marketing research, $100,000 for research endowment, $378,000 for administrative activities, and $267,000 for miscellaneous expenses. Budgeted expenditures for the 2022-2023 marketing year were $1,251,200 for promotional activities, $200,000 for contingency/undesignated, $150,000 for marketing research, $100,000 for research endowment, $347,350 for administrative activities, and $330,000 for miscellaneous, respectively.
The Board's 2023-2024 marketing year budget was reduced $563,550 from the prior year's budget to account for generally lower commodity prices and decreased industry revenue. In addition, the Board recommended decreasing the assessment rate to reduce the financial burden on the handlers and growers during the current environment of depressed prices. In recent years, the Board has utilized reserve funds to partially fund its budgeted expenditures. The Board's 2023-2024 marketing year budget again utilizes funds from the financial reserve to subsidize expenditures, but at a lower amount than in previous years. With this action, the Board's reserve balance would be maintained at a level that the Board believes is appropriate and is compliant with the provisions of the Order.
Prior to arriving at the budget and proposed assessment rate, the Board discussed various alternatives, including maintaining the current assessment rate of $0.006 per pound and reducing the assessment rate to $0.0055 per pound ($11 per ton). However, the Board determined that the recommended assessment rate would be able to reduce the financial burden on the industry and still fund most of the Board's budgeted expenses without drawing down reserves at an unsustainable rate. The assessment rate of $0.005 per pound of hazelnuts was derived by considering anticipated expenses, the projected volume of assessable hazelnuts, the projected monetary balance held in reserve, and additional pertinent factors.
A review of NASS information indicates that the average producer price for the 2022 crop year was $0.65 per pound ($1,300 per ton). Further, NASS reported the quantity of hazelnuts harvested in the 2022 crop year was 136 million pounds (68,000 tons), which yields estimated total producer revenue for 2022 of $88,400,000 ($0.65 per pound multiplied by 136 million pounds). Therefore, utilizing the assessment rate of $0.005 per pound, the estimated assessment revenue as a percentage of total producer revenue would be approximately 0.77 percent ($0.005 per pound multiplied by 136 million pounds divided by $88,400,000 and multiplied by 100).
This proposed action would decrease the assessment obligation imposed on handlers. Assessments are applied uniformly on all handlers, and some of the costs may be passed on to growers. However, these costs are expected to be offset by the benefits derived by the operation of the Order.
The Board's meetings are widely publicized throughout the production area. The hazelnut industry and all interested persons are invited to attend the meetings and participate in Board deliberations on all issues. Like all Board meetings, the June 29, 2023, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit comments on this proposed rule, including the regulatory and information collection impacts of this action on small businesses.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Order's information collection requirements have been previously approved by OMB and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. No changes in those requirements would be necessary as a result of this proposed rule. Should any changes become necessary, they would be submitted to OMB for approval.
This proposed rule would not impose any additional reporting or recordkeeping requirements on either small or large hazelnut handlers. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies.
AMS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes.
AMS has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this proposed rule.
A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at:
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Committee and other available information, USDA has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with and will effectuate the purposes of the Act.
A 30-day comment period is provided to allow interested persons to respond to this proposed rule. All written comments timely received will be considered before a final determination is made on this rule.
Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service proposes to amend 7 CFR part 982 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 601-674.
On and after July 1, 2023, an assessment rate of $0.005 per pound is
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) Model PW307A and PW307D engines. This proposed AD was prompted by a root cause analysis of an event involving an uncontained failure of a high-pressure turbine (HPT) 1st-stage disk that resulted in high-energy debris penetrating the engine cowling and an aborted takeoff. This proposed AD would require removing from service and replacing certain HPT disks and would also prohibit installing certain HPT disks on any engine, as specified in a Transport Canada AD, which is proposed for incorporation by reference (IBR). The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by December 26, 2023.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario, K1A 0N5, Canada; phone: (888) 663-3639; email:
• You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (781) 238-7146; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, has issued Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30, dated May 8, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30) (also referred to as the MCAI), to correct an unsafe condition on P&WC Model PW307A and PW307D engines with certain serial numbered HPT disks installed. The MCAI states that on March 18, 2020, an Airbus Model A321-231 airplane, powered by an International Aero Engines AG (IAE) Model V2533-A5 engines, experienced an uncontained HPT 1st-stage disk failure that resulted in an aborted takeoff and high-energy debris penetrating the engine cowling.
In response to the March 2020 uncontained HPT 1st-stage disk failure, the FAA issued a series of ADs, including Emergency AD 2020-07-51, Amendment 39-21110 (85 FR 20402, April 13, 2020) (AD 2020-07-51). Since the FAA issued AD 2020-07-51, IAE determined that the failure of the V2533-A5 engine was due to an undetected subsurface material defect in the HPT 1st-stage disk that may affect the life of the part. In coordination with IAE, P&WC performed a records review and analysis of PW307A and PW307D engine parts made of similar material and identified additional affected HPT 1st and 2nd-stage disks, installed on PW307A and PW307D engines. These additional HPT disks may have a material defect that could reduce the life of the part and must be removed from service.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30, which identifies the affected HPT disks and specifies procedures for replacement. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has since coordinated with other manufacturers and CAAs to use this process. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate by reference Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30 in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Using common terms that are the same as the heading of a particular section in the Transport Canada AD does not mean that operators need comply only with that section. For example, where the AD requirement refers to “Compliance,” compliance with this AD requirement is not limited to the section titled “Corrective Actions” in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30. Service information required by the Transport Canada AD for compliance will be available at
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the MCAI, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 63 engines, installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by December 26, 2023.
None.
This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Model PW307A and PW307D engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7250, Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by a root cause analysis of an event involving an International Aero Engines AG Model
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraphs (h) and (i) of this AD: Perform all required actions within the compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30, dated May 8, 2023 (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30).
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30 requires compliance from its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where paragraph A. of Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30 specifies “Before 31 January 2027,” replace that text with “Within 36 months after the effective date of this AD.”
(3) Where paragraph B. of Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30 specifies “At the next opportunity, when the affected engine is disassembled and access is available to the HPT disk, remove any affected HPT disk listed in Table 2 or Table 4 below and replace the affected HPT disk with a serviceable part,” replace that text with “For any engine with an installed HPT disk listed in Table 2 or Table 4 [of Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30], at the next piece-part exposure, remove the affected HPT disk from service and replace with a serviceable part.”
Although the service information referenced in Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30 specifies to submit certain information to the manufacturer, this AD does not include that requirement.
(1) For the purpose of this AD, “piece-part exposure” is when the affected part is removed from the engine and completely disassembled.
(2) For the purpose of this AD, a “serviceable part” is any HPT disk that is not identified in Tables 1 through 4 of Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD and email to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (781) 238-7146; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30, dated May 8, 2023.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada AD CF-2023-30, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; phone: (888) 663-3639; email:
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Proposed rule; withdrawal.
This action withdraws the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published in the
Effective as of 0901 UTC, November 9, 2023, the proposed rule published December 22, 2022 (87 FR 78616), is withdrawn.
Jeffrey Claypool, Federal Aviation Administration, Operations Support Group, Central Service Center, 10101 Hillwood Parkway, Fort Worth, TX 76177; telephone (817) 222-5711.
The FAA published a NPRM on December 22, 2022 (87 FR 78616), Docket No. FAA-2022-1673, to amend 14 CFR 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Paoli Municipal Airport, Paoli, IN, to support instrument flight rule operations at this airport. Subsequent to publication, the FAA was notified that the airport has withdrawn its request to develop public instrument flight procedures at this airport which necessitated the Class E airspace.
The FAA determined that the NPRM published on December 22, 2022 (87 FR 78616), is unnecessary. Therefore, the FAA withdraws that NPRM.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal airways V-5, V-47, V-97, V-128, V-275, and V-517, and United States Area Navigation (RNAV) route T-315, and revoke VOR Federal airway V-19. The FAA is proposing this action due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Cincinnati, KY (CVG), VOR/Tactical Air Navigation (VORTAC) navigational aid (NAVAID). The Cincinnati VOR is being decommissioned in support of the FAA's VOR Minimum Operational Network (MON) program.
Comments must be received on or before December 26, 2023
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2023-2194 and Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-19 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Colby Abbott, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would modify the National Airspace System (NAS) as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010(a) and United States Area Navigation Routes (T-routes) are published in paragraph 6011 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
The FAA is planning to decommission the Cincinnati, KY, VOR in May 2024. The Cincinnati VOR was one of the candidate VORs identified for discontinuance by the FAA's VOR MON program and listed in the final policy statement notice, “Provision of Navigation Services for the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen) Transition to Performance-Based Navigation (PBN) (Plan for Establishing a VOR Minimum Operational Network),” published in the
Although the VOR portion of the Cincinnati, KY, VORTAC is planned for decommissioning, the co-located Tactical Air Navigation (TACAN) portion of the NAVAID is being retained to provide navigational service for
The VOR Federal airways affected by the Cincinnati VOR decommissioning are V-5, V-19, V-47, V-97, V-128, V-275, and V-517. With the planned decommissioning of the Cincinnati VOR, the remaining ground-based NAVAID coverage in the area is insufficient to enable the continuity of the affected airways. As such, proposed modifications to V-5, V-47, V-128, V-275, and V-517 would result in the airways being shortened; to V-97 would result in an existing gap in the airway being expanded; and to V-19 would result in the airway being revoked.
To address the proposed modifications to the affected VOR Federal airways, instrument flight rules (IFR) pilots operating aircraft equipped with RNAV capabilities could use RNAV routes T-213, T-215, and T-217 or navigate point-to-point using the existing fixes and waypoints (WP) that will remain in place to support continued operations though the affected area. IFR pilots operating aircraft not equipped with RNAV capabilities may request air traffic control (ATC) radar vectors to fly through or around the affected area. Additionally, visual flight rules pilots who elect to navigate via the affected Air Traffic Service (ATS) routes may also take advantage of the ATC services listed previously.
Additionally, the FAA proposes to modify United States RNAV route T-315 to further mitigate the proposed modifications to the affected airways. The route would be extended westward to mitigate the proposed removal of the affected V-128 airway segment. The extended T-315 would provide pilots with RNAV-equipped aircraft a route alternative through the affected area, reduce ATC sector workload and complexity, reduce pilot-to-controller communications, and support the FAA's continued NextGen efforts to modernize the NAS from a ground-based system to a satellite-based system.
The FAA is proposing to amend 14 CFR part 71 to amend VOR Federal airways V-5, V-47, V-97, V-128, V-275, and V-517, and United States RNAV route T-315, and to revoke VOR Federal airway V-19 due to the planned decommissioning of the VOR portion of the Cincinnati, KY, VORTAC. The proposed ATS route actions are described below.
The NAVAID radials listed in the VOR Federal airway descriptions in The Proposed Amendment section below are unchanged and stated in degrees True north.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Pecan, GA; Vienna, GA; Dublin, GA; to Athens, GA.
From Rosewood, OH; to Flag City, OH.
From Dolphin, FL; La Belle, FL; St. Petersburg, FL; Seminole, FL; Pecan, GA; to INT Pecan 357° and Vienna, GA 300° radials. From INT Rome, GA, 060° and Volunteer, TN, 197° radials; Volunteer; London, KY; to Lexington, KY. From Nodine, MN; to Gopher, MN. The airspace below 2,000 feet MSL outside the United States is excluded.
From York, KY; Charleston, WV; to Casanova, VA.
From Dayton, OH; to INT Dayton 007° and Flag City, OH, 313° radials.
From Snowbird, TN; INT Snowbird 329° and London, KY, 141° radials; London; INT London 004° and Falmouth, KY, 164° radials; to Falmouth.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a security zone for certain waters of the Key West Harbor surrounding the Coast Guard Sector Key West on Trumbo Point Annex. This action is necessary to safeguard Coast Guard assets in the interest of national security. This proposed rulemaking would prohibit persons and vessels from being in the security zone unless authorized by the Captain of the Port Key West or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before December 11, 2023.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2023-0803 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Lieutenant Hailye Wilson, Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 305-292-8768, email
The Coast Guard Sector Key West, FL and its assets are on property previously under the control of the Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West, FL. The current regulations restricting vessel traffic in and around NAS Key West are found in 33 CFR 334.610 and are only enforceable by the Commanding Officer of NAS Key West, and certain designated agencies. Currently, the Coast Guard requires the authority from the Commanding Officer, NAS Key West, before they can enforce a security zone in and around Coast Guard property and assets. This additional step can generate unnecessary delays, which creates security concerns for the Coast Guard and potential hazards to the public. The Captain of the Port Key West (COTP) has determined that permanent security zone is in the interest of national security, the safety of life, and the prevention of damage to property.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to ensure the security of vessels, waterfront facilities, and personnel located at the Coast Guard, Sector Key West. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70051 and 70124.
The COTP is proposing to establish a permanent security zone surrounding the Coast Guard Sector Key West, located adjacent to Trumbo Point Annex, Naval Air Station Key West. The security zone would cover all navigable waters within 100 yards of the Coast Guard Sector Key West. No vessel, other than Government-owned vessels and specifically authorized private craft, or persons would be permitted to stop or land in the security zone. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the fact that the area covered by the permanent security zone created by this rulemaking is already a regulated restricted area as contained in 33 CFR 334.610. Unauthorized vessels and persons have not been allowed to stop and land within 100 yards of the Coast Guard base on Trumbo Point Annex through the regulation in § 334.610. This rulemaking allows the Coast Guard to enforce the restricted area through a security zone. Additionally, the security zone only extends 100 yards from the Coast Guard Sector Key West, located adjacent to Trumbo Point Annex, Naval Air Station Key West and does not impede any regular vessel traffic (
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.
For the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a security zone that would prohibit vessels and persons from stopping or landing within 100 yards of the United Sates Coast Guard base on Trumbo Point Annex. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A 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.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) While anchoring, loitering, or fishing activities are prohibited, vessels may transit the following portions of the security zone at safe speed:
(i) Fleming Key Cut, extending from the northwest corner of Pier D-3 of U.S. Coast Guard Key West, eastward beneath the Fleming Key bridge.
(ii) Key West Bight Channel, which extends easterly from the Main Ship Channel into Key West Bight, the northerly edge of which channel passes 25 feet south of the U.S. Coast Guard Sector Key West piers on the north side of the Bight.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT).
Petition for a Declaratory Order.
The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration is seeking comment on a Petition for a Declaratory Order (Petition).
Comments are due on or before December 11, 2023. Reply comments to comments received are due on or before December 26, 2023.
Comments should reference the docket number for the petition request and may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tewabe Asebe, Office of Pipeline Safety, by phone at 202-366-5523 or by email at
PHMSA is evaluating a Petition for a Declaratory Order (Petition) from Mifflin Energy Corporation (Mifflin), pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 60117(b)(1)(J).
Mifflin operated a production line in Greene County, Pennsylvania, which was subject to a free gas arrangement. Under the arrangement, gas flowed from Mifflin's production line through a pipeline owned by the landowner, with the regulator and meter placed at the juncture of the production line and the customer-owned pipeline. In March 2020, with Mifflin's consent, the landowner moved the regulator and the meter downstream of the juncture, further down the landowner's pipeline.
On January 29, 2021, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission's (PAPUC) Bureau of Investigation and Enforcement (BI&E) requested an interpretation of 49 CFR part 192 as it concerned the facts of this incident. On September 21, 2021, OPS issued an interpretation in response to BI&E's inquiry.
On March 20, 2023, Mifflin filed a Petition with PHMSA requesting PHMSA issue an order declaring that, under a free gas arrangement, customer-owned piping upstream of a meter is not subject to 49 CFR part 192, and that a production line operator is not responsible for ensuring compliance with part 192 on customer piping. The Petition also requested that PHMSA rescind its 2021 Interpretation issued to BI&E. The Petition is available for review in the docket for this proceeding.
Before issuing a final decision on the Petition, PHMSA will evaluate all comments received on or before the comment closing date. Comments received after the closing date will be evaluated if it is possible to do so without incurring additional expense or delay. PHMSA will consider each relevant comment received in issuing its final decision and order, which will be published in the
PHMSA notes this is the first time a person has petitioned for issuance of a declaratory order under authority granted to PHMSA by the PIPES Act of 2020.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notification of receipt of petition for rulemaking; request for comments.
NMFS announces the receipt of a petition for rulemaking under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Aleut Community of St. Paul Island (ACSPI), the Traditional Council of St. George Island (TCSGI), and the Aleut Marine Mammal Commission (AMMC) have petitioned NMFS to revise regulations governing the subsistence taking of northern fur seals. The revisions requested include: changing the current hunting season on St. Paul Island, Alaska to begin on October 15, creating an annual hunting season on St. George Island, Alaska to begin on October 15 and end on May 31, and creating an annual hunting season in the Aleutian Islands in Alaska to begin on November 1 and end on April 30, with an upper take limit for the Aleutian Islands of 100 non-breeding male fur seals. NMFS solicits public comments on this request. NMFS will consider all comments and available information when determining whether to proceed with rulemaking.
Comments must be received by December 11, 2023.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2023-091, by any of the following methods:
•
•
Electronic copies of the petitions and letters are available at:
Michael Williams, NMFS Alaska Region, 907-271-5117,
The subsistence use of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands is governed by regulations established under the Fur Seal Act in 50 CFR 216.71-74. These regulations were most recently revised on October 30, 2014 (79 FR 65327, November 4, 2014), and September 27, 2019 (84 FR 52372, October 2, 2019), to increase food security, consistent with traditional and cultural practices, and deregulate aspects of the subsistence use of northern fur seals on the Pribilof Islands. ACSPI, TCSGI, and AMMC report that Alaska Native subsistence users have experienced the direct effects of climate change through unprecedented storm frequency, timing, and duration. This has resulted in the reduction of the availability of and opportunity to obtain subsistence resources. As a result, the ACSPI, TCSGI, and the AMMC submitted requests to NMFS to change the regulations to expand fur seal hunting and harvesting opportunities to meet their customary and traditional needs and practices, as well as their subsistence needs. NMFS considers these requests to be a formal petition for rulemaking under the APA. The requests are as follows:
On November 2, 2022, ACSPI requested in a letter to NMFS that representatives from NMFS and ACSPI investigate the feasibility of changing the duration of the hunting season on St. Paul Island. Subsequent discussions by the St. Paul Island Marine Mammal Co-Management Council (which includes both NMFS and ACSPI representatives) identified regulatory changes to create greater food security and subsistence use opportunities on St. Paul Island.
Current regulations at 50 CFR 216.72(e)(1) allow subsistence hunting of northern fur seals with firearms from January 1 through May 31, annually. ACSPI requests NMFS modify regulations to allow the annual hunting season with firearms to begin October 15 and end consistent with the provisions at 50 CFR 216.72(g)(1)(i). This would result in a northern fur seal hunting season with firearms on St. Paul Island from October 15 through May 31, or when the overall quota for a calendar year is reached (2,000 juvenile male fur seals). ACSPI did not request any change to the overall quota of 2,000 juvenile northern fur seal males or the female mortality limit of 20 northern fur seals. Therefore, NMFS is not considering any changes to the quota or female mortality limit at this time.
Current regulations at 50 CFR 216.72(d) do not allow subsistence use of northern fur seals with firearms on St. George Island. The regulatory changes in 2014 (79 FR 65327, November 4, 2014) and 2019 (84 FR 52372, October 2, 2019) did not contemplate a hunting season to use firearms to take fur seals for subsistence on St. George Island.
The TCSGI submitted a letter to NMFS on June 8, 2023, requesting equitable subsistence hunting opportunities for the community of St. George by creating a hunting season using firearms annually from October 15 to May 31, similar to that proposed on St. Paul Island. The letter requested no change to the overall quota of 500 juvenile males, 150 male pups, or the female mortality limit of 3 northern fur seals. Therefore, NMFS is not considering any changes to the quota or female mortality limit at this time.
On May 1, 2023, AMMC submitted a letter to NMFS outlining their interest in resuming their traditional subsistence practices of taking fur seals. Harvesting fur seals on land in the Aleutian Islands is not practical, as the only breeding location is the uninhabited Bogoslof Island. However, northern fur seals migrate through the AMMC region (
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, has determined that the petition contains enough information to enable NMFS to consider the substance of the petition. NMFS solicits public comment on these three related requests to modify regulations that govern the taking of fur seals for subsistence purposes by Alaska Native residents of the Pribilof and Aleutian Islands. NMFS is particularly interested in information that would allow an evaluation of the effects these potential changes may have on food security, the fur seal population, and the temporal and spatial distribution of hunting effort. NMFS will consider public comments received in determining whether to proceed with the requested regulations revisions. Upon determining whether to initiate the requested rulemaking, the Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, will publish in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement management measures described in Amendment 56 to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico (FMP) as prepared by the Gulf of Mexico
Written comments on this proposed rule must be received no later than December 11, 2023.
You may submit comments on the proposed rule identified by “NOAA-NMFS-2023-0103” by either of the following methods:
•
•
An electronic copy of Amendment 56, which includes an environmental assessment, a fishery impact statement, a Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) analysis, and a regulatory impact review, may be obtained from the Southeast Regional Office website at
Dan Luers, NMFS Southeast Regional Office, telephone: 727-824-5305, or email:
NMFS, with the advice of the Council, manages the reef fish fishery, which includes gag, under the FMP in Federal waters of the Gulf. The Council prepared the FMP, which the Secretary of Commerce approved, and NMFS implements the FMP through regulations at 50 CFR part 622 under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act).
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires NMFS and regional fishery management councils to prevent overfishing and achieve, on a continuing basis, the optimum yield (OY) from federally managed fish stocks. These mandates are intended to ensure fishery resources are managed for the greatest overall benefit to the Nation, particularly with respect to providing food production and recreational opportunities, and protecting marine ecosystems.
All weights in this proposed rule are given in gutted weight unless indicated otherwise.
Gag in the Gulf exclusive economic zone (EEZ) are found primarily in the eastern Gulf. Juvenile gag are estuarine dependent and are often found in shallow seagrass beds. As gag mature, they move to deeper offshore waters to live and spawn. Gag is managed as a single stock with commercial and recreational catch limits. The allocation of the stock annual catch limit (ACL) between the commercial and recreational sectors established by Amendment 30B to the FMP is currently 39 percent commercial and 61 percent recreational.
Commercial fishing for gag is managed under the individual fishing quota (IFQ) program for groupers and tilefishes (GT-IFQ program), which began January 1, 2010, upon implementation of the final rule for Amendment 29 to the FMP (74 FR 44732, August 31, 2009; 75 FR 9116, March 1, 2010). Under the GT-IFQ program, the commercial quota for gag is set 23 percent below the gag commercial ACL, and NMFS distributes allocation (in pounds) of gag on January 1 each year to those who hold shares (in percent) of the gag total commercial quota. Both gag and red grouper, another grouper species managed under the GT-IFQ program, have a commercial multi-use provision that allows a portion of the gag quota to be harvested under the red grouper allocation, and vice versa. As explained further in Amendment 56, the multi-use provision is based on the difference between the respective red grouper and gag ACLs and quotas. However, if gag is under a rebuilding plan, as would occur under Amendment 56 and this proposed rule, the percentage of red grouper multi-use allocation is equal to zero. Commercial harvest of gag is also restricted by area closures and a minimum size limit.
NMFS, with the advice of the Council, manages the recreational harvest of gag with an ACL, an annual catch target (ACT) set approximately 10 percent below the ACL, in-season and post-season AMs, seasonal and area closures, a minimum size limit, and daily bag and possession limits.
The most recent stock assessment for gag was completed in 2021 through Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review 72 (SEDAR 72), and concluded that the gag stock is overfished is undergoing overfishing as of 2019. Compared to the previous assessment for gag, SEDAR 72 used several improved data sources, including corrections for the potential misidentification between black grouper and gag, which are similar looking species, to better quantify estimates of commercial discards. SEDAR 72 also used updated recreational catch and effort data from the Marine Recreational Information Program (MRIP) Access Point Angler Intercept Survey and Fishing Effort Survey (FES) through 2019. MRIP-FES replaced the MRIP Coastal Household Telephone Survey (CHTS) in 2018. Prior to the implementation of MRIP in 2008, recreational landings estimates were generated using the Marine Recreational Fisheries Statistics Survey (MRFSS). Because MRIP-FES is designed to more accurately measure fishing activity, total recreational fishing effort estimates generated from MRIP-FES are generally higher than both the MRFSS and MRIP-CHTS estimates. Prior to SEDAR 72, the most recent stock assessment for gag was SEDAR 33 Update (2016), which indicated that gag was not subject to overfishing and was not overfished. The SEDAR 33 Update used recreational catch and effort data generated by MRIP-CHTS.
SEDAR 72 also accounted for observations of red tide mortality directly within the stock assessment model. Gag is vulnerable to red tide events and was negatively affected by these disturbances in 2005, 2014, 2018, and projected for 2021. Modeling changes were also made in SEDAR 72 to improve size estimates of gag retained by commercial and for-hire (charter vessels and headboats) fishermen, and private anglers.
The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) reviewed the results of SEDAR 72 in November 2021 and concluded that the assessment was consistent with the best scientific information available and suitable for
At its January 2022 meeting, the Council requested that the NMFS Southeast Fisheries Science Center update the SEDAR 72 base model by replacing MRIP-FES landings estimates for the Florida private angling mode with landings estimates produced by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's State Reef Fish Survey (SRFS). Historically, SRFS estimates a slightly larger harvest of gag by private anglers and state charter vessels (in Florida) than MRIP-CHTS, but estimates a substantially smaller harvest of gag by private anglers and state charter vessels than MRIP-FES. This alternative model run of SEDAR 72 (“SRFS Run”) also used MRIP-FES data for the federally permitted charter vessel and shore modes, and Southeast Region Headboat Survey (SRHS) data for federally permitted headboats. The results of the SRFS Run was presented to the Council's SSC at its July 2022 meeting. The SSC found the SEDAR 72 SRFS Run to be consistent with the best scientific information available. The SSC determined that SRFS is a comprehensive survey for the gag private angling component of the recreational sector given that greater than 95 percent of private angling landings of gag are captured by the SRFS sampling frame and the SRFS program's collection protocol has been certified by the NMFS Office of Science and Technology as scientifically rigorous. NMFS worked in conjunction with the State of Florida to develop a calibration model to rescale historic effort estimates so that they could be compared to new estimates from SRFS. This calibration model was reviewed and approved by peer-review through the NOAA Office of Science and Technology in May 2022. Information about the calibration and the SSC's review of the SEDAR 72 SRFS Run can be found here:
Because Amendment 56 would not likely be implemented until 2024, and the Council recognized that maintaining the 2023 catch limits for gag would continue to allow overfishing, the Council sent a letter to NMFS, dated July 18, 2022 (Appendix A in Amendment 56), requesting interim measures that would reduce overfishing by reducing the gag stock ACL from 3.12 million lb (1.415 million kg) to 661,901 lb (300,233 kg). The Council determined, and NMFS agreed, that for this short-term reduction in harvest it was appropriate to maintain the current sector allocations of 39 percent commercial and 61 percent recreational, and the availability of red grouper multi-use and gag multi-use under the IFQ program. In addition to the reduction in the catch limits, the Council requested that the recreational fishing season for 2023 begin on September 1 and close on November 10, rather than the existing open season of June 1 through December 31. NMFS agreed and implemented these interim measures through a temporary rule effective on May 3, 2023 (88 FR 27701, May 3, 2023). The measures in the temporary rule are effective for 180 days (through October 30, 2023), and NMFS expects to extend them for up to 186 additional days while NMFS reviews public comments on this proposed rule and Amendment 56, and prepares any final regulations. Because the SSC's review of the SEDAR 72 SRFS Run occurred after the Council's decision to request for interim measures for gag, the recreational catch limits in the temporary rule are consistent with MRIP-FES calibrated landings, and are not directly comparable to the catch limits recommended in Amendment 56 and this proposed rule.
Based on the results of the SEDAR 72 SRFS Run and SSC recommendations, the Council recommended the following changes for gag through Amendment 56:
• Revise the maximum sustainable yield (MSY) proxy, OY, and status determination criteria (SDC);
• Establish a rebuilding plan for the stock, and revise the overfishing limit (OFL), acceptable biological catch (ABC), and stock ACL consistent with that rebuilding plan;
• Revise the commercial-recreational allocation of the stock ACL and set new commercial and recreational sector ACLs, sector ACTs, and commercial quota;
• Modify the recreational AMs; and
• Revise the Federal recreational fishing season.
The current MSY proxy is based on the yield associated with a fishing mortality rate (F) associated with the maximum yield per recruit (F
For gag, the sector allocations of the stock ACL impact the catch level projections produced by SEDAR 72. As more of the stock ACL is allocated to the recreational sector, the proportion of recreational discards and associated mortality increases. Recreational discard mortality rates are assumed to be less than commercial discard mortality rates but the total amount of recreational discards is considerably greater than commercial discards. Generally, a gag caught and released by a recreational fisherman has a greater likelihood of survival than by a commercial fisherman because of how and where they fish. However, because of the much higher numbers of gag that are released by the recreational sector compared to the commercial sector, the total number of discarded fish that die from recreational fishing exceeds dead discards from commercial fishing. This results in additional mortality for the stock and a lower projected annual yield, which means a lower OFL, ABC, and stock ACL. However, higher number of dead discards is not due to any change in how the recreational sector operates in the fishery but occurs because the SEDAR 72 SRFS Run data estimated greater fishing effort, and consequently a greater number of fish being caught, which included discards and the associated mortality from discarding fish.
In Amendment 56, the Council considered two allocation alternatives: (1) maintaining the current allocation of 39 percent commercial and 61 percent recreational, which was based on MRFSS data from 1986 through 2005, and (2) updating historical recreational landings using SRFS Run calibrated data from the same 1986 through 2005 period, which would result in an allocation of the stock ACL of 35 percent to the commercial sector and 65 percent to the recreational sector. During the development of these two allocation alternatives, the Council also reviewed allocation options based on five additional historical reference periods from 1986 to 2019. These options differed by less than 1 percent up to less than 4 percent. Because the options were so similar, the Council decided to move forward with detailed analysis of only the two alternatives described above. The Council determined that the second alternative
If implemented by NMFS, this proposed rule would modify the gag stock and sector ACLs, sector ACTs, commercial quota, recreational AMs, and recreational fishing season.
Prior to the implementation of the 2023 temporary rule, the stock ACL was 3.120 million lb (1.415 million kg) and was allocated 39 percent to the commercial sector and 61 percent to the recreational sector. The resulting commercial ACL and quota were 1.217 million lb (0.552 million kg) and 0.939 million lb (0.426 million kg) respectively, and the recreational ACL and ACT were 1.903 million lb (0.863 million kg) and 1.708 million lb (0.775 million kg) respectively. The commercial ACT is not codified. These catch limits are based on the results of the 2016 SEDAR 33 Update (2016), which included recreational landings estimates generated from MRIP-CHTS. The 2023 temporary rule reduced these catch limits consistent with the Council's request. Therefore, the current commercial ACL and commercial quota are 258,000 lb (117,027 kg) and 199,000 lb (90,265 kg), respectively, and the recreational ACL and ACT are 403,759 lb (183,142 kg) and 362,374 lb (164,370 kg), respectively. These catch limits are based on the results of the initial SEDAR 72 base model run, which included recreational landings estimates generated using MRIP-FES. Amendment 56 and this proposed rule would set the stock ACL for gag at 444,000 lb (201,395 kg) in 2024, and would allocate approximately 35 percent to the commercial sector and approximately 65 percent to the recreational sector. This results in a 155,000-lb (70,307-kg) commercial ACL, and a 288,000-lb (130,635-kg) recreational ACL for 2024. These catch limits are based on the results of the SEDAR 72 SRFS Run, which included recreational landings estimates generated using SRFS. Because of the different recreational landings estimates used to determine the catch limits described above, those catch limits are not directly comparable. However, the proposed catch limits are a significant reduction compared to the catch limits that would go back into effect after the 2023 temporary rule expires.
Amendment 56 and this proposed rule would set catch levels from 2024 through 2028, which increase during the time series. The 2028 catch levels would continue after 2028 unless modified by subsequent rulemaking. All of the catch levels were rounded down to the nearest thousand pounds. Therefore, the sum of the sector ACLs does not equal the stock ACL.
Based on the Council's recommendation, this proposed rule would modify the commercial quota such that it would be set equal to the commercial ACT, and would be approximately 5 percent below the commercial ACL. The current buffer between the commercial ACL and commercial quota is 23 percent. The Council recommended reducing this buffer, because there have been considerable improvements in the estimation of commercial landings and discards of gag since the buffer was put in place through Amendment 32 to the FMP. Further, the fraction of gag discarded compared to the total number of gag caught has remained low. NMFS does not expect the actions in Amendment 56 and this proposed rule to significantly increase commercial discards of gag. Therefore, the commercial quota would be approximately 95 percent of the commercial ACL.
For the recreational sector, the current buffer between the ACL and ACT is approximately 10 percent. The Council elected to choose a more conservative ACT than if they had applied the ACL and ACT control rule, which would have resulted in the same 10 percent buffer between the ACL and ACT. Instead, the Council decided to double that buffer to increase the probability of rebuilding gag by accounting for uncertainty in managing the recreational harvest and further reducing fishing mortality and discards that result from directed harvest. Thus, this proposed rule would implement a recreational ACT that is approximately 20 percent below the recreational ACL. Table 1 shows the catch levels recommended in Amendment 56, and except for the stock ACL, these catch levels are included in the proposed regulatory text at the end of this rule. Values proposed for 2028 would continue in subsequent fishing years unless modified through a subsequent rulemaking.
Currently for the recreational sector, the AMs require NMFS to prohibit harvest of gag for the rest of the fishing year when the recreational ACL is projected to be met. The AMs also state that if the recreational ACL for gag is exceeded in a fishing year, then in the following fishing year, NMFS will maintain the prior year's ACT at the same level, unless the best scientific information available determines that is unnecessary, and the fishing season duration will be set based on the recreational ACT. In addition to the previous measures, if gag is overfished and the recreational ACL is exceeded in a fishing year, NMFS will reduce the ACL and ACT in the following fishing year by the amount of the ACL overage, unless the best scientific information available determines that is unnecessary. Amendment 56 and this proposed rule would change the AMs to require that NMFS prohibit harvest when the recreational ACT is projected to be met regardless of whether there
This proposed rule would also remove the provision that requires the previous year's ACT to be maintained in the year following an overage of the ACL. Because the stock is overfished and NMFS is required to reduce the ACL and ACT by any overage, an additional adjustment that retains the lower ACT is unnecessary.
Before NMFS implemented the temporary recreational fishing season for gag in 2023, the season for Gulf gag began on June 1 and continued through December 31 (74 FR 17603, April 16, 2009). During the effective period of the temporary rule, the recreational fishing season opened on September 1 and was to close on November 10, 2023, unless NMFS projected the recreational ACL would be harvested prior to that date. On October 4, 2023, NMFS published a temporary rule in the
This proposed rule would modify the recreational fishing season for gag so the season would begin each year on September 1. Unlike the season implemented by the temporary rule, Amendment 56 and this proposed rule would not establish a predetermined season closure date. Consistent with the proposed changes to the AMs, NMFS would close the gag recreational season when landings are projected to reach the recreational ACT. NMFS would use the best data available to project the duration of the proposed recreational season in 2024 and in following years. NMFS expects to have better estimates of recreational fishing effort and catch of gag for a season beginning September 1 after data from 2023 are finalized. This should reduce the uncertainty in projecting an appropriate closure date for the 2024 recreational fishing season. Once the ACT for gag is projected to be met and harvest is closed, recreational fishing for gag would not resume before the end of the year because data would not yet be available to determine whether landings did reach the ACT.
In addition to the measures that would be codified through this proposed rule, Amendment 56 would revise the MSY proxy, OY, and SDC for gag. Amendment 56 would also revise the gag OFL, ABC, and sector allocations.
Based on the results of SEDAR 72, Amendment 56 would revise MSY proxy, OY, as well as the SDC used to determine whether overfishing is occurring or the stock is overfished. The proxy for MSY would be defined as the yield when fishing at F
Amendment 56 would establish a rebuilding plan and set the rebuilding time for Gulf gag at 18 years, which is based on the amount of time the stock is expected to take to rebuild if fished at 75 percent of the MSY proxy (yield at F
Consistent with the rebuilding time recommended by the Council, Amendment 56 would revise the OFL and ABC, and set the stock ACL equal to the ABC. In addition, Amendment 56 would revise the sector allocations from 39 percent commercial and 61 percent recreational to 35 percent commercial and 65 percent recreational, and revise the sector ACLs consistent with the revised allocations as discussed earlier in this proposed rule. The current OFL and ABC, and the OFLs and ABCs for 2024 through 2028, which increase over the time series as projected for the rebuilding plan, are shown in Table 2. However, the current OLF and ABC are not directly comparable to the proposed OFLs and ABCs because they are based, in part, on recreational landings estimates produced by the different surveys discussed above. Values in 2028 would continue for subsequent fishing years unless modified through another action by the Council or NMFS.
NMFS also proposes to clarify the regulations at 50 CFR 622.8(c). These regulations allow NMFS to re-open harvest for a stock in the same fishing year if data indicate that a quota or ACL was not reached as previously projected. Several stocks have ACTs that are also codified as quotas. However, some ACTs, such as the recreational ACT for gag, do not have corresponding quotas, and therefore may not appear to be included in the current authority to re-open. NMFS proposes to modify the regulations in section 622.8(c) to provide a more general reference to allowable harvest levels. This would be consistent with the framework procedures in the relevant Gulf and South Atlantic fishery management plans that allow NMFS to re-open harvest if additional data shows that NMFS closed the season prematurely.
Pursuant to section 304(b)(1)(A) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, the NMFS Assistant Administrator has determined that this proposed rule is consistent with Amendment 56, the FMP, other provisions of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, and other applicable law, subject to further consideration after public comment.
This proposed rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866.
The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the legal basis for this proposed rule. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. In addition, no new reporting and record-keeping requirements are introduced by this proposed rule.
NMFS prepared an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for this proposed rule, as required by section 603 of the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603. The IRFA describes the economic impact this proposed rule, if adopted, would have on small entities. A description of this proposed rule, why it is being considered, and the purposes of this proposed rule are contained in the
The objective of this proposed rule is to use the best scientific information available to end overfishing of gag and rebuild the stock to a level commensurate with MSY, consistent with the authority under the Magnuson-Stevens Act. All monetary estimates in the following analysis are in 2021 dollars.
Amendment 56 would revise the MSY, OY, and SDC for gag based on the results of the updated SEDAR 72 SRFS Run as reviewed by the Council's SSC. The definition of MSY would change from F
Amendment 56 would also revise the sector allocation of the stock ACL from 39 percent commercial and 61 percent recreational to approximately 35 percent commercial and 65 percent recreational. Amendment 56 would also establish a rebuilding plan based on the amount of time the stock is expected to take to rebuild based on the yield when fishing at 75 percent of F
This proposed rule would also revise the buffer between the recreational ACL and ACT, which is currently 10.25 percent (
In addition, this proposed rule would also modify the buffer the between the commercial ACL and quota, and set the quota equal to the ACT. The commercial quota is currently set at approximately 77 percent of the commercial ACL. The commercial ACT is not codified. This proposed rule would set the commercial ACT equal to approximately 95 percent of the commercial ACL and set commercial quota equal to the commercial ACT. Thus, the commercial quota would be approximately 95 percent of the commercial ACL.
Finally, this proposed rule would change the recreational season start date and modify the recreational AMs for gag. Specifically, the recreational season start date would change from June 1 to September 1 each year. The current AM requires NMFS to prohibit harvest when the recreational ACL is projected to be met, whereas this proposed rule would require NMFS to prohibit harvest when the recreational ACT is projected to be met. The current AM also requires
The gag commercial quota is allocated annually based on the percentage of gag shares in each IFQ account. For example, if an account possesses 1 percent of the gag shares and the commercial quota is 1 million lb (0.45 million kg), then that account would receive 10,000 lb (4,536 kg) of commercial gag quota. Although it is common for a single IFQ account with gag shares to be held by a single business, some businesses have multiple IFQ accounts with gag shares. As of July 8, 2021, there were 536 IFQ accounts, of which 506 IFQ accounts held gag shares. These accounts and gag shares were owned by 455 businesses. Thus, it is assumed this proposed rule would regulate 455 commercial fishing businesses.
A valid charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish is required to legally harvest gag on a recreational for-hire fishing trip. NMFS does not possess complete ownership data regarding businesses that hold a charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish, and thus potentially harvest gag. Therefore, it is not currently feasible to accurately determine affiliations between vessels and the businesses that own them. As a result, for purposes of this analysis, it is assumed each for-hire vessel is independently owned by a single business, which is expected to result in an overestimate of the actual number of for-hire fishing businesses regulated by this proposed rule.
NMFS also does not have data indicating how many for-hire vessels actually harvest gag in a given year. However, in 2020, there were 1,289 vessels with valid charter vessel/headboat permits for Gulf reef fish. Further, gag is only targeted and almost entirely harvested in waters off the west coast of Florida. Of the 1,289 federally permitted vessels, 803 were homeported in Florida. Of these permitted vessels, 62 are primarily used for commercial fishing rather than for-hire fishing purposes, and thus are not considered for-hire fishing businesses (
For RFA purposes, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily involved in the commercial fishing industry is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and its combined annual receipts (revenue) are not in excess of $11 million for all of its affiliated operations worldwide. NMFS does not collect revenue data specific to commercial fishing businesses that have IFQ accounts; rather, revenue data are collected for commercial fishing vessels in general. It is not possible to assign revenues earned by commercial fishing vessels back to specific IFQ accounts and the businesses that possess them because quota is often transferred across many IFQ accounts before it is used by the business on a vessel for harvesting purposes, and specific units of quota cannot be tracked. However, from 2017 through 2021, the maximum annual gross revenue earned by a single commercial fishing vessel during this time was about $3.25 million. Based on this information, all commercial fishing businesses regulated by this proposed rule are determined to be small entities for the purpose of this analysis.
For other industries, the Small Business Administration has established size standards for all major industry sectors in the U.S., including for-hire businesses (North American Industry Classification System code 487210). A business primarily involved in for-hire fishing is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has annual receipts (revenue) not in excess of $12.5 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The maximum annual gross revenue for a single headboat in the Gulf was about $1.38 million in 2017. On average, annual gross revenue for headboats in the Gulf is about three times greater than annual gross revenue for charter vessels, reflecting the fact that businesses that own charter vessels are typically smaller than businesses that own headboats. Based on this information, all for-hire fishing businesses regulated by this proposed rule are determined to be small businesses for the purpose of this analysis.
If implemented, NMFS expects this proposed rule to regulate 455 of the 536 businesses with IFQ accounts, or approximately 85 percent of those commercial fishing businesses. Further, NMFS expects this proposed rule would regulate 528 of the 1,227 for-hire fishing businesses with valid charter vessel/headboat permits for Gulf reef fish, or approximately 43 percent of those for-hire fishing businesses. NMFS has determined that, for the purpose of this analysis, all regulated commercial and for-hire fishing businesses are small entities. Based on this information, NMFS expects the proposed rule to affect a substantial number of small entities.
Because NMFS does not collect revenue and cost data for the commercial fishing businesses that are expected to be regulated by this proposed rule, direct estimates of their economic profits are not available. However, economic theory suggests that annual allocation (quota) prices should reflect expected annual economic profits, which allows economic profits to be estimated indirectly. Further, the 455 businesses with gag shares also own shares in the other IFQ share categories and thus are expected to earn profits from their ownership of these shares as well,
However, economic profits will only be realized if the allocated quota is used for harvesting purposes. For example, practically all of the commercial red snapper quota has been used for harvesting in recent years, and so it is assumed that all of that quota will be harvested in the foreseeable future. Important management changes have occurred for red grouper, which partly
Most of these economic profits (84 percent) are the result of owning red snapper shares. Only approximately $502,930 (or 1.7 percent) of the expected economic profits is due to the ownership of gag shares. This proposed rule is only expected to affect economic profits from the ownership of gag shares. Specifically, the proposed action to change the sector allocation of the stock ACL and implement a rebuilding plan, which would change the stock ACL, would reduce the commercial ACL and commercial quota from their current values of 1.217 million lb and 939,000 lb, respectively. The average commercial ACL and commercial quota from 2024 through 2028 would be 275,000 lb and 212,000 lb, respectively, under the proposed action.
However, average annual commercial landings of gag from 2017 to 2021 were only 492,401 lb, noticeably below the commercial quota. Because average annual landings exceed the proposed commercial quotas through 2028, it is assumed all of the proposed commercial quota will be harvested in each year through 2028, and the expected average reduction in annual commercial landings will be 280,401 lb. Initially, NMFS expects the reduction in commercial landings to increase the average ex-vessel price of gag from $6.10 per lb to $7.78 per lb, or by $1.68 per lb, in 2024. However, NMFS expects the increase in ex-vessel price to gradually decrease through 2028 as the quota and landings increase, with an ex-vessel price of $6.96 in 2028. The increase in the ex-vessel price would partially offset the adverse effects of the landings reduction. Based the above information, NMFS expects a reduction in annual ex-vessel revenue for gag on average of approximately $1.57 million or about $3,451 on average per commercial fishing business. Given an average annual allocation price of $1.03 per lb for gag from 2017 to 2021, NMFS expects the reduction in commercial landings of gag to reduce economic profits to these commercial fishing businesses by about $288,813, or by approximately $635 per commercial fishing business. Thus, NMFS expects economic profits to be reduced by around 1 percent on average per commercial fishing business as a result of the proposed action to change the sector allocation and implement a rebuilding plan that reduces the stock ACL.
The proposed action that would set the commercial ACT equal to 95 percent of the commercial ACL and set commercial quota equal to the commercial ACT would cause the commercial quota to be equal to 95 percent of the commercial ACL as opposed to approximately 77 percent of the commercial ACL as is presently the case. As such, this action is expected to increase the commercial quota relative to what it would be otherwise. The increase would still yield commercial quotas below the recent average commercial landings and thus NMFS assumes all of the expected increase in the quota will be harvested.
Specifically, NMFS expects the average annual increase in the commercial quota and landings from 2024 through 2028 to be about 48,527 lb, which would increase average annual revenue by $267,371, or by about $588 per commercial fishing business. Again, assuming an average annual allocation price of $1.03 per lb, NMFS expects average increase in economic profit to commercial fishing businesses per year is $49,983, or about $110 per commercial fishing business.
Combining these expected increases in revenue and profits with the decreases discussed earlier, NMFS expects this proposed rule to decrease average revenue for commercial fishing businesses by about $1.31 million per year from 2024 through 2028, or by $2,868 per commercial fishing business. The total reduction in economic profit for commercial fishing businesses is expected to be $238,830, or $525 per commercial fishing business, which represents a decrease of about 0.8 percent.
According to the most recent estimates of economic returns in the for-hire sector, average annual economic profits are $27,948 per charter vessel. The proposed rule to change the sector allocation and implement a rebuilding plan, which would change the stock ACL, would change the gag recreational ACL from its current value of 1.903 million lb (863,186 kg). Specifically, the average recreational ACL for gag would be 510,000 lb from 2024 through 2028 under the proposed action. As explained previously, these ACLs are not directly comparable because they are based, in part, on recreational landings estimates derived from different surveys (MRIP-FES and SRFS). However, average recreational landings from 2017 to 2021 were approximately 1.265 million lb (573,884 kg). Given that average recreational landings have been considerably greater than the proposed recreational ACT, all of the proposed recreational ACT is expected to be harvested in the future. NMFS expects the reduction in the recreational ACT to reduce the recreational season length from 214 days to 25 days in 2024. However, the season length is expected to steadily increase to 120 days by 2028 and the average season length from 2024 to 2028 is expected to be 64 days. The reduction in the season length would reduce the number of angler trips targeting gag on charter vessels. From 2024 through 2028, the average reduction in angler trips targeting gag on charter vessels is expected to be 20,976 trips per year. Net Cash Flow per Angler Trip (CFpA) is the best available estimate of profit per angler trip by charter vessels. According to a recent study (available from NMFS see
In combination with the proposed action to require NMFS to close the recreational season based on when the recreational ACT is projected to be met, rather than the recreational ACL, the proposed action to increase the buffer between the recreational ACL and recreational ACT from 10.25 to 20 percent would be expected to reduce the recreational season length further from the proposed action to change the sector
The proposed action that would change the recreational season start date from June 1 to September 1 is expected to increase the recreational season length from 23 days to 59 days in 2024, and from 52 to 81 days on average from 2024 to 2028. However, because there are many fewer charter trips targeting gag in the fall months (September through December) compared to the summer months (June through August), this proposed action is expected to further decrease the number of angler trips targeting gag on charter vessels. Although the reduction in trips from 2024 through 2028 varies slightly from year to year, the average reduction per year is 1,610 trips. Based on an estimate of $150 in economic profit per angler trip, NMFS expects this proposed action to decrease economic profits for charter vessels by about $241,500 per year, or by $456 per charter vessel. This would result in a decrease economic profits by around 1.6 percent on average per for-hire fishing business.
Based on the above, NMFS expects the total reduction in target trips by charter vessels per year as a result of this proposed rule to be 24,711 trips. NMFS expects this reduction in trips to result in a total reduction in economic profits for charter vessels per year to be about $3.707 million, or approximately $7,020 per charter vessel. Thus, annual economic profits are expected to be reduced by approximately 25.1 percent on average per for-hire fishing business.
Six alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the proposed actions to change the sector allocation of the stock ACL to 35 percent to the commercial sector and 65 percent to the recreational sector, establish a rebuilding plan of 18 years based on the amount of time the stock is expected to take to rebuild if fished at the yield from fishing at 75 percent of F
A second alternative would have also retained the current sector allocation of the stock ACL of 39 percent to the commercial sector and 61 percent to the recreational sector, but would have established a rebuilding plan of 11 years assuming a fishing mortality rate of zero. This alternative would have revised the OFL based on the projections from the SEDAR 72 SRFS Run and would have set all of the other catch levels through 2028 at zero. However, as with the status quo alternative, the sector allocation would have been based in part on MRFSS recreational landings data. Further, prohibiting harvest of gag would not be expected to eliminate all fishing mortality, as some gag would still be expected to be discarded and die as fishermen continue fishing for other species that live in similar habitats as gag. This alternative was not selected because, as discussed above, MRFSS is not consistent with the best scientific information available, and would result in a de facto reallocation from the recreational to the commercial sector of approximately 4 percent, which the Council did not considerable to be equitable. Further, because it is not feasible to eliminate dead discards of gag when fishermen are targeting other species, it is unlikely the stock would actually be rebuilt in 11 years. This alternative would have also resulted in significantly larger adverse economic effects on commercial and for-hire fishing businesses compared to the proposed action.
A third alternative would have also retained the current sector allocation of the stock ACL of 39 percent to the commercial sector and 61 percent to the recreational sector. But, like the proposed action, the third alternative would have established a rebuilding plan of 18 years and changed the catch levels based on the projections from the SEDAR 72 SRFS Run. This alternative would have ended overfishing and rebuilt the stock in 18 years. But, as with the status quo and the second alternative, the sector allocation of the stock ACL would be based on MRFSS recreational landings data. Thus, this alternative was not selected because MRFSS is not the best scientific information available, and would result in a de facto reallocation from the recreational sector to the commercial sector of approximately 4 percent.
A fourth alternative would have also retained the current sector allocation of the stock ACL of 39 percent to the commercial sector and 61 percent to the recreational sector, but would have established a rebuilding plan of 22 years and changed the catch limits based on the projections from the SEDAR 72 SRFS Run. This alternative would have ended overfishing and rebuilt the stock while allowing greater harvest and resulting in smaller adverse economic effects on commercial and for-hire fishing businesses compared to the proposed action. However, it was not selected because the stock is expected to take 4 more years to rebuild compared to the proposed action, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires overfished stocks to be rebuilt in as short a time period as possible, taking into account various factors. This alternative was also not selected because the use of MRFSS recreational landings data is not consistent with the best scientific information available, and would result in a de facto reallocation to the commercial sector of approximately 4 percent.
Like the proposed action, a fifth alternative would have changed the sector allocation of the stock ACL to 35 percent to the commercial sector and 65 percent to the recreational sector based in part on recreational landings estimates from MRIP-FES, SRHS, and SRFS for 1986-2005. As with the second alternative, the fifth alternative would have also established a rebuilding plan of 11 years assuming a fishing mortality rate of zero and used SEDAR 72 SRFS Run projections to change the OFL. The other catch limits would have been set at zero. As discussed earlier, prohibiting harvest of
Like the proposed action, a sixth alternative would have changed the sector allocation of the stock ACL to 35 percent to the commercial sector and 65 percent to the recreational sector based in part on recreational landings estimates from MRIP-FES, SRHS, and SRFS data for 1986-2005. However, this alternative would have also established a rebuilding plan of 22 years. This alternative would be based on the best scientific information available, end overfishing, and rebuild the stock. This alternative would have also resulted in higher catch limits and therefore resulted in small adverse economic effects on commercial and for-hire fishing businesses compared to the proposed action. However, this alternative was not selected because it is expected to take 4 more years to rebuild compared to the proposed action, and the Magnuson-Stevens Act requires overfished stocks to be rebuilt in as short a time as possible, taking into account various factors.
Two alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the proposed action to increase the buffer between the recreational ACL and recreational ACT from 10.25 to 20 percent. The status quo alternative would have maintained the buffer between the recreational ACL and recreational ACT at 10.25 percent based the yield at 75 percent of F
The second alternative would have revised the recreational ACT using the Council's ACL/ACT Control Rule based on recreational landings data from 2018 through 2021. This alternative would have resulted in a 10 percent buffer between the recreational ACL and ACT, which would have left the buffer essentially unchanged. This alternative was not selected because the Council concluded it was necessary to increase the buffer between the ACL and ACT to reduce the probability of the recreational sector exceeding its ACL, reduce the likelihood of overfishing, and reduce the level of discards associated with directed harvest, which together are expected to increase the probability of meeting the 18-year timeline for rebuilding the gag stock.
Two alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the proposed action to set the commercial ACT equal to 95 percent of the commercial ACL and set commercial quota equal to the commercial ACT. The status quo alternative would have maintained commercial ACT, which is based on the yield at 75 percent of F
The second alternative would have set the commercial ACT equal to 86 percent of the commercial ACL and, like the proposed action, set the commercial quota equal to the commercial ACT. This alternative was not selected because the Council determined that a 14 percent buffer between the commercial ACL and ACT is too high and unnecessarily limits commercial harvest due to reduced uncertainty in the estimates of commercial landings and discards.
Three alternatives, including the status quo, were considered for the proposed action to change the recreational season start date from June 1 to September 1 and require NMFS to close the recreational season based on when the recreational ACT is projected to be met rather than the recreational ACL. The status quo alternative would have maintained the recreational season start date of June 1 and required NMFS to close the recreational season based on when the recreational ACL is projected to be met. This alternative was not selected mainly because it would have resulted in a shorter average recreational season length (75 days) compared to the proposed action (81 days) for 2024 through 2028. In general, a longer fishing season would result in more fishing opportunities for both the private and for-hire components of the recreational sector. Further, shifting fishing effort to a historically low-effort month (September) may reduce the overall magnitude of recreational discards compared to starting the season in June. Shifting fishing pressure to the fall would also be expected to reduce directed effort for gag in deeper waters, which may further reduce the probability of harvesting or discarding dead male gag.
The second alternative would have retained the June 1 start date for the recreational season. But, like the proposed action, this alternative would have required NMFS to close the recreational season based on when the recreational ACT is projected to be met. This alternative was not selected mainly because it would have resulted in a shorter average recreational season length (52 days) compared to the proposed action (81 days) for 2024 through 2028. In general, a longer fishing season would result in more fishing opportunities for both the private recreational and for-hire components of the fishery. Further, shifting fishing effort to a historically low-effort month (September) may reduce the overall magnitude of recreational discards compared to starting the season in June. Shifting fishing pressure to the fall would be expected to reduce directed effort for gag in deeper waters, which may further reduce the probability of harvesting or discarding dead male gag.
The third alternative would have changed the recreational season start date to October 1. But, like the proposed action, this alternative would have required NMFS to close the recreational season based on when the recreational ACT is projected to be met. This alternative was not selected because it would have resulted in a shorter average recreational season length (63 days) compared to the proposed action (81 days) for 2024 through 2028 and would have also resulted in greater adverse effects to for-hire fishing businesses. In general, a longer fishing season would be expected to result in more fishing opportunities for both the private and for-hire components of the recreational sector.
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Fisheries, Fishing, Gag, Gulf of Mexico.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, NMFS proposes to amend 50 CFR part 622 as follows:
16 U.S.C. 1801
(c)
(e)
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) * * *
(B)
(d)
(2)
(i) See Table 1 for the recreational ACLs and ACTs in gutted weight.
(ii) If the NMFS SRD estimates that gag recreational landings have reached or are projected to reach the applicable recreational ACT specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section, the AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register to close the recreational sector for the remainder of the fishing year. On and after the effective date of such a notification, the bag and possession limits for gag in or from the Gulf EEZ are zero. These bag and possession limits apply in the Gulf on board a vessel for which a valid Federal charter vessel/headboat permit for Gulf reef fish has been issued without regard to where such species were harvested,
(iii) In addition to the measures specified in paragraph (d)(2)(ii) of this section, if the NMFS SRD estimates that gag recreational landings have exceeded the applicable ACL specified in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section and gag is overfished based on the most recent Status of U.S. Fisheries Report to Congress, the following measure will apply. The AA will file a notification with the Office of the Federal Register, at or near the beginning of the following fishing year, to reduce the ACL for that following year by the amount of the ACL overage in the prior fishing year, unless the best scientific information available determines that a greater, lesser, or no overage adjustment is necessary.
Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, (USDA).
Request for information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is seeking input from stakeholders across the specialty crops industry on how USDA may better administratively support the industry in remaining competitive in domestic and international marketplaces, as part of USDA's Specialty Crops Competitiveness Initiative. This input will strengthen USDA's partnership with the specialty crops industry, an agricultural sector that has faced significant challenges due to recent natural disasters, pandemic-related market disruptions, and other factors. USDA requests input on how to further support the industry's domestic marketing and consumption, to further support the industry's competitiveness internationally, to further support research that will serve the industry, to increase producers' awareness of and access to relevant USDA programs, to enhance USDA programs that serve the specialty crops industry, to aid the evaluation of existing programs, and to understand current and future challenges faced by the industry. USDA is asking for comments on interactions with USDA programs. All comments will be aggregated, summarized, and shared with USDA Leadership.
Comments must be received by March 8, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this notice by either of the following methods:
•
•
All comments submitted in response to this notice will be included in the record, will be made available to the public, and can be viewed at:
Heather M. Pichelman, Agricultural Marketing Service, Specialty Crops Program, Email:
USDA has heard growing concern from the specialty crops industry regarding their ability to remain competitive. Although the specialty crops industry includes a wide array of commodities, the challenges facing their markets are similar. USDA is actively partnering with specialty crops growers to increase the competitiveness of U.S. products in domestic and international markets, minimize costs, manage pests and diseases, strengthen supply chains, and support climate outcomes.
In direct response to the industry's request for support, USDA launched the Specialty Crops Competitiveness Initiative (SCCI). The goal of SCCI is to provide increased support to the specialty crops industry by identifying industry needs and taking appropriate available administrative action.
This Request for Information (RFI) is part of the SCCI initiative, to provide stakeholders the opportunity to submit feedback on the industry's needs and to provide information on how USDA can better administratively support the U.S. specialty crops industry to remain competitive.
The SCCI is just one of multiple efforts across the Federal government to support the industry. On October 17, 2023, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) published in the
Interested persons can refer to the new USDA web page at
Upon collection of feedback from the industry through this RFI and stakeholder meetings and events, a gap analysis will be conducted to address where USDA services can be enhanced to better support the specialty crops industry. Outcomes of the feedback will be communicated back to the specialty crops industry to continue to build awareness of USDA's support for the industry.
USDA is seeking feedback on all its services for the industry. Respondents may provide information for one or more of the questions or topics listed below, as desired. Additionally, respondents may provide commodity-specific or geographic-specific input on Department services for specialty crops.
How can USDA administratively support specialty crop producers to enhance domestic marketing and increase consumption of domestically grown specialty crops?
How can USDA administratively support specialty crop producers to improve their export performance to
What research is needed to minimize costs and maximize returns to support the production and processing of specialty crops? What kind of research (spanning production, transportation, handling, or beyond) could USDA enhance or adapt to support the specialty crop industry?
How could existing USDA specialty crops farm programs be adapted to address current and future challenges faced by the specialty crops industry?
How could USDA increase awareness of available tools and resources to support broader participation and engagement by the specialty crops industry?
How could USDA enhance or adapt currently offered programs (loans, grants, nutrition programs, conservation programs, insurance programs, food safety programs, pest management programs, etc.) to support the specialty crops industry to increase its competitiveness?
How could USDA enhance or adapt procurement to support the specialty crops industry?
Please share any ongoing or anticipated challenges in the specialty crops industry that impact your ability to maintain competitiveness.
Please share any non-financial resources that would be useful to improve the specialty crop industry's competitiveness.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by December 11, 2023 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The information provides the basis for determining that rents charged are appropriate, the housing is well-maintained, and proper priority is given to those tenants eligible for occupancy. Information is collected to assure compliance with the terms and conditions of loan, grant and/or subsidy agreements.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and reinstatement under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology Comments regarding these information collections are best assured of having their full effect if received by December 11, 2023. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it
The U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) issues regulations that cover exports of U.S. fresh apples and grapes shipped to foreign destinations, except for grapes shipped to Canada or Mexico and apples in bulk bins shipped to Canada. Certain limited quantity provisions may exempt some shipments from this information collection. Regulations issued under the Acts (7 CFR 33.11 for apples and § 35.12 for grapes) require that USDA inspect and certify that each export shipment of fresh apples and grapes complies with quality and shipping requirements effective under the Acts.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability and request for comments.
We are advising the public that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has prepared a programmatic environmental assessment relative to the Spotted Lanternfly Cooperative Control Program in the conterminous United States. The environmental assessment documents our review and analysis of environmental impacts associated with the Spotted Lanternfly Cooperative Control Program. We are making the programmatic environmental assessment available to the public for review and comment.
We will consider all comments that we receive on or before December 11, 2023.
You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
•
•
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may be viewed at
Mr. Matthew Travis, Spotted Lanternfly National Policy Manager, PPQ, APHIS, Emergency and Domestic Programs, 4700 River Road Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238; email:
The spotted lanternfly (SLF),
SLF was first detected in the United States in 2014 in Pennsylvania. In 2015, APHIS implemented SLF control activities to respond to this new pest threat. Later, in 2019, APHIS started an official SLF program. SLF is a significant economic and lifestyle pest for residents, businesses, tourism, forestry, and agriculture.
SLF infestation has led to crop loss, agriculture exportation problems, and increased management costs. APHIS is concerned by the potential for long-distance movement of SLF within the United States, and by the continued risk of SLF introduction from other countries. The environmental and socioeconomic damage to SLF-affected regions can be substantial. For context, grape vineyards in South Korea and the United States appear to be particularly affected, jeopardizing an industry worth billions of dollars. One vineyard in the United States reportedly faced a crop yield loss of up to 90 percent. An uncontained SLF infestation could drain Pennsylvania's economy of at least $324 million annually.
While SLF has not yet been found in western United States, it has been intercepted in airplanes arriving from the eastern United States. Suitable conditions for SLF establishment exist in large regions of the United States, giving the insect the potential to damage valuable host crops, forests, and critical habitat for listed species. APHIS' review and analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the Spotted Lanternfly Cooperative Control Program are documented in a programmatic environmental assessment (ProEA) titled “Spotted Lanternfly Cooperative Control Program for the Conterminous United States” (June 2023). The ProEA incorporates by reference, the analysis in “
The ProEA may be viewed on the
The ProEA has been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
U.S. Codex Office, USDA.
Notice of public meeting and request for comments.
The U.S. Codex Office is sponsoring a public meeting on December 6, 2023. The objective of the public meeting is to provide information and receive public comments on agenda items and draft U.S. positions to be discussed at the 7th Session of the Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH) of the Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC). CCSCH7 will be held in Kochi, Kerala, India, from January 29-February 2, 2024. The U.S. Manager for Codex Alimentarius and the Under Secretary for Trade and Foreign Agricultural Affairs recognize the importance of providing interested parties the opportunity to obtain background information on the 7th Session of the CCSCH and to address items on the agenda.
The public meeting is scheduled for December 6, 2023, from 1:00-2:30 p.m. EDT.
The public meeting will take place via Video Teleconference only. Documents related to the 7th Session of the CCSCH will be accessible via the internet at the following address:
Mr. Dorian LaFond, U.S. Delegate to the 7th Session of the CCSCH, invites interested U.S. parties to submit their comments electronically to the following email address:
For further information about the 7th Session of the CCSCH, contact U.S. Delegate, Mr. Dorian LaFond, Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,
The Codex Alimentarius Commission was established in 1963 by two United Nations organizations, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and the World Health Organization (WHO). Through adoption of food standards, codes of practice, and other guidelines developed by its committees, and by promoting their adoption and implementation by governments, Codex seeks to protect the health of consumers and ensure fair practices in the food trade.
The Terms of Reference of the Codex Committee on Spices and Culinary Herbs (CCSCH) are:
(a) To elaborate worldwide standards for spices and culinary herbs in their dried and dehydrated state in whole, ground, and cracked or crushed form;
(b) To consult, as necessary, with other international organizations in the standards development process to avoid duplication.
The CCSCH is hosted by India. The United States attends the CCSCH as a member country of Codex.
The following items from the forthcoming Agenda for the 7th Session of the CCSCH will be discussed during the public meeting:
At the December 6, 2023, public meeting, draft U.S. positions on the agenda items will be described and discussed, and attendees will have the opportunity to pose questions and offer comments. Written comments may be offered at the meeting or sent to Mr. Dorian LaFond, U.S. Delegate for the 7th Session of the CCSCH, at
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, the U.S. Codex Office will announce this
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs, exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to discrimination any person in the United States under any program or activity conducted by the USDA.
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at
On July 7, 2023, Getinge Group Logistics Americas LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 49W in Dayton, New Jersey.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On July 7, 2023, Lely North America, Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board for its facility within Subzone 107E in Pella, Iowa.
The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the
On September 1, 2023, the Executive Secretary of the Foreign-Trade Zones (FTZ) Board docketed an application submitted by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, grantee of FTZ 49, requesting to expand Subzone 49W subject to the existing activation limit of FTZ 49, on behalf of Getinge Group Logistics Americas LLC, in East Windsor, New Jersey.
The application was processed in accordance with the FTZ Act and Regulations, including notice in the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that RZBC Group Co., Ltd., RZBC Co., Ltd., RZBC Import & Export Co., Ltd., and RZBC (Juxian) Co., Ltd. (collectively, RZBC) did not make sales of citric acid and certain citrate salts (citric acid) from the People's Republic of China (China) at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) May 1, 2021, through April 30, 2022.
Applicable November 9, 2023.
Maisha Cryor, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5831.
Commerce published the
The products covered by this order are citric acid from China. A full description of the scope of the order is provided in the Issues and Decision Memorandum.
All issues raised an interested party's case brief are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of these issues is attached as an appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our review of the record and comments received from an interested party regarding our
Commerce determines that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for RZBC for the period May 1, 2021, through April 30, 2022:
Because no party requested a review of the China-wide entity, and Commerce no longer considers the China-wide entity as an exporter conditionally subject to administrative reviews,
We intend to disclose the calculations performed within five days of the date of publication of this notice to parties in this proceeding in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these final results of review. We intend to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of these final results. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (
Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, Commerce will calculate importer/customer-specific
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for RZBC the cash deposit rate will be the rate listed above; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that have separate rates, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the exporter-specific rate published for the most recently completed segment of this proceeding in which they were reviewed; (3) for all
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of countervailing duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that sales of chlorinated isocyanurates from Spain were made as less than normal value during the period of review (POR) June 1, 2021, through May 31, 2022.
Applicable November 9, 2023.
Andrew Huston, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4261.
On July 7, 2023, Commerce published the preliminary results of the administrative review of the antidumping duty order on chlorinated isocyanurates (chlorinated isos) from Spain.
The products covered by the
Commerce addressed all issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. These issues are identified in the appendix to this notice. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our analysis of the comments received, we have made certain changes to the home market and margin calculations for Ercros since the
For the rate for non-selected companies in an administrative review, generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally “an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted average dumping margins
As a result of this administrative review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period June 1, 2021 through May 31, 2022.
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for Ercros in these final results to interested parties within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this administrative review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
Where the respondent reported reliable entered values, Commerce calculated importer- (or customer-) specific
In accordance with Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice, for entries of subject merchandise that entered the United States during the POR that were produced by Ercros for which the respondent did not know that its merchandise was destined to the United States, Commerce will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate of 24.83 percent,
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the notice of the final results of this administrative review for all shipments of chlorinated isos from Spain entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
Commerce is issuing and publishing these final results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
On July 19, 2023, the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) issued its final judgment in
Applicable July 29, 2023.
David Crespo, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3693.
On August 2, 2021, Commerce published its
Nucor Tubular Products, Inc. (Nucor),
In its decision in
Because there is now a final court judgment, Commerce is amending its
Because Maquilacero and Prolamsa each have cash deposit rates that have been superseded by a subsequent administrative review of the AD order at this time, Commerce will not issue revised cash deposit instructions to U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP). This notice will not affect the current cash deposit rate for these two companies.
With respect to all the non-selected companies, because the cash deposit rates have not been superseded by a subsequent administrative review of the AD order at this time, Commerce intends to issue amended cash deposit instructions to CBP.
Because the CIT's ruling has not been appealed, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce intends to instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on the following unliquidated entries of subject merchandise: (1)
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 516A(c) and (e) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT), completed in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using hot-rolled steel (HRS) produced in the Republic of Korea (Korea), are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) order on LWRPT from Korea.
Applicable November 9, 2023.
George McMahon or Carolyn Adie, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1167 or (202) 482-6250, respectively.
On August 5, 2008, Commerce published in the
On May 15, 2023, Commerce extended the deadline for the final determination of this circumvention inquiry to August 4, 2023.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The products covered by the
This circumvention inquiry covers LWRPT completed in Vietnam using Korea-origin HRS, which is subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (inquiry merchandise).
Commerce is conducting this circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.226.
Based on the information provided by Vina One Steel Manufacturing Corporation (Vina One) in this circumvention inquiry, Commerce continues to find, as it did in the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in these inquiries are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice at Appendix I.
Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties, we made no changes to the
As detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce determines that LWRPT completed in Vietnam using Korea-origin HRS and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States is circumventing the
Based on the affirmative country-wide determination of circumvention for Vietnam, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(l)(3), we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties on unliquidated entries of LWRPT completed in Vietnam using Korea-origin HRS, that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 4, 2022, the date of publication of the initiation of this circumvention inquiry in the
LWRPT produced in Vietnam from HRS that is not of Korea origin is not subject to this inquiry. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise under the
If an importer imports LWRPT from Vietnam and claims that the LWRPT was not produced from Korea-origin HRS, or alternatively, claims that the LWRPT was produced using an input other than HRS, the importer and exporter are required to meet the certification and documentation requirements described in the “Certifications” and “Certification Requirements for Vietnam” sections, below, in order to not be subject to the
Where no certification is provided for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from three countries (China, Korea, or Taiwan) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the rate applicable to the AD and CVD orders on LWRPT from China (
Where a certification is provided for the AD/CVD orders on LWRPT from China (stating that the merchandise was not produced using China-origin HRS or was produced using an input other than HRS), but no other certification is provided, then Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the rate applicable to the
Commerce established the following third country CBP case number in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) for entries of LWRPT produced in Vietnam using Korea-origin HRS: A-552-859-000. Commerce also established the following company-specific third country CBP case number for Vina One, for which Commerce made an affirmative determination of circumvention, for entries of LWRPT produced in Vietnam using Taiwan-origin HRS: A-552-859-001. The cash deposit rate will be the Korea AD all-others rate (
For Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Hoa Phat), which will not be permitted to certify that its merchandise was not produced from Korea-origin HRS, Commerce will direct CBP, for all entries of LWRPT from Vietnam produced or exported by Hoa Phat, to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit at the AD/CVD cash deposit rates established for LWRPT from China.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Entries for which the importer and exporter have met the certification requirements described below and in Appendix II to this notice will not be subject to suspension of liquidation, or the cash deposit requirements described above. Failure to comply with the applicable requisite certification requirements may result in the merchandise being subject to AD and CVD duties.
To administer the country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention, Commerce established importer and exporter certifications which allow companies to certify that specific entries of LWRPT from Vietnam
Importers and exporters that claim that the entry of LWRPT is not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits because the merchandise was not made with Korea-origin HRS or was made with an input other than HRS must complete the applicable certification and meet the certification and documentation requirements described below, as well as the requirements identified in the applicable certification.
Importers are required to complete and maintain the applicable importer certification, and maintain a copy of the applicable exporter certification, and retain all supporting documentation for both certifications. With the exception of the entries described below, the importer certification must be completed, signed, and dated by the time the entry summary is filed for the relevant entry. The importer, or the importer's agent, must submit both the importer's certification and the exporter's certification to CBP as part of the entry process by uploading them into the document imaging system (DIS) in ACE. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, the importer should obtain the entry summary number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as a broker, however, are not permitted to certify on behalf of the importer.
Exporters are required to complete and maintain the applicable exporter certification and provide the importer with a copy of that certification and all supporting documentation (
Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. Importers and exporters are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the latest entry date of the entries covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
For all LWRPT from Vietnam that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period August 4, 2022 (the date of initiation of this circumvention inquiry), through the date of publication of the
For unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) of LWRPT that were declared as non-AD type entries (
If it is determined that an importer and/or exporter has not met the certification and/or related documentation requirements for certain entries, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend, pursuant to this country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention and the
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Act, may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that Commerce conduct an administrative review of that AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation. An interested party who would like Commerce to conduct an administrative review should wait until Commerce announces via the
This notice will serve as the only reminder to all parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(2).
1. Certifications
I hereby certify that:
A. My name is {IMPORTING COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {IMPORTING COMPANY}, located at {ADDRESS OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) produced in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that entered under entry summary number(s), identified below, and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have direct personal knowledge of the importation of LWRPT, including the exporter's and/or foreign seller's identity and location;
C. If the importer is acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
The LWRPT covered by this certification was imported by {IMPORTING COMPANY} on behalf of {U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER};
If the importer is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
{NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer.
D. The LWRPT covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM THE MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}.
E. I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party, (
F. This certification applies to the following entries (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
G. The LWRPT covered by this certification does not contain HRS produced in the Republic of Korea (Korea);
H. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
I. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification (attesting to the production and/or exportation of the imported merchandise identified above), and any supporting documentation provided to the importer by the exporter, until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the date of the latest entry covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
J. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to submit a copy of the importer and exporter certifications as part of the entry summary by uploading them into the document imaging system (DIS) in ACE, and to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) with the importer certification, and any supporting documentation, and a copy of the exporter's certification, and any supporting documentation provided to the importer by the exporter, upon request of either agency;
K. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
L. I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the importer no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
M. I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
N. This certification was completed and signed on, or prior to, the date of the entry summary if the entry date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
O. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
The party that made the sale to the United States should fill out the exporter certification.
I hereby certify that:
A. My name is {COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES); located at {ADDRESS OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES);
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the light-walled welded rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) for which sales are identified below. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, an exporter should have direct personal knowledge of the producer's identity and location;
C. The LWRPT covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED};
D. The LWRPT covered by this certification does not contain HRS produced in the Republic of Korea (Korea);
E. This certification applies to the following sales to {NAME OF U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER} (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
F. The LWRPT covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF U.S. PARTY TO WHOM MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED};
G. I understand that {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
H. I understand that {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES} is required to provide the U.S. importer with a copy of this certification and is required to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) with this certification, and any supporting documents, upon request of either agency;
I. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
J. I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the seller/exporter no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
K. I understand that agents of the seller/exporter, such as freight forwarding companies or brokers, are not permitted to make this certification.
L. This certification was completed and signed, and a copy of the certification was provided to the importer, on, or prior to, the date of shipment if the shipment date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
M. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe (CWP), completed in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using hot-rolled steel (HRS) produced in the Republic of Korea (Korea), are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) order on CWP from Korea.
Applicable November 9, 2023.
Andre Gziryan, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2201.
On November 2, 1992, Commerce published in the
The products covered by the
This circumvention inquiry covers CWP completed in Vietnam using Korea-origin HRS and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (inquiry merchandise).
Commerce is conducting this circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.226.
Based on the information provided by Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. (Vietnam Haiphong) in this circumvention inquiry, Commerce continues to find, as it did in the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in these inquiries are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice at Appendix I.
Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties, we did not revise the
As detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce determines that CWP completed in Vietnam using Korea-origin HRS and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States is circumventing the
Based on the affirmative country-wide determination of circumvention for Korea, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(l)(3), we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties on unliquidated entries of CWP completed in Vietnam using Korea-origin HRS, that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 4, 2022, the date of publication of the initiation of this circumvention inquiry in the
CWP produced in Vietnam from HRS that is not of Korean origin is not subject to this inquiry. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise under the
If an importer imports CWP from Vietnam and claims that the CWP was not produced from Korea-origin HRS, or alternately, claims that the CWP was produced using an input other the HRS, the importer and exporter are required to meet the certification and documentation requirements described in the “Certifications” and “Certification Requirements for Vietnam” sections below in order to not be subject to the
Where no certification is provided for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from three countries (China, India, or Korea) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the rates applicable to the AD and CVD orders on CWP from China (
Where a certification is provided for the AD/CVD orders on CWP from China (stating that the merchandise was not produced using China-origin HRS or was produced using an input other than HRS), but no other certification is provided, then Commerce intends to
To enter inquiry merchandise (CWP produced in Vietnam using Korea-origin HRS) parties must provide certifications for the AD/CVD orders on CWP from China (stating that the merchandise was not produced using China-origin HRS) and for the AD order on pipe and tube from India (stating that the merchandise was not produced using India-origin HRS). Commerce established the following third country CBP case number in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) for entries of CWP produced in Vietnam using Korea-origin HRS: A-552-011-000. Commerce also established the following company-specific third-country CBP case number for SeAH Vina, for which Commerce made an affirmative determination of circumvention, for entries of CWP produced in Vietnam using Korea-origin HRS: A-552-011-001. The cash deposit rate will be the Korea AD all-others rate (
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Entries for which the importer and exporter have met the certification requirements described below and in Appendix II to this notice will not be subject to suspension of liquidation, or the cash deposit requirements described above. Failure to comply with the applicable requisite certification requirements may result in the merchandise being subject to AD and CVD duties.
To administer the country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention for Vietnam, Commerce established importer and exporter certifications which allow companies to certify that specific entries of CWP from Vietnam are not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits pursuant to this country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention because the merchandise was not made with Korea-origin HRS or was made with an input other than HRS (
Importers and exporters that claim that the entry of CWP is not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits because the merchandise was not made with Korea-origin HRS or was made with an input other than HRS must complete the applicable certification and meet the certification and documentation requirements described below, as well as the requirements identified in the applicable certification.
Importers are required to complete and maintain the applicable importer certification, and maintain a copy of the applicable exporter certification, and retain all supporting documentation for both certifications. With the exception of the entries described below, the importer certification must be completed, signed, and dated by the time the entry summary is filed for the relevant entry. The importer, or the importer's agent, must submit both the importer's certification and the exporter's certification to CBP as part of the entry process by uploading them into the document imaging system (DIS) in ACE. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, the importer should obtain the entry summary number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as a broker, however, are not permitted to certify on behalf of the importer.
Exporters are required to complete and maintain the applicable exporter certification and provide the importer with a copy of that certification and all supporting documentation (
Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. Importers and exporters are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the latest entry date of the entries covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
For all CWP from Vietnam that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period August 4, 2022 (the date of initiation of this circumvention inquiry), through the date of publication of the
For unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) of CWP that were declared as non-AD type entries (
If it is determined that an importer or exporter has not met the certification and related documentation requirements for certain entries, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend, pursuant to this country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention and the
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Act, may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that Commerce conduct an administrative review of that AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation. An interested party who would like Commerce to conduct an
This notice will serve as the only reminder to all parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(2).
1. Certifications
I hereby certify that:
A. My name is {IMPORTING COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {IMPORTING COMPANY}, located at {ADDRESS OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe (CWP) produced in Vietnam that entered under entry summary number(s), identified below, and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have direct personal knowledge of the importation of CWP, including the exporter's and/or foreign seller's identity and location;
C. If the importer is acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
The CWP covered by this certification was imported by {IMPORTING COMPANY} on behalf of {U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER};
If the importer is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
{NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer.
D. The CWP covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM THE MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}.
E. I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party, (
F. This certification applies to the following entries (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
Entry Summary #:
Entry Summary Line Item #:
Foreign Seller:
Foreign Seller's Address:
Foreign Seller's Invoice #:
Foreign Seller's Invoice Line Item #:
Country of Origin of HRS: State “N/A” for “Country of Origin of HRS” if the CWP covered by this certification was produced using inputs other than HRS.
Producer:
Producer's Address:
G. The CWP covered by this certification does not contain HRS produced in Korea;
H. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
I. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification (attesting to the production and/or exportation of the imported merchandise identified above), and any supporting documentation provided to the importer by the exporter, until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the date of the latest entry covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
J. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to submit a copy of the importer and exporter certifications as part of the entry summary by uploading them into the document imaging system (DIS) in ACE, and to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) with the importer certification, and any supporting documentation, and a copy of the exporter's certification, and any supporting documentation provided to the importer by the exporter, upon request of either agency;
K. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
L. I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the importer no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
M. I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
N. This certification was completed and signed on, or prior to, the date of the entry summary if the entry date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
O. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
The party that made the sale to the United States should fill out the exporter certification.
I hereby certify that:
A. My name is {COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES); located at {ADDRESS OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES);
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the certain circular welded non-alloy steel pipe (CWP) for which sales are identified below. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, an exporter should have direct personal knowledge of the producer's identity and location;
C. The CWP covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED};
D. The CWP covered by this certification does not contain HRS produced in Korea;
E. This certification applies to the following sales to {NAME OF U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER} (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
Foreign Seller's Invoice # to U.S. Customer:
Foreign Seller's Invoice to U.S. Customer Line item #:
Producer Name:
Producer's Address:
Producer's Invoice # to Foreign Seller: (
Name of Producer of HRS: State “N/A” if the producer did not use HRS in the production of CWP.
Location (Country) of Producer of HRS: State “N/A” if the producer did not use HRS in the production of CWP.
F. The CWP covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF U.S. PARTY TO WHOM MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED};
G. I understand that {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
H. I understand that {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES} is required to provide the U.S. importer with a copy of this certification and is required to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) with this certification, and any supporting documents, upon request of either agency;
I. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
J. I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the seller/exporter no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
K. I understand that agents of the seller/exporter, such as freight forwarding companies or brokers, are not permitted to make this certification.
L. This certification was completed and signed, and a copy of the certification was provided to the importer, on, or prior to, the date of shipment if the shipment date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
M. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing (LWR tubing) from Taiwan, completed in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using hot-rolled steel (HRS) produced in Taiwan, are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) order on LWR tubing from Taiwan.
Applicable November 9, 2023.
Bryan Hansen or Christopher Williams, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3683 or (202) 482-5166, respectively.
On March 27, 1989, Commerce published in the
The product covered by the
This circumvention inquiry covers LWR tubing completed in Vietnam using Taiwan-origin HRS, which is subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (inquiry merchandise).
Commerce is conducting this circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.226.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in these inquiries are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice at Appendix I.
Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties, we did not revise the
As detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce determines that LWR tubing completed in Vietnam using Taiwan-origin HRS and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States is circumventing the
Based on the affirmative country-wide determination of circumvention for Taiwan, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(l)(3), we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties on unliquidated entries of LWR tubing completed in Vietnam using Taiwan-origin HRS, that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 4, 2022, the date of publication of the initiation of this circumvention inquiry in the
LWR tubing produced in Vietnam from HRS that is not of Taiwan origin is not subject to this inquiry. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise under the
If an importer imports LWR tubing from Vietnam and claims that the LWR tubing was not produced from Taiwan-origin HRS, or alternatively, claims that the LWR tubing was produced using an input other than HRS, in order to not be subject to the
Where no certification is provided for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from three countries (China, Korea, or Taiwan) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the rate applicable to the AD and CVD orders on LWRPT from China (
Where a certification is provided for the AD/CVD orders on LWRPT from China (stating that the merchandise was not produced using China-origin HRS or was produced using an input other than HRS), but no other certification is provided, then Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the rate applicable to the
Commerce established the following third country CBP case number in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) for entries of LWR tubing produced in Vietnam using Taiwan-origin HRS: A-552-863-000. Commerce also established the following company-specific third country CBP case number for Vina One, for which Commerce made an affirmative determination of circumvention, for entries of LWR tubing produced in Vietnam using Taiwan-origin HRS: A-552-863-001. The cash deposit rate will be the Taiwan AD all-others rate (
For Hoa Phat Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (Hoa Phat), which will not be permitted to certify that its merchandise was not produced from Taiwan-origin HRS, Commerce will direct CBP, for all entries of LWR tubing from Vietnam produced or exported by Hoa Phat, to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit at the AD/CVD cash deposit rates established for LWRPT from China.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Entries for which the importer and exporter have met the certification requirements described below and in Appendix II to this notice will not be subject to suspension of liquidation, or the cash deposit requirements described above. Failure to comply with the applicable requisite certification requirements may result in the merchandise being subject to AD and CVD duties.
To administer the country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention, Commerce established importer and exporter certifications which allow companies to certify that specific entries of LWR tubing from Vietnam are not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits pursuant to this country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention because the merchandise was not made with Taiwan-origin HRS or was made with an input other than HRS (
Importers and exporters that claim that the entry of LWR tubing is not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits because the merchandise was not made with Taiwan-origin HRS or was made with an input other than HRS must complete the applicable certification and meet the certification and documentation requirements described below, as well as the requirements identified in the applicable certification.
Importers are required to complete and maintain the applicable importer certification, and maintain a copy of the applicable exporter certification, and retain all supporting documentation for both certifications. With the exception of the entries described below, the importer certification must be completed, signed, and dated by the time the entry summary is filed for the relevant entry. The importer, or the importer's agent, must submit both the importer's certification and the exporter's certification to CBP as part of the entry process by uploading them into the document imaging system in ACE. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, the importer should obtain the entry summary number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as a broker, however, are not permitted to certify on behalf of the importer.
Exporters are required to complete and maintain the applicable exporter certification and provide the importer with a copy of that certification and all supporting documentation (
Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. Importers and exporters are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the latest entry date of the entries covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
For all LWR tubing from Vietnam that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period August 4, 2022 (the date of initiation of this circumvention inquiry), through the date of publication of the preliminary determination in the
For unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) of LWR tubing that were declared as non-AD type entries (
If it is determined that an importer or exporter has not met the certification and related documentation requirements for certain entries, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend, pursuant to this country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention and the
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Act, may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that Commerce conduct an administrative review of that AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation. An interested party who would like Commerce to conduct an administrative review should wait until Commerce announces via the
This notice will serve as the only reminder to all parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(2).
1. Certifications
I hereby certify that:
A. My name is {IMPORTING COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {IMPORTING COMPANY}, located at {ADDRESS OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing (LWR tubing) produced in Vietnam that entered under entry summary number(s), identified below, and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have direct personal knowledge of the importation of LWR tubing, including the exporter's and/or foreign seller's identity and location;
C. If the importer is acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
The LWR tubing covered by this certification was imported by {IMPORTING COMPANY} on behalf of {U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER};
If the importer is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
{NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer.
D. The LWR tubing covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM THE MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}.
E. I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party, (
F. This certification applies to the following entries (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
Entry Summary #:
Entry Summary Line Item #:
Foreign Seller:
Foreign Seller's Address:
Foreign Seller's Invoice #:
Foreign Seller's Invoice Line Item #:
Country of Origin of HRS: State “N/A” for “Country of Origin of HRS” if the LWR tubing covered by this certification was produced using inputs other than HRS.
Producer:
Producer's Address:
G. The LWR tubing covered by this certification does not contain HRS produced in Taiwan;
H. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy
I. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification (attesting to the production and/or exportation of the imported merchandise identified above), and any supporting documentation provided to the importer by the exporter, until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the date of the latest entry covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
J. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to submit a copy of the importer and exporter certifications as part of the entry summary by uploading them into the document imaging system (DIS) in ACE, and to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) with the importer certification, and any supporting documentation, and a copy of the exporter's certification, and any supporting documentation provided to the importer by the exporter, upon request of either agency;
K. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
L. I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the importer no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
M. I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
N. This certification was completed and signed on, or prior to, the date of the entry summary if the entry date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
O. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
The party that made the sale to the United States should fill out the exporter certification.
I hereby certify that:
A. My name is {COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES); located at {ADDRESS OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES);
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the light-walled welded rectangular carbon steel tubing from Taiwan (LWR tubing) for which sales are identified below. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, an exporter should have direct personal knowledge of the producer's identity and location;
C. The LWR tubing covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED};
D. The LWR tubing covered by this certification does not contain HRS produced in Taiwan;
E. This certification applies to the following sales to {NAME OF U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER} (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
Foreign Seller's Invoice # to U.S. Customer:
Foreign Seller's Invoice to U.S. Customer Line item #:
Producer Name:
Producer's Address:
Producer's Invoice # to Foreign Seller: (
Name of Producer of HRS: State “N/A” if the producer did not use HRS in the production of LWR tubing.
Location (Country) of Producer of HRS: State “N/A” if the producer did not use HRS in the production of LWR tubing.
F. The LWR tubing covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF U.S. PARTY TO WHOM MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED};
G. I understand that {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
H. I understand that {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES} is required to provide the U.S. importer with a copy of this certification and is required to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) with this certification, and any supporting documents, upon request of either agency;
I. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
J. I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the seller/exporter no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
K. I understand that agents of the seller/exporter, such as freight forwarding companies or brokers, are not permitted to make this certification.
L. This certification was completed and signed, and a copy of the certification was provided to the importer, on, or prior to, the date of shipment if the shipment date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
M. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes (pipe and tube), completed in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using hot-rolled steel (HRS) produced in India, are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) order on pipe and tube from India.
Applicable November 9, 2023.
Dmitry Vladimirov, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-0665.
On May 12, 1986, Commerce published in the
The products covered by the
This circumvention inquiry covers pipe and tube completed in Vietnam using India-origin HRS and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (inquiry merchandise).
Commerce is conducting this circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.226.
Based on the information provided by Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. (Vietnam Haiphong) in this circumvention inquiry, Commerce continues to find, as it did in the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this inquiry are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice at Appendix I.
Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties, we did not revise the
As detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce determines that pipe and tube completed in Vietnam using India-origin HRS and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States is circumventing the
Based on the affirmative country-wide determination of circumvention for India, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(l)(3), we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to
Pipe and tube produced in Vietnam from HRS that is not of Indian origin is not subject to this inquiry. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise under the
If an importer imports pipe and tube from Vietnam and claims that the pipe and tube was not produced from India-origin HRS, or alternately, claims that the pipe and tube was produced using an input other the HRS, the importer and exporter are required to meet the certification and documentation requirements described in the “Certifications” and “Certification Requirements for Vietnam” sections below in order to not be subject to the
Where no certification is provided for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from three countries (China, India, or Korea) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the rate applicable to the AD and CVD orders on CWP from China (
Where a certification is provided for the AD/CVD orders on CWP from China (stating that the merchandise was not produced using China-origin HRS or was produced using an input other than HRS), but no other certification is provided, then Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the rate applicable to the
Commerce established the following third country CBP case number in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) for entries of pipe and tube produced in Vietnam using India-origin HRS: A-552-012-000. Commerce also established the following company-specific third country CBP case number for SeAH VINA, for which Commerce made an affirmative determination of circumvention, for entries of pipe and tube produced in Vietnam using India-origin HRS: A-552-012-001. The cash deposit rate will be the India AD all-others rate (
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Entries for which the importer and exporter have met the certification requirements described below and in Appendix II to this notice will not be subject to suspension of liquidation, or the cash deposit requirements described above. Failure to comply with the applicable requisite certification requirements may result in the merchandise being subject to AD and CVD duties.
To administer the country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention for Vietnam, Commerce established importer and exporter certifications which allow companies to certify that specific entries of pipe and tube from Vietnam are not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits pursuant to this country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention because the merchandise was not made with India-origin HRS or was made with an input other than HRS (
Importers and exporters that claim that the entry of pipe and tube is not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits because the merchandise was not made with India-origin HRS or was made with an input other than HRS must complete the applicable certification and meet the certification and documentation requirements described below, as well as the requirements identified in the applicable certification.
Importers are required to complete and maintain the applicable importer certification, and maintain a copy of the applicable exporter certification, and retain all supporting documentation for both certifications. With the exception of the entries described below, the importer certification must be completed, signed, and dated by the time the entry summary is filed for the relevant entry. The importer, or the importer's agent, must submit both the importer's certification and the exporter's certification to CBP as part of the entry process by uploading them into the document imaging system (DIS) in ACE. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, the importer should obtain the entry summary number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as a broker, however, are not permitted to certify on behalf of the importer.
Exporters are required to complete and maintain the applicable exporter certification and provide the importer with a copy of that certification and all supporting documentation (
Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. Importers and exporters are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the latest entry date of the entries covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
For all pipe and tube from Vietnam that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period August 4, 2022 (the date of initiation of this circumvention inquiry), through the date of publication of the
For unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) of pipe and tube that were declared as non-AD type entries (
If it is determined that an importer or exporter has not met the certification and related documentation requirements for certain entries, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend, pursuant to this country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention and the
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Act, may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that Commerce conduct an administrative review of that AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation. An interested party who would like Commerce to conduct an administrative review should wait until Commerce announces via the
This notice will serve as the only reminder to all parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(2).
I hereby certify that:
A. My name is {IMPORTING COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {IMPORTING COMPANY}, located at {ADDRESS OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes (pipe and tube) produced in Vietnam that entered under entry summary number(s), identified below, and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have direct personal knowledge of the importation of pipe and tube, including the exporter's and/or foreign seller's identity and location;
C. If the importer is acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
The pipe and tube covered by this certification was imported by {IMPORTING COMPANY} on behalf of {U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER};
If the importer is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
{NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer.
D. The pipe and tube covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM THE MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}.
E. I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party, (
F. This certification applies to the following entries (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
Entry Summary #:
Entry Summary Line Item #:
Foreign Seller:
Foreign Seller's Address:
Foreign Seller's Invoice #:
Foreign Seller's Invoice Line Item #:
Country of Origin of HRS: State “N/A” for “Country of Origin of HRS” if the pipe and tube covered by this certification was produced using inputs other than HRS.
Producer:
Producer's Address:
G. The pipe and tube covered by this certification does not contain HRS produced in India;
H. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
I. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification (attesting to the production and/or exportation of the imported merchandise identified above), and any supporting documentation provided to the importer by the exporter, until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the date of the latest entry covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
J. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to submit a copy of the importer and exporter certifications as part of the entry summary by uploading them into the document imaging system (DIS) in ACE, and to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) with the importer certification, and any supporting documentation, and a copy of the exporter's certification, and any supporting documentation provided to the importer by the exporter, upon request of either agency;
K. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
L. I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the importer no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
M. I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
N. This certification was completed and signed on, or prior to, the date of the entry summary if the entry date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
O. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
The party that made the sale to the United States should fill out the exporter certification.
I hereby certify that:
A. My name is {COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES); located at {ADDRESS OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES);
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the certain welded carbon steel standard pipes and tubes (pipe and tube) for which sales are identified below. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, an exporter should have direct personal knowledge of the producer's identity and location;
C. The pipe and tube covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED};
D. The pipe and tube covered by this certification does not contain HRS produced in India;
E. This certification applies to the following sales to {NAME OF U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER} (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
Foreign Seller's Invoice # to U.S. Customer:
Foreign Seller's Invoice to U.S. Customer Line item #:
Producer Name:
Producer's Address:
Producer's Invoice # to Foreign Seller: (
Name of Producer of HRS: State “N/A” if the producer did not use HRS in the production of pipe and tube.
Location (Country) of Producer of HRS: State “N/A” if the producer did not use HRS in the production of pipe and tube.
F. The pipe and tube covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF U.S. PARTY TO WHOM MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED};
G. I understand that {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
H. I understand that {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES} is required to provide the U.S. importer with a copy of this certification and is required to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) with this certification, and any supporting documents, upon request of either agency;
I. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
J. I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the seller/exporter no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
K. I understand that agents of the seller/exporter, such as freight forwarding companies or brokers, are not permitted to make this certification.
L. This certification was completed and signed, and a copy of the certification was provided to the importer, on, or prior to, the date of shipment if the shipment date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
M. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT), completed in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using hot-rolled steel (HRS) produced in the People's Republic of China (China), are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on LWRPT from China.
Applicable November 9, 2023.
Reginald Anadio, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3166.
On August 5, 2008, Commerce published in the
On May 15, 2023, Commerce extended the deadline for the final determination of this circumvention inquiry to August 4, 2023.
The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
The products covered by the
This circumvention inquiry covers LWRPT completed in Vietnam using China-origin HRS and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States (inquiry merchandise).
Commerce is conducting this circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.226.
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in these inquiries are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice at Appendix I.
Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties, we made no changes to the
As detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce determines that LWRPT completed in Vietnam using China-origin HRS and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States is circumventing the
Based on the affirmative country-wide determination of circumvention for Vietnam, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(l)(3), we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties on unliquidated entries of LWRPT completed in Vietnam using China-origin HRS, that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 4, 2022, the date of publication of the initiation of this circumvention inquiry in the
LWRPT produced in Vietnam from HRS that is not of China origin is not subject to this inquiry. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise under the
If an importer imports LWRPT from Vietnam and claims that the LWRPT was not produced from China-origin HRS, or alternatively, claims that the LWRPT was produced using an input other than HRS, the importer and exporter are required to meet the certification and documentation requirements described in the “Certifications” and “Certification Requirements for Vietnam” sections, below, in order to not be subject to the
Where no certification is provided for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from three countries (China, Korea, or Taiwan) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the rate applicable to the AD and CVD orders on LWRPT from China (
Where a certification is provided for the AD/CVD orders on LWRPT from China (stating that the merchandise was not produced using China-origin HRS or was produced using an input other than HRS), but no other certification is provided, then Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the rate applicable to the
Commerce established the following third CBP country case number in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) for entries of LWRPT produced in Vietnam using Korea-origin HRS: A-552-859-000. The cash deposit rate will be the Korea AD all-others rate (
For Hoa Phat, which will not be permitted to certify that its merchandise was not produced from China-origin HRS, Commerce will direct CBP, for all entries of LWRPT from Vietnam produced or exported by Hoa Phat, to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit at the AD/CVD cash deposit rates established for LWRPT from China.
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Entries for which the importer and exporter have met the certification requirements described below and in Appendix II to this notice will not be subject to suspension of liquidation, or the cash deposit requirements described above. Failure to comply with the applicable requisite certification requirements may result in the merchandise being subject to AD and CVD duties.
To administer the country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention, Commerce established importer and exporter certifications which allow companies to certify that specific entries of LWRPT from Vietnam are not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits pursuant to this country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention because the merchandise was not made with China-origin HRS or was made with an input other than HRS (
Importers and exporters that claim that the entry of LWRPT is not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits because the merchandise was not made with China-origin HRS or was made with an input other than HRS must complete the applicable certification and meet the certification and documentation requirements described below, as well as the requirements identified in the applicable certification.
Importers are required to complete and maintain the applicable importer certification, and maintain a copy of the
Exporters are required to complete and maintain the applicable exporter certification and provide the importer with a copy of that certification and all supporting documentation (
Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. Importers and exporters are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the latest entry date of the entries covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
For all LWRPT from Vietnam that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period August 4, 2022 (the date of initiation of this circumvention inquiry), through the date of publication of the
For unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) of LWRPT that were declared as non-AD/CVD type entries (
If it is determined that an importer or exporter has not met the certification and related documentation requirements for certain entries, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend, pursuant to this country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention and the
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Act, may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that Commerce conduct an administrative review of that AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation. Interested parties who wish that Commerce conducts an administrative review should wait until Commerce announces via the
This notice will serve as the only reminder to all parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(2).
A. My name is {IMPORTING COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {IMPORTING COMPANY}, located at {ADDRESS OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of light-walled rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) produced in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam that entered under entry summary number(s), identified below, and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have direct personal knowledge of the importation of LWRPT, including the exporter's and/or foreign seller's identity and location;
C. If the importer is acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
The LWRPT covered by this certification was imported by {IMPORTING COMPANY} on behalf of {U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER};
If the importer is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
{NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer.
D. The LWRPT covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM THE MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}.
E. I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party, (
F. This certification applies to the following entries (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
Entry Summary #:
Entry Summary Line Item #:
Foreign Seller:
Foreign Seller's Address:
Foreign Seller's Invoice #:
Foreign Seller's Invoice Line Item #:
Country of Origin of HRS: State “N/A” for “Country of Origin of HRS” if the LWRPT covered by this certification was produced using inputs other than HRS.
Producer:
Producer's Address:
G. The LWRPT covered by this certification does not contain HRS produced in the People's Republic of China (China);
H. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
I. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification (attesting to the production and/or exportation of the imported merchandise identified above), and any supporting documentation provided to the importer by the exporter, until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the date of the latest entry covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
J. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) with the importer certification, and any supporting documentation, and a copy of the exporter's certification, and any supporting documentation provided to the importer by the exporter, upon request of either agency;
K. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
L. I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the importer no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
M. I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
N. This certification was completed and signed on, or prior to, the date of the entry summary if the entry date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
O. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
The party that made the sale to the United States should fill out the exporter certification.
I hereby certify that:
A. My name is {COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES}; located at {ADDRESS OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES};
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the light-walled welded rectangular pipe and tube (LWRPT) for which sales are identified below. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, an exporter should have direct personal knowledge of the producer's identity and location;
C. The LWRPT covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED};
D. The LWRPT covered by this certification does not contain HRS produced in the People's Republic of China (China);
E. This certification applies to the following sales to {NAME OF U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER} (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
Foreign Seller's Invoice # to U.S. Customer:
Foreign Seller's Invoice to U.S. Customer Line item #:
Producer Name:
Producer's Address:
Producer's Invoice # to Foreign Seller: (
Name of Producer of HRS: State “N/A” if the producer did not use HRS in the production of the LWRPT.
Location (Country) of Producer of HRS: State “N/A” if the producer did not use HRS in the production of LWRPT.
F. The LWRPT covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF U.S. PARTY TO WHOM MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED};
G. I understand that {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
H. I understand that {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES} is required to provide the U.S. importer with a copy of this certification and is required to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) with this certification, and any supporting documents, upon request of either agency;
I. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
J. I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the seller/exporter no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
K. I understand that agents of the seller/exporter, such as freight forwarding companies or brokers, are not permitted to make this certification.
L. This certification was completed and signed, and a copy of the certification was provided to the importer, on, or prior to, the date of shipment if the shipment date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
M. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that imports of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (CWP), completed in the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam) using hot-rolled steel (HRS) produced in the People's Republic of China (China), are circumventing the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on CWP from China.
Applicable November 9, 2023.
Krisha Hill, AD/CVD Operations, Office IV, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4037.
On July 22, 2008, Commerce published in the
The products covered by the
This circumvention inquiry covers CWP completed in Vietnam using China-origin HRS and subsequently
Commerce is conducting this circumvention inquiry in accordance with section 781(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.226.
Based on the information provided by Vietnam Haiphong Hongyuan Machinery Manufactory Co., Ltd. (Vietnam Haiphong) in this circumvention inquiry, Commerce continues to find, as it did in the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs by parties in this inquiry are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues raised is attached to this notice at Appendix I.
Based on our analysis of the comments received from interested parties, we did not revise the
As detailed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce determines that CWP completed in Vietnam using China-origin HRS and subsequently exported from Vietnam to the United States is circumventing the
Based on the affirmative country-wide determination of circumvention for China, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.226(l)(3), we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation and require a cash deposit of estimated duties on unliquidated entries of CWP completed in Vietnam using China-origin HRS, that were entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after August 4, 2022, the date of publication of the initiation of this circumvention inquiry in the
CWP produced in Vietnam from HRS that is not of Chinese origin is not subject to this inquiry. Therefore, cash deposits are not required for such merchandise under the
If an importer imports CWP from Vietnam and claims that the CWP was not produced from China-origin HRS, or alternately, claims that the CWP was produced using an input other than HRS, the importer and exporter are required to meet the certification and documentation requirements described in the “Certifications” and “Certification Requirements for Vietnam” sections below in order to not be subject to the
Where no certification is provided for an entry, and AD/CVD orders from three countries (China, India or Korea) potentially apply to that entry, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the rate applicable to the AD and CVD orders on CWP from China (
Where a certification is provided for the AD/CVD orders on CWP from China (stating that the merchandise was not produced using China-origin HRS or was produced using an input other than HRS), but no other certification is provided, then Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend the entry and collect cash deposits at the rate applicable to the
Commerce established the following third country CBP case numbers in the Automated Commercial Environment (ACE) for entries of CWP produced in Vietnam using China-origin HRS: A-552-009-000 and C-552-010-000. Commerce established the following company-specific third country CBP case numbers for SeAH VINA, for which Commerce made an affirmative determination of circumvention, for entries of CWP produced in Vietnam using China-origin HRS: A-552-009-001 and C-552-010-001. The cash deposit rates will be the China-wide entity AD rate (
These suspension of liquidation instructions will remain in effect until further notice.
Entries for which the importer and exporter have met the certification requirements described below and in Appendix II to this notice will not be
To administer the country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention for Vietnam, Commerce established importer and exporter certifications which allow companies to certify that specific entries of CWP from Vietnam are not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits pursuant to this country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention because the merchandise was not made with China-origin HRS or was made with an input other than HRS (
Importers and exporters that claim that the entry of CWP is not subject to suspension of liquidation or the collection of cash deposits because the merchandise was not made with China-origin HRS or was made with an input other than HRS must complete the applicable certification and meet the certification and documentation requirements described below, as well as the requirements identified in the applicable certification.
Importers are required to complete and maintain the applicable importer certification, and maintain a copy of the applicable exporter certification, and retain all supporting documentation for both certifications. With the exception of the entries described below, the importer certification must be completed, signed, and dated by the time the entry summary is filed for the relevant entry. The importer, or the importer's agent, must submit both the importer's certification and the exporter's certification to CBP as part of the entry process by uploading them into the document imaging system (DIS) in ACE. Where the importer uses a broker to facilitate the entry process, the importer should obtain the entry summary number from the broker. Agents of the importer, such as a broker, however, are not permitted to certify on behalf of the importer.
Exporters are required to complete and maintain the applicable exporter certification and provide the importer with a copy of that certification and all supporting documentation (
Additionally, the claims made in the certifications and any supporting documentation are subject to verification by Commerce and/or CBP. Importers and exporters are required to maintain the certifications and supporting documentation until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the latest entry date of the entries covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries.
For all CWP from Vietnam that was entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the period August 4, 2022 (the date of initiation of this circumvention inquiry), through the date of publication of the
For unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) of CWP that were declared as non-AD/CVD type entries (
If it is determined that an importer or exporter has not met the certification and related documentation requirements for certain entries, Commerce intends to instruct CBP to suspend, pursuant to this country-wide affirmative determination of circumvention and the
Each year during the anniversary month of the publication of an AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation, an interested party, as defined in section 771(9) of the Act, may request, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213, that Commerce conduct an administrative review of that AD or CVD order, finding, or suspended investigation. An interested party who would like Commerce to conduct an administrative review should wait until Commerce announces via the
This notice will serve as the only reminder to all parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with section 781(b) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.226(g)(2).
1. Certifications
I hereby certify that:
A. My name is {IMPORTING COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {IMPORTING COMPANY}, located at {ADDRESS OF IMPORTING COMPANY};
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the importation into the Customs territory of the United States of circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (CWP) produced in Vietnam that entered under entry summary number(s), identified below, and are covered by this certification. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, the importer should have direct personal knowledge of the importation of CWP, including the exporter's and/or foreign seller's identity and location;
C. If the importer is acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
The CWP covered by this certification was imported by {IMPORTING COMPANY} on behalf of {U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER};
If the importer is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer, include the following sentence as paragraph C of this certification:
{NAME OF IMPORTING COMPANY} is not acting on behalf of the first U.S. customer.
D. The CWP covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM THE MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}.
E. I have personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production of the imported products covered by this certification. “Personal knowledge” includes facts obtained from another party, (
F. This certification applies to the following entries (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
Entry Summary #:
Entry Summary Line Item #:
Foreign Seller:
Foreign Seller's Address:
Foreign Seller's Invoice #:
Foreign Seller's Invoice Line Item #:
Country of Origin of HRS: State “N/A” for “Country of Origin of HRS” if the CWP covered by this certification was produced using inputs other than HRS.
Producer:
Producer's Address:
G. The CWP covered by this certification does not contain HRS produced in China;
H. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
I. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to maintain a copy of the exporter's certification (attesting to the production and/or exportation of the imported merchandise identified above), and any supporting documentation provided to the importer by the exporter, until the later of: (1) the date that is five years after the date of the latest entry covered by the certification; or (2) the date that is three years after the conclusion of any litigation in United States courts regarding such entries;
J. I understand that {IMPORTING COMPANY} is required to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) with the importer certification, and any supporting documentation, and a copy of the exporter's certification, and any supporting documentation provided to the importer by the exporter, upon request of either agency;
K. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
L. I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of liquidation of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the importer no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
M. I understand that agents of the importer, such as brokers, are not permitted to make this certification;
N. This certification was completed and signed on, or prior to, the date of the entry summary if the entry date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
O. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
The party that made the sale to the United States should fill out the exporter certification.
I hereby certify that:
A. My name is {COMPANY OFFICIAL'S NAME} and I am an official of {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES); located at {ADDRESS OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES);
B. I have direct personal knowledge of the facts regarding the production and exportation of the circular welded carbon quality steel pipe (CWP) for which sales are identified below. “Direct personal knowledge” refers to facts the certifying party is expected to have in its own records. For example, an exporter should have direct personal knowledge of the producer's identity and location;
C. The CWP covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF PARTY IN THE UNITED STATES TO WHOM MERCHANDISE WAS FIRST SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED};
D. The CWP covered by this certification does not contain HRS produced in China;
E. This certification applies to the following sales to {NAME OF U.S. CUSTOMER}, located at {ADDRESS OF U.S. CUSTOMER} (repeat this block as many times as necessary):
Foreign Seller's Invoice # to U.S. Customer:
Foreign Seller's Invoice to U.S. Customer Line item #:
Producer Name:
Producer's Address:
Producer's Invoice # to Foreign Seller: (
Name of Producer of HRS: State “N/A” if the producer did not use HRS in the production of CWP.
Location (Country) of Producer of HRS: State “N/A” if the producer did not use HRS in the production of CWP.
F. The CWP covered by this certification was shipped to {NAME OF U.S. PARTY TO WHOM MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED}, located at {U.S. ADDRESS TO WHICH MERCHANDISE WAS SHIPPED};
G. I understand that {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES} is required to maintain a copy of this certification and sufficient documentation supporting this certification (
H. I understand that {NAME OF FOREIGN COMPANY THAT MADE THE SALE TO THE UNITED STATES} is required to provide the U.S. importer with a copy of this certification and is required to provide U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and/or the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) with this certification, and any supporting documents, upon request of either agency;
I. I understand that the claims made herein, and the substantiating documentation, are subject to verification by CBP and/or Commerce;
J. I understand that failure to maintain the required certification and supporting documentation, or failure to substantiate the claims made herein, or not allowing CBP and/or Commerce to verify the claims made herein, may result in a
(i) suspension of all unliquidated entries (and entries for which liquidation has not become final) for which these requirements were not met;
(ii) the importer being required to post the cash deposits determined by Commerce; and
(iii) the seller/exporter no longer being allowed to participate in the certification process.
K. I understand that agents of the seller/exporter, such as freight forwarding companies or brokers, are not permitted to make this certification.
L. This certification was completed and signed, and a copy of the certification was provided to the importer, on, or prior to, the date of shipment if the shipment date is more than 14 days after the date of publication of the notice of Commerce's preliminary determination of circumvention in the
M. I am aware that U.S. law (including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 1001) imposes criminal sanctions on individuals who knowingly and willfully make material false statements to the U.S. government.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 84 Life History Data Webinar for U.S Caribbean Yellowtail Snapper and Stoplight Parrotfish.
The SEDAR 84 assessment process of U.S. Caribbean yellowtail snapper and stoplight parrotfish will consist of a Data Workshop, and a series of assessment webinars, and a Review Workshop. See
The SEDAR 84 Life History Data webinar will be held December 1, 2023, from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m., Eastern Time.
Julie A. Neer, SEDAR Coordinator; (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a multi-step process including: (1) Data Workshop, (2) A series of assessment webinars, and (3) A Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a report that compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The assessment webinars produce a report that describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The product of the Review Workshop is an Assessment Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, HMS Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and NGO's; International experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion during the Life History Data webinar are as follows:
Participants will discuss what life history data may be available for use in the assessment.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to the
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of web conference.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) Pacific Northwest Crab Industry Advisory Committee (PNCIAC) will hold a meeting.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 28, 2023, from 9 a.m. to 11 a.m., Alaska time.
The meeting will be a web conference. Join online through the link at
Sarah Marrinan, Council staff; phone: (907) 271-2809; email:
The Committee will discuss several topics including: (a) NPFMC crab measures for December (facility use cap final action, C share final action; (b) Crab Rationalization Program Review; and (c) other business. The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted
You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone, or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at:
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically to
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Ecosystem Workgroup (EWG) will hold an online meeting, which is open to the public.
The online meeting will be held Monday, December 4, 2023, from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m., Pacific Time or until business for the day is concluded.
This meeting will be held online. Specific meeting information, including directions on how to join the meeting and system requirements will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Kit Dahl, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2422.
The purpose of this online EWG meeting is to review Pacific Council guidance on further work on its Fishery Ecosystem Plan Initiative addressing the provision of ecosystem and climate information in its management processes. Based on this review, the EWG will consider what activities it wishes to develop further as part of this initiative. It will report its recommendations to the Pacific Council at its March 2024 meeting.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in the meeting agenda may be discussed, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this document and any issues arising after publication of this document that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Mr. Kris Kleinschmidt (
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of SEDAR 82 South Atlantic Gray Triggerfish Assessment Webinar 8.
The SEDAR 82 assessment of the South Atlantic stock of gray triggerfish will consist of a data workshop, a series of assessment webinars, and a review workshop. See
The SEDAR 82 South Atlantic Gray Triggerfish Assessment Webinar 8
Meisha Key, SEDAR Coordinator, 4055 Faber Place Drive, Suite 201, North Charleston, SC 29405; phone: (843) 571-4366; email:
The Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils, in conjunction with NOAA Fisheries and the Atlantic and Gulf States Marine Fisheries Commissions, have implemented the Southeast Data, Assessment and Review (SEDAR) process, a multi-step method for determining the status of fish stocks in the Southeast Region. SEDAR is a three-step process including: (1) Data Workshop; (2) Assessment Process utilizing webinars; and (3) Review Workshop. The product of the Data Workshop is a data report which compiles and evaluates potential datasets and recommends which datasets are appropriate for assessment analyses. The product of the Assessment Process is a stock assessment report which describes the fisheries, evaluates the status of the stock, estimates biological benchmarks, projects future population conditions, and recommends research and monitoring needs. The assessment is independently peer reviewed at the Review Workshop. The product of the Review Workshop is a Summary documenting panel opinions regarding the strengths and weaknesses of the stock assessment and input data. Participants for SEDAR Workshops are appointed by the Gulf of Mexico, South Atlantic, and Caribbean Fishery Management Councils and NOAA Fisheries Southeast Regional Office, Highly Migratory Species Management Division, and Southeast Fisheries Science Center. Participants include: data collectors and database managers; stock assessment scientists, biologists, and researchers; constituency representatives including fishermen, environmentalists, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs); international experts; and staff of Councils, Commissions, and state and federal agencies.
The items of discussion at the SEDAR 82 South Atlantic Gray Triggerfish Assessment Webinar 8 are as follows: Discuss any leftover data/modelling issues that were not cleared up during the data and assessment processes, answer any questions the analysts have, and determine if model development is complete.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the intent to take final action to address the emergency.
This meeting is accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), 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 information collection request to OMB for review and approval.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before January 8, 2024.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments to Adrienne Thomas, NOAA PRA Officer, at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Dr. Danielle Schwarzmann, ONMS Chief Economist, 1315 East West Hwy, SSMC4, Silver Spring, MD 20910, 240-533-0706,
This is a request for a new information collection.
NOAA is developing an information collection to characterize, assess and research social and economic value and importance of natural and cultural resources in the Ocean and Great Lakes. This coordinated project will allow for consistent metrics of human use to be collected across the environments managed by NOAA. In order to fulfill the mandates of the following legislation, timely human use and socioeconomic data is required: the National Marine Sanctuaries Act; Coastal Zone Management Act; Digital Coast Act; Coral Reef Conservation Act; National Historic Preservation Act; and the Magnuson Stevens-Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
The purpose of this information collection is to obtain human dimensions information from users of marine areas, including individuals and households, businesses, local, State and Federal Governments, tribal and territorial governments, Tribal and Indigenous peoples, nonprofits and academic institutions.
Focusing on the Ocean and Great Lakes, data collected will quantify over
The intended use of the information collected through this instrument is to fulfill the aforementioned mandates. Selected acts are highlighted here. Regarding the National Marine Sanctuary Act (NMSA), NOAA shall consider “the present and potential uses of the area that depend on maintenance of the area's resources, including commercial and recreational fishing, subsistence uses, other commercial and recreational activities, and research and education.” 16 U.S.C. 1433(b)(1). NOAA must also determine whether present and potential activities may adversely affect the area's qualities that contribute to its significance, the public benefits to be derived from sanctuary status, negative impacts produced by management restrictions on income-generating activities, socioeconomic effects of sanctuary designation, the area's scientific value, and the value for monitoring the sanctuary's resources. In developing a sanctuary's management plan, the NMSA requires NOAA to include, among other things, resource studies and appropriate strategies for managing sanctuary resources, including innovative management strategies, research, monitoring and assessment, and surveillance activities. 16 U.S.C. 1434(a)(2)(C).
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) establishes the national policy to “preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation's coastal zone” and to “encourage and assist the states to exercise effectively their responsibilities in the coastal zone through the development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as the needs for compatible economic development.” 16 U.S.C. 1452(1-2).
The Magnuson Stevens-Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA) governs marine fisheries management in U.S. Federal waters. Its objectives include increasing long-term economic and social benefits and ensuring a safe and sustainable supply of seafood. It states that, “Conservation and management measures shall . . . take into account the importance of fishery resources to fishing communities by utilizing economic and social data in order to (A) provide for the sustained participation of such communities, and (B) to the extent practicable, minimize adverse economic impacts on such communities.” (16 U.S.C. 1851 (a) (8)).
The Digital Coast Act supports the coordination of activities across multiple legislation relevant to NOAA; “The Secretary shall coordinate the activities carried out under the program to optimize data collection, sharing and integration, and to minimize duplication by . . . consulting with other Federal agencies, including interagency committees, on relevant Federal activities, including activities carried out under the Ocean and Coastal Mapping Integration Act (33 U.S.C. 3501
The surveys will also characterize and assess reasons for non-use of the marine and coastal environment and identify barriers to access and opportunity which addresses the Executive Order on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government.
Study data will be made available to the public (with personally identifiable information removed), and reports and papers will be published with study findings. Pursuant to conversations with NOAA, Department of Commerce, and the Office of Management and Budget, this request is being submitted as a Collaborative Hybrid-Generic collection.
Information will be collected using the most efficient and effective methodology that is feasible in the individual marine protected area, region, or jurisdiction. It is expected that data collection methods will vary by site and may include in-person, phone, electronic (internet), and mail surveys.
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
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Deletions from the Procurement List.
This action deletes product(s) from the Procurement List that were 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 10/3/2023, the Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled published notice of proposed deletions from 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 relevant matter presented, the Committee has determined that the product(s) listed below are no longer 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 additional reporting, recordkeeping or other compliance requirements for small entities.
2. The action may result in authorizing small entities to furnish the product(s) to the Government.
3. There are no known regulatory alternatives which would accomplish the objectives of the Javits-Wagner-O'Day Act (41 U.S.C. 8501-8506) in connection with the product(s) deleted from the Procurement List.
Accordingly, the following product(s) are deleted from the Procurement List:
Committee for Purchase From People Who Are Blind or Severely Disabled.
Proposed deletions from the Procurement List.
The Committee is proposing to delete product(s) from the Procurement List that were furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.
Comments must be received on or before: December 09, 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.
The following product(s) are proposed for deletion from the Procurement List:
9:00 a.m. EST, Friday, November 17, 2023.
Virtual meeting.
Closed.
Examinations and enforcement matters. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
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 a new information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before December 11, 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 Stephanie Jones, (202) 453-7498.
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.
The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is requesting authorization to collect data from CSP grantees within the Developer program through a new online platform. In 2022, ED began development of a new data collection system, the Charter Online Management and Performance System (COMPS), designed specifically to reduce the burden of reporting for users and increase validity of the overall data. This new collection consists of questions responsive to the actions established in the program's final rule published in the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection, FERC Form No. 2 (Annual Report for Major Natural Gas Companies) and FERC Form No. 2-A (Annual Report for Non-Major Natural Gas Companies).
Comments on the collection of information are due January 8, 2024.
You may submit your comments (identified by Docket No. IC24-01-000) by one of the following methods:
Electronic filing through
•
• For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by USPS mail or by hand (including courier) delivery:
○
○
Ellen Brown may be reached by email at
FERC Form No. 2-A, Annual Report for Non-Major Natural Gas Companies; OMB Control No. 1902-0030.
The Commission collects FERC Form Nos. 2 and 2-A information as prescribed in 18 CFR 260.1 and 18 CFR 260.2. These forms provide information concerning a company's current performance, compiled using the Commission's Uniform System of Account (USoA).
The forms provide information concerning a company's financial and operational information. The forms contain schedules which include a basic set of financial statements: Comparative Balance Sheet, Statement of Income and Retained Earnings, Statement of Cash Flows, and the Statement of Comprehensive Income and Hedging Activities. Supporting schedules containing supplementary information are filed, including revenues and the related quantities of products sold or transported; account balances for various operating and maintenance expenses; selected plant cost data; and other information.
The information collected assists the Commission in the administration of its jurisdictional responsibilities and is used by Commission staff, state regulatory agencies, customers, financial analysts and others in the review of the financial condition of regulated companies. The information is also used in various rate proceedings, industry analyses and in the Commission's audit programs and as appropriate, for the computation of annual charges. The information is made available to the public, interveners and all interested parties to assist in the proceedings before the Commission. For financial information to be useful to the Commission, it must be understandable, relevant, reliable and timely. The Form Nos. 2 and 2-A financial statements are prepared in accordance with the Commission's USofA and related regulations, and provide data that enables the Commission to develop and monitor cost-based rates, analyze costs of different services and classes of assets, and compare costs across lines of business. The use of the USofA permits natural gas companies to account for similar transactions and events in a consistent manner, and to communicate those results to the Commission on a periodic basis. Comparability of data and financial statement analysis for a particular entity from one period to the next, or between entities, within the same industry, would be difficult to achieve if each company maintained its own accounting records using dissimilar accounting methods and classifications to record similar transactions and events. In summary, without the information collected in the forms, it would be difficult for the Commission to ensure, as required by the NGA, that a pipeline's rates remain just and reasonable, respond to Congressional and outside inquires, and make decisions in a timely manner.
On July 12, 2023, Jupiter Pumped Storage 1, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Mineral Run Pumped Storage Project (Mineral Run Project or project) to be located in Cambria County, Pennsylvania. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed Mineral Run Project would consist of the following: (1) a new 9,400-foot-long, 85-foot-high rock-filled embankment dike forming an upper reservoir having a surface area of 120 acres and a total storage capacity of approximately 9,840 acre-feet at a normal maximum water surface elevation of 2,282 feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) a new 15,200-foot-long, 85-foot-high rock-filled embankment dike forming a lower reservoir having a total storage capacity of approximately 9,840 acre-feet at a normal maximum water surface elevation of 2,062 feet msl; (3) a 32-foot-diameter, 100-foot-long vertical tunnel and a 32-foot-diameter, 4,500-foot-long horizontal tunnel and/or penstock connecting the upper and lower reservoirs; (4) a 120-foot-wide, 600-foot-long powerhouse containing six reversible turbine-generator units with a total rated capacity of 208 megawatts; (5) a new pump station along the eastern bank of Saltlick Run to convey water through a 1,300-foot-long, 2-foot-diameter steel conduit to the lower reservoir; (6) a 1.7-mile-long, 230-kilovolt transmission line connecting the project to an existing substation; and (7) appurtenant facilities. Initial fill and make-up water for the project would come from Saltlick Run. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 607,000 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's website at
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On July 12, 2023, Cabin Run Pumped Storage, LLC, filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act (FPA), proposing to study the feasibility of the Cabin Run Pumped Storage Project to be located near the Stony River and unincorporated community of Bismarck in Tucker and Grant Counties, West Virginia. The sole purpose of a preliminary permit, if issued, is to grant the permit holder priority to file a license application during the permit term. A preliminary permit does not authorize the permit holder to perform any land-disturbing activities or otherwise enter upon lands or waters owned by others without the owners' express permission.
The proposed project would consist of the following: (1) a 8,700-foot-long, 80-foot-high rock-fill embankment dike creating an upper reservoir with a 60-acre surface area and a 4,800-acre-foot storage capacity at a normal maximum water surface elevation of 4,030 feet above mean sea level (msl); (2) a 7,200-foot-long, 80-foot-high rock-fill embankment dike enclosing a lower reservoir with a 60-acre surface area and a 4,800-acre-foot storage capacity at a normal maximum water surface elevation of 3,530 feet msl; (3) a 400-foot-long, 24-foot-diameter vertical power tunnel/shaft connecting a 4,650-foot-long, 24-foot-diameter horizontal power tunnel to the powerhouse; (4) a 550-foot-long, 120-foot-wide, 100-foot-high powerhouse housing four 57.5-megawatt (MW) reversible Francis pumping-generating units with a total installed capacity of 230 MW; (5) a 4.5-mile-long, 230-kilovolt transmission line from a proposed substation near the powerhouse to an interconnection point; (6) a substation including two 120 megavolt amperes generator step-up units; (7) a 20-foot-long, 20-foot-wide, 15-foot-high concrete pump station on the south bank of the Stony River (upper end of Mount Storm Lake), capable of conveying water at 50 cubic feet per second through a 3,400-foot-long, 2-foot-diamenter steel conduit to the lower reservoir for fill or refill purposes; and (8) appurtenant facilities. The proposed project would have an annual generation of 671,000 megawatt-hours.
Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. Competing applications and notices of intent must meet the requirements of 18 CFR 4.36.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing applications using the Commission's eFiling system at
More information about this project, including a copy of the application, can be viewed or printed on the “eLibrary” link of the Commission's website at
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Solar of Alamosa 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 November 22, 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 Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas and Oil Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) regulations, 18 CFR part 380, the Office of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new license to continue to operate and maintain the Racine Hydroelectric Project (project). The project is located on the Ohio River in Meigs County, Ohio. Commission staff has prepared an Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project.
The EA contains the staff's analysis of the potential environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the quality of the human environment.
The Commission provides all interested persons with an opportunity to view and/or print the EA via the internet through the Commission's Home Page (
You may also register online at
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this notice.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments using the Commission's eFiling system at
For further information, contact Jay Summers at 202-502-8764 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/21/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
Comment Date: 5 p.m. ET 11/24/23.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) 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,
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
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, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) 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:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of CPV Stagecoach Solar, LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal
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 November 22, 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 Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
On March 30, 2023, Corpus Christi Liquefaction, LLC and CCL Midscale 8-9, LLC (collectively referred to as CCL) filed an application in Docket No. CP23-129-000 requesting Authorization pursuant to Section 3 of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Corpus Christi Liquefaction Midscale Trains 8 & 9 Project (Project) and would expand CCL's existing terminal production capabilities. The proposed Trains 8 & 9 together would be capable of liquefying up to approximately 170 Billion cubic feet per year (Bcf/y) of natural gas for export.
On April 13, 2023, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its Notice of Application for the Project. Among other things, that notice alerted agencies issuing Federal authorizations of the requirement to complete all necessary reviews and to reach a final decision on a request for a Federal authorization within 90 days of the date of issuance of the Commission staff's environmental document for the Project.
This notice identifies Commission staff's intention to prepare an environmental assessment (EA) for the Project and the planned schedule for the completion of the environmental review.
If a schedule change becomes necessary, additional notice will be provided so that the relevant agencies are kept informed of the Project's progress.
CCL plans to construct and operate two midscale liquification trains; on-site refrigerant storage, end flash, and boil-off gas facilities; and proposes an increase in the authorized loading rate of liquified natural gas ship carriers in San Patricio and Nueces Counties, Texas. The Project facilities would be interconnected with the existing Liquefaction Project and Stage 3 Project facilities (authorized under Docket Nos. CP12-507-000 and CP18-512-000, respectively, and collectively referred to as CCL Terminal), which would require minor modifications for purposes of interconnection and integration of the expansion facilities. The Project would require the use of 1,395 acres of land within the CCL Terminal property.
On November 10, 2022, the Commission issued a
U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, and U.S. Coast Guard are cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EA.
In order to receive notification of the issuance of the EA and to keep track of formal issuances and submittals in specific dockets, the Commission offers a free service called eSubscription. This service provides automatic notification of filings made to subscribed dockets, document summaries, and direct links to the documents. Go to
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202)502-6595 or
Additional information about the Project is available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs at (866) 208-FERC or on the FERC website (
Take notice that on October 23, 2023, Columbia Gas Transmission, LLC (Columbia), 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to section 157.216 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Columbia's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP83-76-000, for authorization to abandon by sale, five injection/withdrawal (I/W) wells (Donegal Wells) located in its Donegal Storage Field. All of the above facilities are located in Washington County, Pennsylvania (Donegal Storage Field Wells Abandonment Project). The project will allow Columbia to abandon the Donegal Wells due to coal mining operations currently being developed within the Donegal Storage Field boundary, all as more fully set forth in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
Any questions concerning this request should be directed to David A. Alonzo, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700 at (832) 320-5477 or email at
There are three ways to become involved in the Commission's review of this project: you can file a protest to the project, you can file a motion to intervene in the proceeding, and you can file comments on the project. There is no fee or cost for filing protests, motions to intervene, or comments. The deadline for filing protests, motions to intervene, and comments is 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on January 2, 2024. How to file protests, motions to intervene, and comments is explained below.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Pursuant to section 157.205 of the Commission's regulations under the NGA,
Protests must comply with the requirements specified in section 157.205(e) of the Commission's regulations,
Any person has the option to file a motion to intervene in this proceeding. Only intervenors have the right to request rehearing of Commission orders issued in this proceeding and to subsequently challenge the Commission's orders in the U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeal.
To intervene, you must submit a motion to intervene to the Commission in accordance with Rule 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and
All timely, unopposed motions to intervene are automatically granted by operation of Rule 214(c)(1). Motions to intervene that are filed after the intervention deadline are untimely and may be denied. Any late-filed motion to intervene must show good cause for being late and must explain why the time limitation should be waived and provide justification by reference to factors set forth in Rule 214(d) of the Commission's Rules and Regulations. A person obtaining party status will be placed on the service list maintained by the Secretary of the Commission and will receive copies (paper or electronic) of all documents filed by the applicant and by all other parties.
Any person wishing to comment on the project may do so. The Commission considers all comments received about the project in determining the appropriate action to be taken. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded, please submit your comments on or before January 2, 2024. The filing of a comment alone will not serve to make the filer a party to the proceeding. To become a party, you must intervene in the proceeding.
There are two ways to submit protests, motions to intervene, and comments. In both instances, please reference the Project docket number CP24-11-000 in your submission.
(1) You may file your protest, motion to intervene, and comments by using the Commission's eFiling feature, which is located on the Commission's website (
(2) You can file a paper copy of your submission by mailing it to the address below. Your submission must reference the Project docket number CP24-11-000.
The Commission encourages electronic filing of submissions (option 1 above) and has eFiling staff available to assist you at (202) 502-8258 or
Protests and motions to intervene must be served on the applicant either by mail or email (with a link to the document) at: David A. Alonzo, Manager, Project Authorizations, 700 Louisiana Street, Suite 1300, Houston, Texas 77002-2700 at (832) 320-5477, or at
Throughout the proceeding, additional information about the project will be available from the Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the FERC website at
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. For more information and to register, go to
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Condor Energy Storage, 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 November 22, 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 Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission received the following exempt wholesale generator filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) 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:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202)502-6595 or
Take notice that during the month of October 2023, the status of the above-captioned entities as Exempt Wholesale Generators became effective by operation of the Commission's regulations. 18 CFR 366.7(a) (2022).
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites the public to nominate scientific experts from a diverse range of disciplines to be considered for appointment to the Science Advisory Committee on Chemicals (SACC), established pursuant to the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). EPA anticipates appointing new SACC members by mid-2024 due to expiring membership terms. Sources in addition to this
Nominations of candidates to be considered for appointment to the SACC must be received on or before December 11, 2023.
Submit your nominations identified by the docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0521, to the Designated Federal Officer (DFO) listed under
Tamue L. Gibson, MS, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) and Executive Secretary, telephone number: (202) 564-7642; email address:
This action is directed to the public in general. This action may, however, be of interest to those involved in the manufacture, processing, distribution, disposal, and/or those interested in the assessment of risks involving chemical substances and mixtures. Since other entities may also be interested, the Agency has not attempted to describe all the specific entities that may be affected by this action.
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the DFO listed under
1.
2.
The SACC is a federal advisory committee, established in December 2016 pursuant to TSCA section 2625(o), and chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1001-1014. EPA established the SACC to provide independent advice and recommendations to the EPA Administrator on the scientific basis for risk assessments, methodologies, and approaches relating to implementation of TSCA. The SACC members serve as Special Government Employees (SGEs) or Regular Government Employees (RGEs). The SACC expects to meet approximately 4 to 6 times per year, or as needed and approved by the DFO.
Currently, there are 18 SACC members, with eight membership terms that will expire over the next year. The expiring membership terms are eligible for reappointments. Therefore, up to eight new appointments or a mix of reappointments and new appointments are possible by mid-2024.
In accordance with Executive Order 14035 (June 25, 2021), EPA values and welcomes opportunities to increase diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility on its federal advisory committees. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of women and men of all racial and ethnic groups that draw from the full diversity of the Nation. Any interested person or organization may nominate qualified persons to be considered for appointment to this advisory committee. Individuals also may self-nominate. Nominations may be submitted in electronic format in accordance with the instructions under
Nominations should include candidates who have demonstrated high levels of competence, knowledge, and expertise in scientific/technical fields relevant to chemical safety and risk assessment. In particular, the nominees should include representation of the following disciplines, including, but not limited to: Human health and ecological risk assessment, biostatistics, epidemiology, pediatrics, physiologically-based pharmacokinetics (PBPK), toxicology and pathology (including neurotoxicology, developmental/reproductive toxicology, environmental toxicology, computational toxicology and carcinogenesis), cancer hazard and risk assessment, aggregate exposure, exposure assessment, bioinformatics/statistics, inhalation exposure, inhalation toxicology, occupational exposure/industrial hygiene, and the relationship of chemical exposures to women, children, and other potentially exposed or susceptible subpopulations.
Nominations should include the following information: Current business contact information for the nominee (including the nominee's name, organization, current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number); the disciplinary and specific areas of expertise of the nominee; and any additional information indicating current position, educational background; research activities; and recent service on other federal advisory committees and national or international professional organizations. Persons having questions about the nomination process should contact the DFO listed under
The DFO will acknowledge receipt of nominations. The names and biographical sketches of all interested and available nominees identified by respondents to this
In addition to scientific expertise, in selecting members, EPA will consider the breadth and balance of different perspectives and the collective experience needed to address EPA's prospective charges to the SACC, including the following:
• Background and experiences that would contribute to the diversity of scientific viewpoints on the committee, including professional experiences in government, labor, public health, public interest, animal protection, industry, and other groups, as the EPA Administrator determines to be advisable (
• Skills and experience working on committees and advisory panels including demonstrated ability to work constructively and effectively in a committee setting.
• Information on financial conflicts of interest or the appearance of a loss of impartiality. Prospective candidates will be asked to submit confidential financial information which shall fully disclose, among other financial interests, the candidate's employment, stocks, and bonds, and where applicable, sources of research support. EPA will evaluate the candidate's financial disclosure forms to assess the possibility of financial conflicts of interest, appearance of a loss of impartially, or any prior involvement with the development of documents likely to be under consideration by the SACC (including previous scientific peer reviews) before the candidate is considered further.
• Willingness to commit adequate time for the thorough review of materials provided to the committee.
• Availability to participate in committee meetings.
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 November 9, 2023 and ends December 11, 2023. Comments must be received on or before December 11, 2023.
The Protocol for the Nitrate and Nitrite IRIS Assessment (Oral) 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; email:
EPA's 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 assessment and is made available to the public. 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-2017-0496 for Nitrate/Nitrite, by one of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
For information on visiting the EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room, visit
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is announcing its approval or conditional approval of 26 amended certification plans for certifying applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides (RUPs) from the following certifying authorities: Arkansas
You may be potentially affected by this action if you are a federal, state, territory, or tribal agency who administers a certification program for pesticides applicators. You many also be potentially affected by this action if you are: A registrant of RUP products; a person who applies RUPs, including those under the direct supervision of a certified applicator; a person who relies upon the availability of RUPs; someone who hires a certified applicator to apply an RUP; a pesticide safety educator; or other person who provides pesticide safety training for pesticide applicator certification or recertification. 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:
• Agricultural Establishments (Crop Production) (NAICS code 111).
• Nursery and Tree Production (NAICS code 111421).
• Agricultural Pest Control and Pesticide Handling on Farms (NAICS code 115112).
• Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 115112, 541690, 541712).
• Agricultural (Animal) Pest Control (Livestock Spraying) (NAICS code 115210).
• Forestry Pest Control (NAICS code 115310).
• Wood Preservation Pest Control (NAICS code 321114).
• Pesticide Registrants (NAICS code 325320).
• Pesticide Dealers (NAICS codes 424690, 424910, 444220).
• Industrial, Institutional, Structural & Health Related Pest Control (NAICS code 561710).
• Ornamental & Turf, Rights-of-Way Pest Control (NAICS code 561730).
• Environmental Protection Program Administrators (NAICS code 924110).
• Governmental Pest Control Programs (NAICS code 926140).
If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed under
For assistance in locating documents related to the approved plans identified in this notice, please consult the designated EPA point of contact for the Certification Plan of interest as listed in Table 1 of this unit, or the general contact person listed under
Section 11 of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), 7. U.S.C. 136
This action gives notice that the following 26 certifying authorities' certification plans submitted to the Agency meet or exceed the standards of 40 CFR part 171: ADA, CRST-WEEC, CUDPR, FDACS, Guam-EPA, IDA, ISDA, KDA, LDAF, MDAR, ME BPC, MODA, MTDA, NMDA, ODA, ODAFF, PBPN, PDA, SSN, TAT/NRD, TNDA, TXDA, UDAF, VDACS, WDATCP, and WE. EPA hereby gives notice that the 26 amended certification plans for certifying applicators of RUPs listed in this document are now approved or conditionally approved plans; the certifying authorities may certify RUP applicators and continue with implementation of the certification plans as outlined in the approved plans.
With this announcement, EPA has approved or conditionally approved 67 out of the 68 federal, state, territory, and tribal certification plans submitted to the Agency prior to the November 2023 regulatory deadline. The 26 plans listed in this batched notice represents the fifth notification announcing the approval of the federal, state, territory, and tribal certification plans that have gone through the review and approval process. EPA also provides information regarding the reviews and approvals of these certification plans, and where copies of these approved plans are available, on its website at
One remaining plan, which is a Tribal-EPA memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation (SBT), will not be finalized by the November 4, 2023 deadline. After the November 2023, deadline, the existing MOA will no longer be valid. By default, the Tribe's jurisdiction will be covered by the EPA Plan for the Federal Certification of Applicators of Restricted Use Pesticides within Indian Country (EPA Plan) (Ref. 3) until the MOA is approved. Alternatively, if the Tribe responds in writing that it wants to opt out of the EPA Plan in the interim, they may do so. The Tribe, in any case, may continue to work with EPA to finalize their MOA. EPA will notify the Tribe that they may not continue to issue new or renew certifications under its existing MOA until the modified plan is approved. EPA will work with the Tribe on transitioning to the EPA Plan pending the approval of their MOA, including establishing a transition phase for existing applicators to get certified under the EPA Plan.
The following is a list of documents that are related to the issuance of this Notice. For assistance in locating these other documents, please consult the person listed under
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the next
Meeting dates are December 13, 2023, from 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and December 14, 2023, from 10:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. (EST).
Amelia Nguyen, Office of Children's Health Protection, U.S. EPA, MC 1107T, 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20460, (202) 564-4268, or
The meetings of the CHPAC are open to the public. An agenda will be posted to
Export-Import Bank of the United States
Notice.
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) has identified a categorical exclusion (CE) established by the Department of Energy (DOE) that covers categories of actions that EXIM proposes to take. This notice identifies the DOE CE and EXIM's categories of proposed actions for which it intends to use DOE's CE and describes the consultation between the agencies.
The CE identified below is available for EXIM to use for its proposed actions effective November 9, 2023.
Scott Condren (VP Policy Analysis),
The National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4347, (NEPA) requires Federal agencies to interpret and administer Federal policies, regulations, and laws in accordance with NEPA's policies and to consider environmental values in their decision making.
Federal agencies are required to provide a detailed statement on proposals for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Categorical exclusions (CEs) can be used when there is a determination the proposed type of action would not have a significant effect on the human environment; this option eliminates the need for an environmental assessment (EA) or more detailed environmental impact statement (EIS).
CEQ considers CEs “an important mechanism to promote efficiency in the NEPA process” and recognizes an agency's ability to “identify and substantiate categories of actions that normally do not have a significant effect on the human environment.”
Section 109 of NEPA, enacted as part of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, allows a Federal agency to “adopt” or use another agency's CEs for a category of proposed agency actions.
As the official export credit agency of the United States, “the mission of the Export-Import Bank of the United States is to support the creation of American jobs by facilitating the export of U.S. goods and services.” The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM) steps in when the private sector does not provide financing for American businesses. The Bank's actions have historically helped support these firms in competing with foreign businesses overseas. The Make More in America (MMIA) initiative applies EXIM's authorities for medium and long-term (MLT) loans, loan guarantees, and insurance to export-oriented domestic projects. In doing so, MMIA allows EXIM to support American business during the whole export lifecycle. The purpose of such loans remains unchanged: to support U.S. employment. As EXIM usually lends to projects outside the United States, NEPA has not often been applicable because environmental effects are located entirely outside the jurisdiction of the United States. In the new MMIA initiative which focuses on domestic lending, borrowing and adopting CEs from another agency will speed up the processing time of deals and conserve staff resources. Faster processing times in this initiative will greatly facilitate
EXIM proposes to adopt Department of Energy CE B1.31, Installation or relocation of machinery and equipment (10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B):
Installation or relocation and operation of machinery and equipment (including, but not limited to, laboratory equipment, electronic hardware, manufacturing machinery, maintenance equipment, and health and safety equipment), provided that uses of the installed or relocated items are consistent with the general missions of the receiving structure. Covered actions include modifications to an existing building, within or contiguous to a previously disturbed or developed area
DOE CE B1.31 also includes additional conditions referred to as integral elements. (10 CFR part 1021 subpart D, app. B). In order to apply the CE, the proposal must be one that would not:
(1) Threaten a violation of applicable statutory, regulatory, or permit requirements for environment, safety, and health, or similar requirements or Executive Orders;
(2) Require siting and construction or major expansion of waste storage, disposal, recovery, or treatment facilities (including incinerators), but the proposal may include categorically excluded waste storage, disposal, recovery, or treatment actions or facilities;
(3) Disturb hazardous substances, pollutants, contaminants, or CERCLA-excluded petroleum and natural gas products that preexist in the environment such that there would be uncontrolled or unpermitted releases;
(4) Have the potential to cause significant impacts on environmentally sensitive resources. An environmentally sensitive resource is typically a resource that has been identified as needing protection through Executive Order, statute, or regulation by Federal, state, or local government, or a federally recognized Indian tribe. An action may be categorically excluded if, although sensitive resources are present, the action would not have the potential to cause significant impacts on those resources (such as construction of a building with its foundation well above a sole-source aquifer or upland surface soil removal on a site that has wetlands). Environmentally sensitive resources include, but are not limited to:
(i) Property (such as sites, buildings, structures, and objects) of historic, archeological, or architectural significance designated by a Federal, state, or local government, federally recognized Indian tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization, or property determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places;
(ii) Federally listed threatened or endangered species or their habitat (including critical habitat) or Federally-proposed or candidate species or their habitat (Endangered Species Act); state-listed or state-proposed endangered or threatened species or their habitat; Federally-protected marine mammals and Essential Fish Habitat (Marine Mammal Protection Act; Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act); and otherwise Federally-protected species (such as the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act or the Migratory Bird Treaty Act);
(iii) Floodplains and wetlands;
(iv) Areas having a special designation such as Federally- and state-designated wilderness areas, national parks, national monuments, national natural landmarks, wild and scenic rivers, state and Federal wildlife refuges, scenic areas (such as National Scenic and Historic Trails or National Scenic Areas), and marine sanctuaries;
(v) Prime or unique farmland, or other farmland of statewide or local importance, as defined at 7 CFR 658.2(a), “Farmland Protection Policy Act: Definitions,” or its successor;
(vi) Special sources of water (such as sole-source aquifers, wellhead protection areas, and other water sources that are vital in a region); and
(vii) Tundra, coral reefs, or rain forests; or
(5) Involve genetically engineered organisms, synthetic biology, governmentally designated noxious weeds, or invasive species, unless the proposed activity would be contained or confined in a manner designed and operated to prevent unauthorized release into the environment and conducted in accordance with applicable requirements, such as those of the Department of Agriculture, the Environmental Protection Agency, and the National Institutes of Health.
EXIM intends to apply this categorical exclusion to loans, loan guarantees, and insurance transactions. The scope of projects would be akin to projects from the Department of Energy's Loans Program Office to which DOE has applied the categorical exclusion. These include purchase and installation of equipment in buildings, modifications to buildings in or contiguous to previously disturbed areas, such as a renovation of existing office, manufacturing, or lab space. In principle such transactions would be similar to EXIM's export finance transactions deemed a category C under its Environmental and Social Due Diligence Procedures and Guidelines.
In assessing whether a categorical exclusion applies, EXIM would review whether there were extraordinary circumstances that would indicate a categorical exclusion is not appropriate due to the potential for a significant environmental effect. When applying this CE, EXIM will consider whether the proposed action has the potential to result in significant effects as described in DOE's definition of extraordinary circumstances. DOE defines extraordinary circumstances as unique situations presented by specific proposals, including, but not limited to, scientific controversy about the environmental effects of the proposal; uncertain effects or effects involving unique or unknown risks; and unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources. 10 CFR 1021.410(b)(2). In addition, EXIM would review the proposed actions to ensure they do not breach the integral elements of classes of action in DOE's regulations as discussed above.
EXIM's engineering and environment division will have responsibility for determining if a categorical exclusion applies. These determinations will be posted at
EXIM identified the DOE CE that could apply to EXIM's proposed actions and consulted with DOE in September 2023. During this consultation, the agencies discussed whether the categories of EXIM proposed actions would be appropriately covered by the DOE CE; the extraordinary circumstances that EXIM should consider before applying the CE to EXIM's proposed actions; and the requirement to evaluate the conditions listed as integral elements in DOE's regulations (10 CFR 1021, subpart D, appendix B (1)-(5)). The agencies also discussed DOE's past use of the CE.
At the conclusion of that process, the agencies determined that EXIM's proposed use of the CE as described in this notice would be appropriate because the categories of actions for which EXIM plans to use the CE are consistent with the DOE CE.
This notice serves to identify to the public and document EXIM's adoption of DOE's CE. The notice identifies the types of actions to which EXIM will apply the CE, as well as the considerations that EXIM will use in determining whether an action is within the scope of the CE.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Export-Import Banks of the United States (EXIM), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal Agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
To request additional information, please contact Jennifer Krause,
This form is used by an exporter (or broker acting on its behalf) in order to obtain approval for coverage of the repayment risk of export sales. The information received allows EXIM staff to make a determination of the eligibility of the applicant and the creditworthiness of one of the applicant's foreign buyers for EXIM assistance under its programs.
The application tool can be reviewed at:
This is the application form for use by underserved U.S. businesses with limited export experience. Companies that are eligible to use the Equity Express Select policy will need to answer approximately 20 questions and sign an acknowledgement of the certifications that appear on the reverse of the application form. This program does not provide discretionary credit authority to the U.S. exporter, and therefore the financial and credit information needs are minimized.
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 December 11, 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.”
In 2021, the Commission released the Third Report and Order, Order on Reconsideration, and Fifth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking WC Docket No. 12-375, 36 FCC Rcd 9519 (2021). The Commission revised its rules by adopting, among other things, lower interim rate caps for interstate calls, new interim rate caps for international calls, and a new rate cap structure that requires ICS providers to differentiate between legally mandated and contractually required site commissions. The revisions also included expanded consumer disclosure requirements, as well as new reporting requirements for providers seeking waivers of the Commission's interstate and international rates.
In 2022, the Commission released the Fourth Report and Order and Sixth Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, WC Docket No. 12-375, FCC 22-76 (Sept. 30, 2022). The Commission adopted numerous requirements to improve access to communications services for incarcerated people with communication disabilities and expanded the scope of the Annual Reports to reflect these new requirements. Pursuant to section 64.6040(c), the Commission required, among other things, that, as part of its obligation to provide access to telecommunications relay services (TRS), when an incarcerated person who has individually registered to use video relay service (VRS), internet protocol (IP) Relay, or internet protocol captioned telephone service (IP CTS) is released from incarceration or transferred to another correctional facility, the ICS provider must notify the TRS provider(s) with which the incarcerated person has registered. Under sections 64.6060(a)(5)-(7), the Commission amended the annual reporting and certification requirement to include, among other things, that ICS providers report, for each facility served, the types of TRS that can be accessed from the facility and the number of completed calls and complaints for TTY-to-TTY calls, American Sign Language (SL) point-to-point video calls, and each type of TRS for which access is provided.
On January 5, 2023, the President signed into law the Martha Wright-Reed Just and Reasonable Communications Act of 2022, Public Law 117-338, 136 Stat. 6156 (the Martha Wright-Reed Act or the Act), expanding the Commission's statutory authority over communications services between incarcerated people and the non-incarcerated to include “any audio or video communications service used by inmates . . . regardless of the technology used.” The new Act also amends section 2(b) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended (the Communications Act) to make clear that the Commission's authority extends to intrastate as well as interstate and international communications services used by incarcerated people.
The Act directs the Commission to “promulgate any regulations necessary to implement” the statutory provisions, including its mandate that the
On March 17, 2023, pursuant to the directive that the Commission implement the new Act and establish just and reasonable rates for incarcerated people's communications services (IPCS), the Commission released
On August 3, 2023, the Bureaus issued a Public Notice seeking comment on proposed revisions to the instructions, template, and certification form for the Annual Reports,
The Bureaus have not yet issued an Order adopting revisions to the instructions, template, and certification form for the Annual Reports. It is necessary, however, for the Commission to effectuate the improved access to communications services for incarcerated people with communication disabilities required by section 64.6040(c). Consequently, we are dividing the information requirements and burdens of this collection between two submissions to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In the instant submission, we seek OMB approval for the new information requirements in section 64.6040(c), which improve access to communications services for incarcerated people with communications disabilities by expanding the rules for advanced TRS. Upon release of an Order adopting revisions to the instructions, template, and certification form for the Annual Reports, we will make a second submission to OMB, seeking approval of any revised information requirements adopted in that Order, as well as the new requirements in section 64.6060(a)(5)-(7), which expands the rule requiring the filing of Annual Reports to include additional data related to access to communications services for incarcerated people with communications disabilities.
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 of 1995 (PRA), the Federal Communications Commission (FCC or Commission) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collections. 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 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
Written PRA comments should be submitted on or before January 8, 2024. 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 Cathy Williams, FCC, via email to
For additional information about the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918.
In 2016, the Commission expanded the requirement that public inspection files be posted to the FCC-hosted online public file database to SDARS licensees, among other entities. These public files include the political files.
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.”
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted on or before December 11, 2023.
Comments should be sent to
For additional information or copies of the information collection, contact Cathy Williams at (202) 418-2918. To view a copy of this information collection request (ICR) submitted to OMB: (1) go to the web page
The Commission may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. No person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information subject to the PRA that does not display a valid OMB control number.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), the FCC invited the general public and other Federal Agencies to take this opportunity to comment on the following information collection. Comments are requested concerning: (a)
On July 18, 2022, the Commission released a Report and Order and Second Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Partitioning, Disaggregation, and Leasing of Spectrum, WT Docket No. 19-38, FCC 22-53, in which the Commission established the Enhanced Competition Incentive Program (ECIP) to establish incentives for wireless radio service licensees to make underutilized spectrum available to small carriers, Tribal Nations, and entities serving rural areas (ECIP Report and Order in WT Docket No. 19-38, FCC 22-53). In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted a program under which any covered geographic area licensee may offer spectrum to an unaffiliated eligible entity through a partition and/or disaggregation, and any covered geographic area licensee eligible to lease in an included service may offer spectrum to an unaffiliated eligible entity through a long-term leasing arrangement. If the FCC finds that approval of an ECIP eligible assignment or lease is in the public interest, the agency will consent to the transaction and confer benefits, including five-year license term extensions, one year construction extensions, and substituted alternative construction requirements for rural-focused transactions. The Commission also established rules to permit reaggregation of geographic licenses.
In establishing the ECIP, the Commission requires applicants seeking to participate in the program to submit certain information that shows the transaction qualifies for ECIP inclusion. The Commission found that the ECIP builds on Congressional goals in the MOBILE NOW Act to incentivize beneficial transactions in the public interest that will promote greater competition in the provision of wireless services, facilitate increased availability of advanced wireless services in rural areas, facilitate new opportunities for small carriers and Tribal Nations to increase access to spectrum, and bring more advanced wireless service including 5G to underserved communities. Specifically, in the ECIP Report and Order, the Commission revised its rules to allow any covered geographic licenses in included services to be leased to eligible entities through a long-term leasing arrangement.
Specifically, in the ECIP Report and Order, the Commission revised its rules to allow any covered geographic licenses in included services to be leased to eligible entities through a long-term leasing arrangement, to designate a Qualifying Transaction identified in the application as seeking consideration under the ECIP. Two new questions are being added to the FCC Form 608 as a result. Respondents are required to indicate by yes or no answer whether the application is seeking consideration under ECIP. Respondents are also required to select the applicable ECIP prong to its Qualifying Transaction, pursuant to either § 1.60003 or § 1.60004.
Finally, a new Schedule J is being added to FCC Form 608 and will be used by Spectrum Manager Lessors (
The Commission now seeks approval for revisions to its currently approved collection of information under OMB Control Number 3060-1058 to permit the collection of the changes requested herein. We anticipate that these revisions will have minimal impact on the hourly burden to complete FCC Form 608. The Commission therefore seeks approval for a revision to its currently approved information collection on FCC Form 608 to revise FCC Form 608 accordingly.
Tuesday, November 14, 2023, at 10:30 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on November 16, 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.
Financial or commercial information obtained from any person which is privileged or confidential.
Investigatory records compiled for law enforcement purposes and production would disclose investigative techniques.
Information the premature disclosure of which would be likely to have a
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer.Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council.
Notice of meeting.
Federal Maritime Commission.
Thirty-day notice; request for comments.
The Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) is giving public notice that the agency has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval a new data collection that utilizes a web portal to collect information from the public regarding comments, complaints, concerns, reports of noncompliance, requests for investigation, and requests for alternative dispute resolution. The collection implements certain provisions of the Ocean Shipping Reform Act of 2022. The public is invited to comment on the proposed information collection pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Written comments must be submitted on or before December 11, 2023.
Comments should be submitted to: (1) the Commission through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
Find this particular information collection at
If your material cannot be submitted to the addresses above, contact the person in the
Amy Strauss, Acting Secretary; Phone: (202) 523-5725; Email:
The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the continuing information collections listed in this notice, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be included or summarized in our request for OMB approval of the relevant information collection. All comments are part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Please do not include any confidential or inappropriate material in your comments. We invite 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.
On July 11, 2023, the Commission published notice and request for comment in the
The FMC will implement a new web portal, the FMC Assistance Center, available through the agency's website to collect this information from the public. The collected information will be internally routed to the appropriate component office for response. As this collection includes inquiries related to dispute resolution services, it also encompasses Forms FMC-32 (Dispute Resolution Service Request—Cruise) and FMC-33 (Dispute Resolution Service Request—Cargo). Forms FMC-32 and FMC 33 have been modified in the Affirmation section to remove a statement directing the public to a link on the agency web page and to add a statement that the matter will be closed if false statements and documents are provided. These forms and the Assistance Center screen mock-ups are included in this docket. The burden associated with these forms is included in this collection.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with request for comment.
This notice acknowledges the receipt of an application from the Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC) for continued approval by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) of URAC's national accrediting organization program for suppliers providing home infusion therapy (HIT) services and that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs. The statute requires that within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, CMS will publish a notice that identifies the national accrediting body making the request, describes the nature of the request, and provides at least a 30-day public comment period.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, by December 11, 2023.
In commenting, refer to file code CMS-3452-PN.
Comments, including mass comment submissions, must be submitted in one of the following three ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Shannon Freeland, (410) 786-4348.
Home infusion therapy (HIT) is a treatment option for Medicare beneficiaries with a wide range of acute and chronic conditions. Section 5012 of the 21st Century Cures Act (Pub. L. 114-255, enacted December 13, 2016) added section 1861(iii) to the Social Security Act (the Act), establishing a new Medicare benefit for HIT services. Section 1861(iii)(1) of the Act defines “home infusion therapy” as professional services, including nursing services; training and education not otherwise covered under the Durable Medical Equipment (DME) benefit; remote monitoring; and other monitoring services. HIT must be furnished by a qualified HIT supplier and furnished in the individual's home. The individual must:
• Be under the care of an applicable provider (that is, physician, nurse practitioner, or physician assistant); and
• Have a plan of care established and periodically reviewed by a physician in
Section 1861(iii)(3)(D)(i)(III) of the Act requires that a qualified HIT supplier be accredited by an accrediting organization (AO) designated by the Secretary in accordance with section 1834(u)(5) of the Act. Section 1834(u)(5)(A) of the Act identifies factors for designating AOs and in reviewing and modifying the list of designated AOs. These statutory factors are as follows:
• The ability of the organization to conduct timely reviews of accreditation applications.
• The ability of the organization to take into account the capacities of suppliers located in a rural area (as defined in section 1886(d)(2)(D) of the Act).
• Whether the organization has established reasonable fees to be charged to suppliers applying for accreditation.
• Such other factors as the Secretary determines appropriate.
Section 1834(u)(5)(B) of the Act requires the Secretary to designate AOs to accredit HIT suppliers furnishing HIT not later than January 1, 2021. Section 1861(iii)(3)(D)(i)(III) of the Act requires a “qualified home infusion therapy supplier” to be accredited by a CMS-approved AO, pursuant to section 1834(u)(5) of the Act.
On March 1, 2019, we published a solicitation notice entitled, “Medicare Program; Solicitation of Independent Accrediting Organizations to Participate in the Home Infusion Therapy Supplier Accreditation Program” (84 FR 7057). This notice informed national AOs that accredit HIT suppliers of an opportunity to submit applications to participate in the HIT supplier accreditation program. We stated that complete applications would be considered for the January 1, 2021, designation deadline if received by February 1, 2020. Regulations for the approval and oversight of AOs for HIT organizations are located at 42 CFR part 488, subpart L. The requirements for HIT suppliers are located at 42 CFR part 486, subpart I.
Section 1834(u)(5) of the Act and regulations at 42 CFR 488.1010 require that our findings concerning review and approval of a national accrediting organization's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying accrediting organization's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data.
Our rules at 42 CFR 488.1020(a) require that we publish, after receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice that identifies the national accrediting body making the request, describes the nature of the request, and provides at least a 30-day public comment period. Pursuant to our rules at 42 CFR 488.1010(d), we have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of the Utilization Review Accreditation Commission (URAC) request for CMS' continued recognition of its HIT accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether URAC's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare requirements of participation for HIT services.
In the October 24, 2019,
• The equivalency of URAC's standards for HIT as compared with CMS' HIT requirements for participation in the Medicare program.
• URAC's survey process to determine the following:
++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ The comparability of URAC's to CMS' standards and processes, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
++ URAC's processes and procedures for monitoring a HIT found out of compliance with URAC's program requirements.
++ URAC's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ URAC's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for effective assessment and interpretation of the organization's survey process.
++ The adequacy of URAC's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
++ URAC's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.
++ URAC's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to ensure that surveys are unannounced.
++ URAC's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as CMS may require (including corrective action plans).
++ URAC's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys, audits or participate in accreditation decisions.
++ URAC's agreement or policies for voluntary and involuntary termination of HIT suppliers.
++ URAC's agreement or policies for voluntary and involuntary termination of the HIT AO program.
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping, or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Because of the large number of public comments, we normally receive on
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS),
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry and the public on the requirements related to cosmetic product facility registration and cosmetic product listing under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) entitled “Compliance Policy for Cosmetic Product Facility Registration and Cosmetic Product Listing.” This guidance announces FDA's intention to delay enforcement of the requirements related to cosmetic product facility registration and cosmetic product listing for an additional 6 months after the initial December 29, 2023, deadline.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Cosmetics and Colors, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Jennifer Ross, Office of the Chief Scientist, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4332, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-4880 (this is not a toll-free number), email:
We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry and the public entitled “Compliance Policy for Cosmetic Product Facility Registration and Cosmetic Product Listing.” This guidance is intended to assist owners or operators of cosmetic product facilities that are subject to the requirements related to facility registration and responsible persons that are subject to the requirements related to cosmetic product listing under the FD&C Act. We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices (GGP) regulation (§ 10.115 (21 CFR 10.115)). We are implementing this guidance without prior public comment because we have determined that prior public
On December 29, 2022, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328) into law, which included the Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act of 2022 (MoCRA). Among other provisions, MoCRA added section 607 to the FD&C Act, establishing requirements for cosmetic product facility registration and product listing. Section 607 of the FD&C Act generally imposes an initial registration and listing deadline of December 29, 2023, for facilities that engaged in manufacturing or processing of a cosmetic product and cosmetic products that were marketed as of December 29, 2022, the date MoCRA was enacted. This guidance announces FDA's intent to delay enforcement of the requirements related to cosmetic product facility registration and cosmetic product listing under section 607 of the FD&C Act related to cosmetic product facility registration and cosmetic product listing until July 1, 2024, to provide regulated industry additional time to comply with these requirements.
FDA issued a draft guidance entitled “Registration and Listing of Cosmetic Product Facilities and Products” on August 8, 2023 (88 FR 53490). The draft guidance, when finalized, will provide recommendations and instructions to assist persons submitting cosmetic product facility registrations and product listings to FDA. FDA intends to delay enforcement of the cosmetic product facility registration and product listing requirements to help ensure that owners or operators of cosmetic product facilities and responsible persons for cosmetic products have sufficient time to gather the relevant information required for facility registration and product listing, including obtaining facility registration numbers to associate with cosmetic product listings, obtaining access to the electronic submissions database, and verifying accurate registration and listing information for submission.
The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on the issues within. It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
This guidance contains no collection of information. Therefore, clearance by the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 is not required.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the document at
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the National Advisory Council on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH VideoCasting at the following link:
A portion of this 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.
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.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 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.
Registration: To register, please go to:
Webcast Live:
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 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 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 cooperative agreement 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 1009 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 cooperative agreement 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 1009 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.
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
The Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection is published in the
Comments are encouraged and must be submitted (no later than December 11, 2023) to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional PRA information should be directed to Seth Renkema, Chief, Economic Impact Analysis Branch, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Office of Trade, Regulations and Rulings, 90 K Street NE, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20229-1177, Telephone number 202-325-0056 or via email
CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed and/or continuing information collections pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This form is currently submitted in paper format and is anticipated to be submitted electronically as part of CBP's efforts to automate maritime forms through the Vessel Entrance and Clearance System (VECS), which will reduce the need for paper submission of any vessel entrance or clearance requirements under the above referenced statutes and regulations. VECS will still collect and maintain the same data as CBP Form 1300 but will automate the capture of data to reduce or eliminate redundancy with other data collected by CBP.
Respondents are enabled to create a new ACE Account type for Vessel Agencies through the ACE Portal. The new account type within ACE will operate as a portal that leads to the Vessel Entrance and Clearance System (VECS), which will run as its own independent system.
Vessel Agents will be required to provide identifying information such as; their name, their employer identification number (EIN), company address, and their phone numbers, which will be requested at the time Vessel Agents apply for the new ACE account type.
After creating an ACE account, Vessel Agencies, Vessel Operating Common Carriers (VOCCs), and their designees are able to use the new Vessel Entrance and Clearance System (VECS) as part of the ongoing pilot program to test the functionality of VECS, and will be able to file vessel entrance, clearance, and related data to CBP electronically.
CBP is currently running a small public VECS Pilot on several ports. VECS will automate and digitize the collection and processing of the data and filing requirements for which the CBP Form 1300 is used. CBP plans to run an initial public pilot to test the system. All users who obtained a Vessel Agency Account through the ACE Portal will be automatically enrolled into the VECS public pilot. Initially, the pilot began at one of eleven ports where VECS was previously internally tested. CBP is providing training to each CBP port and the Vessel Agency personnel at each port, prior to beginning/expanding the public pilot in another port.
The VECS public pilot will continue to expand to additional ports, in an effort to progressively test and implement the system nationwide. There will be no change to the paper format of CBP Form 1300, and CBP Form 1300 in paper format will continue to be accepted.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or regulatory floodways on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports have been made final for the communities listed in the table below. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that a community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
The date of March 27, 2024 has been established for the FIRM and, where applicable, the supporting FIS report showing the new or modified flood hazard information for each community.
The FIRM, and if applicable, the FIS report containing the final flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the tables below and will be available online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final determinations listed below for the new or modified flood hazard information for each community listed. Notification of these changes has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
This final notice is issued in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part 67. FEMA has developed criteria for floodplain management in floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the new or revised FIRM and FIS report available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
The flood hazard determinations are made final in the watersheds and/or communities listed in the table below.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
This notice lists communities where the addition or modification of Base Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, or the regulatory floodway (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations), as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for each community, is appropriate because of new scientific or technical data. The FIRM, and where applicable, portions of the FIS report, have been revised to reflect these flood hazard determinations through issuance of a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR), in accordance with Federal Regulations. The currently effective community number is shown in the table below and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
These flood hazard determinations will be finalized on the dates listed in the table below and revise the FIRM panels and FIS report in effect prior to this determination for the listed communities.
From the date of the second publication of notification of these changes in a newspaper of local circulation, any person has 90 days in which to request through the community that the Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation reconsider the changes. The flood hazard determination information may be changed during the 90-day period.
The affected communities are listed in the table below. Revised flood hazard information for each community is available for inspection at both the online location and the respective community map repository address listed in the table below. Additionally, the current effective FIRM and FIS report for each community are accessible online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Submit comments and/or appeals to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The specific flood hazard determinations are not described for each community in this notice. However, the online location and local community map repository address where the flood hazard determination information is available for inspection is provided.
Any request for reconsideration of flood hazard determinations must be submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of the community as listed in the table below.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
These flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. The flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
The affected communities are listed in the following table. Flood hazard determination information for each
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
New or modified Base (1-percent annual chance) Flood Elevations (BFEs), base flood depths, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundaries or zone designations, and/or regulatory floodways (hereinafter referred to as flood hazard determinations) as shown on the indicated Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) for each of the communities listed in the table below are finalized. Each LOMR revises the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and in some cases the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports, currently in effect for the listed communities.
Each LOMR was finalized as in the table below.
Each LOMR is available for inspection at both the respective Community Map Repository address listed in the table below and online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) makes the final flood hazard determinations as shown in the LOMRs for each community listed in the table below. Notice of these modified flood hazard determinations has been published in newspapers of local circulation and 90 days have elapsed since that publication. The Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation has resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified flood hazard determinations are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001
The new or modified flood hazard information is the basis for the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order to remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
This new or modified flood hazard information, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities.
This new or modified flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP. The changes in flood hazard determinations are in accordance with 44 CFR 65.4.
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to review the final flood hazard information available at the address cited below for each community or online through the FEMA Map Service Center at
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before February 7, 2024.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2385, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before February 7, 2024.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2384, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice.
Comments are requested on proposed flood hazard determinations, which may include additions or modifications of any Base Flood Elevation (BFE), base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) boundary or zone designation, or regulatory floodway on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), and where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports for the communities listed in the table below. The purpose of this notice is to seek general information and comment regarding the preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided to the affected communities. The FIRM and FIS report are the basis of the floodplain management measures that the community is required either to adopt or to show evidence of having in effect in order to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP).
Comments are to be submitted on or before February 7, 2024.
The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, the FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-2380, to Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
Rick Sacbibit, Chief, Engineering Services Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, FEMA, 400 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-7659, or (email)
FEMA proposes to make flood hazard determinations for each community listed below, in accordance with section 110 of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR 67.4(a).
These proposed flood hazard determinations, together with the floodplain management criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required. They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter requirements of its own or pursuant to policies established by other Federal, State, or regional entities. These flood hazard determinations are used to meet the floodplain management requirements of the NFIP.
The communities affected by the flood hazard determinations are provided in the tables below. Any request for reconsideration of the revised flood hazard information shown on the Preliminary FIRM and FIS report that satisfies the data requirements outlined in 44 CFR 67.6(b) is considered an appeal. Comments unrelated to the flood hazard determinations also will be considered before the FIRM and FIS report become effective.
Use of a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) is available to communities in support of the appeal resolution process. SRPs are independent panels of experts in hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences established to review conflicting scientific and technical data and provide recommendations for resolution. Use of the SRP only may be exercised after FEMA and local communities have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of an appeal. Additional information regarding the SRP process can be found online at
The watersheds and/or communities affected are listed in the tables below. The Preliminary FIRM, and where applicable, FIS report for each community are available for inspection at both the online location
Office of the Secretary, DHS.
Notice.
Under Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) may generally only approve petitions for H-2A and H-2B nonimmigrant status for nationals of countries that the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, has designated by notice published in the
The designations in this notice are effective from November 9, 2023 and shall be without effect on November 8, 2024.
Ihsan Gunduz, Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans, Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC 20528, (202) 282-9708.
Generally, USCIS may approve H-2A and H-2B petitions for nationals of only those countries that the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, has designated as participating countries.
As previously indicated,
Similarly, DHS recognizes that countries designated under long-standing practice by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) as “At Risk of Non-Compliance” or “Uncooperative” with removals based on ICE data put the integrity of the immigration system and the American people at risk. Therefore, unless other favorable factors in the U.S. interest outweigh such designations by ICE, the Secretary of Homeland Security, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, generally will terminate designation of such countries from the H-2A and H-2B nonimmigrant visa programs. Because there are separate lists for the H-2A and H-2B categories, it is possible that, in applying the above-described regulatory criteria for listing countries, a country may appear on one list but not on the other.
Even where the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined to terminate or decided not to designate a country, DHS, through USCIS, may allow, on a case-by-case basis, a national from a country that is not on the list to be named as a beneficiary of an H-2A or H-2B petition based on a determination that it is in the U.S. interest, in the totality of the circumstances, for that individual noncitizen to be a beneficiary of an H-2 petition. Determination of such U.S. interest will take into account factors, including but not limited to: (1) evidence from the petitioner demonstrating that a worker with the required skills is not available either from among U.S. workers or from among foreign workers from a country currently on the list described in 8 CFR 214.2(h)(5)(i)(F)(
In December 2008, DHS published the first lists of eligible countries for the H-2A and H-2B Visa Programs in the
The Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that the 86 countries previously designated to participate in the H-2A program in the November 10, 2022 notice continue to meet the regulatory standards for eligible countries and therefore should remain designated as countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A program. Additionally, the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that the 87 countries previously designated to participate in the H-2B program in the November 10, 2022 notice continue to meet the regulatory standards for eligible countries and therefore should remain designated as countries whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2B program. These determinations take into account how the regulatory factors identified above apply to each of these countries.
Consistent with the previous notices, nationals of non-designated countries may still be beneficiaries of approved H-2A and H-2B petitions upon the request of the petitioner if USCIS determines, as a matter of discretion and on a case-by-case basis, that it is in the U.S. interest for the individual to be a beneficiary of such petition.
The Secretary of Homeland Security has also determined, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, that Bolivia should be designated as an eligible country to participate in both the H-2A and H-2B nonimmigrant visa programs because its participation is in the U.S. interest consistent with the regulations governing these programs.
Bolivia consistently cooperates with accepting its nationals subject to a final order of removal. Furthermore, nationals of Bolivia do not present significant visa overstay concerns; their overstay rates are consistent with other countries currently listed as eligible to participate in the H-2A and H-2B programs. Bolivian nationals are generally compliant with the terms and conditions of all visa categories. For instance, DOS's recent validation study of B1/B2 visas found that under two percent of Bolivian nationals overstayed their B1/B2 visas. Due to the current economic situation in Bolivia, adding Bolivia to these programs would contribute to DOS's goals of promoting economic development and improving bilateral commercial relationships in Bolivia. Additionally, the H-2A and H-2B programs will provide an alternative, lawful, pathway to irregular migration for Bolivian nationals seeking an economic opportunity in the United States. Based on the foregoing reasons, adding Bolivia to both the H-2A and H-2B eligible countries lists serves the U.S. interest.
Pursuant to the authority provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security under sections 214(a)(1) and 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1) and 1185(a)(1)), I am designating, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, the following countries as those whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2A nonimmigrant worker program:
Pursuant to the authority provided to the Secretary of Homeland Security under sections 214(a)(1) and 215(a)(1) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1184(a)(1) and 1185(a)(1)), I am designating, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, the following countries as those whose nationals are eligible to participate in the H-2B nonimmigrant worker program:
This notice does not affect the current status of noncitizens who at the time of publication of this notice hold valid H-2A or H-2B nonimmigrant status. Noncitizens currently holding such status, however, will be affected by this notice should they seek an extension of stay in the H-2 classification, or a change of status from one H-2 status to another, for employment on or after the effective date of this notice. Similarly, noncitizens holding nonimmigrant status other than H-2 are not affected by this notice, but will be affected by this notice if they seek a change of status to H-2 on or after the effective date of this notice.
Nothing in this notice limits the authority of the Secretary of Homeland Security or his designee or any other federal agency to invoke against any foreign country or its nationals any other remedy, penalty, or enforcement action available by law.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 8, 2024.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0020 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2007-0024. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 8, 2024.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0104 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2010-0004. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Petition for U Nonimmigrant Status.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: Form I-918; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households; Federal Government; or State, local or Tribal Government. This petition permits victims of certain qualifying criminal activity and their immediate family members to apply for temporary nonimmigrant classification. This nonimmigrant classification provides temporary immigration benefits, potentially leading to permanent resident status, to certain victims of criminal activity who: suffered substantial mental or physical abuse as a result of having been a victim of criminal activity; have information regarding the criminal activity; and assist government officials in investigating and prosecuting such criminal activity.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-918 is 24,800 and the estimated hour burden per response is 4.92 hours. The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-918A is 17,400 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.25 hour. The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection I-918B is 24,800 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.67 hours. The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection of Biometrics is 42,200 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 234,391 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $3,364,450.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
60-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment upon this proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the information collection notice is published in the
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until January 8, 2024.
All submissions received must include the OMB Control Number 1615-0116 in the body of the letter, the agency name and Docket ID USCIS-2010-0008. Submit comments via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number. Comments are not accepted via telephone message). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security.
30-Day notice.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The purpose of this notice is to allow an additional 30 days for public comments.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until December 11, 2023.
Written comments and/or suggestions regarding the item(s) contained in this notice, especially regarding the estimated public burden and associated response time, must be submitted via the Federal eRulemaking Portal website at
USCIS, Office of Policy and Strategy, Regulatory Coordination Division, Samantha Deshommes, Chief, telephone number (240) 721-3000 (This is not a toll-free number; comments are not accepted via telephone message.). Please note contact information provided here is solely for questions regarding this notice. It is not for individual case status inquiries. Applicants seeking information about the status of their individual cases can check Case Status Online, available at the USCIS website at
The information collection notice was previously published in the
You may access the information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information by visiting the Federal eRulemaking Portal site at:
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies should address one or more of the following four points:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(1) Type of Information Collection: Revision of a Currently Approved Collection.
(2) Title of the Form/Collection: Application for Naturalization.
(3) Agency form number, if any, and the applicable component of the DHS sponsoring the collection: N-400; USCIS.
(4) Affected public who will be asked or required to respond, as well as a brief abstract: Primary: Individuals or households. Naturalization is the process by which U.S. citizenship is granted to a foreign citizen or national after he or she fulfills the requirements established by Congress in the INA. Form N-400, Application for Naturalization, allows USCIS to fulfill its mission of fairly adjudicating naturalization applications and only naturalizing statutorily eligible individuals.
USCIS uses the data collected on this form to verify that the applicant is eligible for a reduced fee for the immigration benefit being requested.
(5) An estimate of the total number of respondents and the amount of time estimated for an average respondent to respond: The estimated total number of respondents for the information collection N-400 (paper) is 454,850 and the estimated hour burden per response is 8.73 hours; the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection N-400 (e-file) is 454,850 and the estimated hour burden per response is 3.92 hours; and the estimated total number of respondents for the information collection biometrics is 909,700 and the estimated hour burden per response is 1.17 hours.
(6) An estimate of the total public burden (in hours) associated with the collection: The total estimated annual hour burden associated with this collection is 6,818,202 hours.
(7) An estimate of the total public burden (in cost) associated with the collection: The estimated total annual cost burden associated with this collection of information is $423,351,638.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLMPA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) Amendment and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for Big Game Habitat Conservation for Oil and Gas Management and by this notice is providing information announcing the opening of the comment period on the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS.
This notice announces the opening of a 90-day comment period for the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS beginning with the date following the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) publication of its Notice of Availability (NOA) in the
To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider comments in the Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS, please ensure your comments are received prior to the close of the 90-day comment period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later.
The Draft RMP Amendment/EIS is available for review on the BLM ePlanning project website at
Written comments related to Big Game Habitat Conservation for Oil and Gas Management may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at
Alan Bittner, Deputy State Director,
This document provides notice that the BLM Colorado State Director has prepared a Draft RMP Amendment/EIS and provides information announcing the opening of the comment period on the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS. The RMP amendment addresses alternative approaches for oil and gas management in order to maintain, conserve, and protect big game high priority habitat that would require amending the following existing plans:
The planning area includes all counties in Colorado and encompasses approximately 8.3 million acres of public land and approximately 27 million acres of Federal mineral estate. The decision area includes all 8.3 million acres of BLM-administered surface land (except where Federal minerals have been withdrawn from mineral leasing) plus approximately 4.7 million acres of Federal mineral split estate.
Formal public scoping for the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS started with the publication of the notice of intent (NOI) in the
The purpose of this RMP amendment process is to evaluate alternative approaches for oil and gas planning decisions to maintain, conserve, and protect big game corridors and other big game high priority habitat on BLM-administered lands and Federal mineral estate in Colorado. Under the authority of Section 202 of FLPMA, the BLM also seeks to evaluate consistency with plans or policies and programs of other Federal agencies, State and local governments, and Tribes, to the extent consistent with Federal laws, regulations, policies, and programs applicable to BLM-administered lands.
This RMP amendment process will consider current big game population and habitat data and evaluate planning alternatives' consistency with the policies and programs of State agencies that manage big game populations and regulate oil and gas operations in Colorado: Colorado Parks and Wildlife (CPW) and the Colorado Energy and Carbon Management Commission (ECMC). CPW manages wildlife in Colorado, and the ECMC regulates oil and gas development. Colorado Senate Bill 19-181 Oil and Gas Act gives the ECMC the authority to promulgate regulations that are protective of human health, safety, welfare, the environment, and wildlife resources. The ECMC 1200 series rules identify certain big game habitats where oil and gas operations are subject to specific ECMC requirements. CPW's implementation of the ECMC requirements for high priority habitat is intended to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to big game habitats.
This RMP amendment process also complies with the terms of the settlement agreement in
The BLM has analyzed four alternatives in detail, including the no action alternative. Alternative A is the No Action alternative and is based on existing approved RMPs, as amended, throughout Colorado. This alternative reflects the management decisions in the existing RMPs. The analysis considers how the BLM is currently managing big game habitat protection and oil and gas development across the state and provides a characterization of the existing environment for comparison with the action alternatives.
Alternative B is based on management alignment with the ECMC rules for oil and gas development in elk, mule deer, pronghorn, and bighorn sheep high priority habitat (Rule 1202.c, d; Rule 1203). Where lands are open to oil and gas leasing under existing RMPs, Alternative B prescribes measures consistent with the ECMC rules to conserve high priority habitat. Alternative B incorporates various oil and gas lease stipulations, including a controlled surface use density limitation of one well pad per square mile in big game high priority habitat subject to waivers, exceptions, and modifications in some circumstances.
Alternative C, in addition to incorporating lease stipulations similar to alternative B, applies a three percent surface disturbance cap on oil and gas development within big game high priority habitat on BLM surface lands. This limit does not apply to private, local government, or State lands in the decision area. This alternative provides for waivers, exceptions, and modifications to the stipulations in some circumstances.
Alternative D is similar to the other action alternatives in that it also incorporates lease stipulations that align the BLM's oil and gas management with ECMC's rules for big game high priority habitat in the decision area. Alternative D includes a three percent surface disturbance cap on oil and gas development within big game high priority habitat; however, the application of this cap is not limited to BLM surface lands as it is under Alternative C. Under this alternative, the disturbance threshold applies to big game high priority habitat on all lands in the decision area regardless of land ownership. Additionally, unlike Alternatives B and C, this alternative proposes to reduce the area open to leasing of oil and gas. Specifically, big game high priority habitat areas identified with low, moderate, or no known oil and gas development
The BLM further considered five additional alternatives but dismissed these alternatives from detailed analysis as explained in the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS.
The State Director has identified Alternative B as the preferred alternative because it conserves big game high priority habitat while balancing other resource uses.
Across all action alternatives, the BLM considers potential mitigation in compliance with Council on Environmental Quality, Department of the Interior, and BLM guidance. Mitigation can help provide a conservation benefit to big game species when impacts from oil and gas development activity are not avoidable. Consistent with valid existing rights and applicable law, when oil and gas development results in habitat loss or degradation within big game high priority habitat, the BLM will require and ensure mitigation that provides a conservation benefit to the species, including accounting for any uncertainty associated with the effectiveness of such mitigation.
The action alternatives call for the BLM to consider alternative locations for oil and gas operations that either avoid big game high priority habitat altogether, or, where avoidance is not feasible, minimize adverse impacts to the maximum extent possible. The action alternatives include surface density limitations, as well as a density trigger that would require the operator to address indirect impacts through compensatory mitigation. The action alternatives call for the BLM to include avoidance, minimization, and mitigation strategies in subsequent implementation-level NEPA analyses for proposed actions that may result in big game high priority habitat loss and degradation.
Subsequent implementation-level mitigation could limit the duration and extent of development activities in big game high priority habitat through all phases of development by avoiding activities in high priority habitat, applying a surface density limitation, and mitigating impacts. Mitigation plans would address cumulative effects of oil and gas activities across a given landscape.
The BLM may also require compensatory mitigation to offset disturbance or density limitation exceedances and direct and unavoidable adverse indirect impacts that result in the functional loss of habitat from oil and gas development in big game high priority habitat. Direct impacts to big game occur from disturbance or habitat fragmentation during construction, drilling, and/or completion activities and habitat conversion to oil and gas facilities. Indirect impacts to big game occur over time from big game avoidance of disturbance and the cumulative functional habitat loss from fragmentation and modified habitat use as development density increases. Indirect impacts may be avoided or minimized through the application of alternative siting and operating requirements. The BLM, after coordination with CPW, will determine whether compensatory mitigation proposed by the operator is sufficient to protect big game high priority habitat from direct and unavoidable adverse indirect impacts.
The BLM has the discretion to require an operator to modify surface operations to change or add specific mitigation measures when supported by scientific analysis and consistent with existing rights. Potential mitigation/conservation measures not already required as stipulations would be analyzed in a site-specific NEPA document, and incorporated, as appropriate, as conditions of approval of the permit, plan of development, or other use authorization. In discussing surface use rights, 43 CFR 3101.1-2 states that the lessee has the right, “to use so much of the leased lands as is necessary to explore for, drill for, mine, extract, remove and dispose of all the leased resource.” However, lessees are subject to lease stipulations, nondiscretionary statutes, and as identified in 43 CFR 3101.1-2, “such reasonable measures as may be required by the authorized officer to minimize adverse impacts to other resource values, land uses or users not addressed in the lease stipulations at the time operations are proposed.”
The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public participation consistent with the NEPA and land use planning processes, including a 30-day public protest period and a 60-day Governor's consistency review on the Proposed RMP. The Proposed RMP Amendment/Final EIS is anticipated to be available for public protest starting August 2024, with an Approved RMP and Record of Decision in November 2024.
The BLM will be holding public meetings on the Draft RMP Amendment/EIS. The specific date(s) and location(s) of these meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media and the ePlanning project page (see
The BLM will continue to consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM Manual 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920, as amended, ST Oil Company, LLC, Moore Energy LLC, Shoreline Company LLC, and Leaf River Resources LLC, filed a timely petition for reinstatement of oil and gas leases UTU88835 and UTU88838 for lands in San Juan County, Utah. The petition was accompanied by all required rentals and royalties accruing from April 1, 2018, the date of termination. No leases were issued that affect these lands. The Bureau of Land Management proposes to reinstate these leases.
Angela Wadman, Branch Chief, Fluid Minerals, Utah State Office, Bureau of Land Management, 440 West 200 South, Suite 500, Salt Lake City, Utah, 84101, phone: 801-539-4052, email:
The lessees have agreed to the new lease terms:
• Original term and additional conditions of the lease;
• Increased rental of $20 per acre;
• Increased royalty of 20-
• $151 cost of publishing this Notice; and
• $500 cost of administrative fee.
The leases include the following described lands in San Juan County, Utah:
The area described contains 2007.56 acres, according to the official plats of the surveys of the said land, on file with the BLM.
The areas described aggregate 797.38 acres, according to the official plat of the survey of the said lands, on file with the BLM.
The lessees have met all the requirements for reinstatement of the leases per Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 1920 as Amended. The BLM is proposing to reinstate the leases 30 days following publication of this notice, with the effective date of April 1, 2018, subject to the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has prepared a draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) amendment and draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Gunnison Sage-Grouse (
This notice announces the opening of a 90-day comment period for the draft RMP amendment/EIS beginning with the date following the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) publication of its Notice of Availability (NOA) in the
To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider comments in the proposed RMP amendment/final EIS, please ensure your comments are received prior to the close of the 90-day comment period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later.
In addition, this notice also announces the opening of a 60-day comment period for ACECs. The BLM must receive your ACEC-related comments by January 8, 2024.
The draft RMP amendment/EIS is available for review on the BLM ePlanning project website at
Written comments related to the Gunnison Sage-Grouse RMP amendment may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at
Gina Phillips, Project Manager, telephone 970-240-5381; BLM Southwest District Office, 2465 South Townsend Ave., Montrose, CO 81401; email
This document provides notice that the BLM Colorado and Utah State Directors have prepared a draft RMP amendment/EIS, provides information announcing the opening of the comment period on the draft RMP amendment/EIS, and is announcing the comment period on the BLM's proposed ACECs. The RMP amendment is being considered to allow the BLM to evaluate protections for Gunnison sage-grouse consistent with the latest measures in the recently completed U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) recovery plan, which would require amending the following existing plans:
The planning area is located in portions of 19 Colorado counties: Alamosa, Archuleta, Conejos, Costilla,
Levels of protection for Gunnison sage-grouse habitat are highly variable across the BLM administrative units. Several of the existing RMPs, especially the recently completed (as recent as 2020) land use planning revisions, provide management direction that meet the existing purpose and need of this RMP amendment, while others that were completed in the early 1990s, for example, do not provide adequate protection for Gunnison sage-grouse consistent with the latest measures in the recently completed USFWS recovery plan. The planning area includes lands administered by the BLM; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), National Park Service; U.S. DOI, Bureau of Reclamation; State of Colorado; State of Utah; and private lands.
The BLM published a notice of intent in the
The BLM's purpose consists of the following:
• Promote the recovery of the threatened Gunnison sage-grouse and maintain and enhance BLM-administered occupied/unoccupied habitat upon which the species depends, while continuing to manage the land wherever possible for multiple use and sustained yield.
• Ensure management actions on BLM-administered lands support conservation goals for Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat.
• Ensure that BLM management aligns with current science and data; relevant Federal, State, and local decisions supporting recovery; the DOI Climate Action Plan; and the USFWS Final Recovery Plan for Gunnison Sage-Grouse and Recovery Implementation Strategy for Gunnison Sage-Grouse (
• Provide consistent guidance for addressing threats to Gunnison sage-grouse populations and their habitat.
This BLM action is necessary to accomplish the following:
• Address the rangewide downward population trend of Gunnison sage-grouse since 2014 and address issues related to land management that may affect occupied/unoccupied habitat.
• Respond to the Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7(a)(1) requirement that the BLM use its authority to further the purposes of the ESA by implementing management actions for the conservation of federally listed species and the ecosystems upon which they depend.
• Respond to changing ecological and climate conditions affecting BLM-administered lands, including drought, habitat loss and fragmentation, reduced riparian areas, and more frequent wildland fires.
The BLM has analyzed five alternatives in detail, including the no action alternative. This land use planning effort addresses management actions impacting, or with the potential to impact, Gunnison sage-grouse and occupied and unoccupied habitat in the decision area. The decision area consists of approximately 2,156,150 acres of BLM-managed surface lands (1,926,100 acres in Colorado and 230,050 acres in Utah) and 2,852,390 acres of Federal subsurface mineral estate (2,563,220 acres in Colorado and 289,170 acres in Utah). Alternative A (No Action Alternative—Current Management) would continue current BLM management direction in the 11 administrative units in the planning area.
Alternative B would prioritize removing identified threats within occupied and unoccupied habitat and reduce impacts within the decision area, which includes the four-mile buffer around habitat, and potential linkage-connectivity areas, to the maximum extent allowable. Alternative B contains two sub-alternatives for livestock grazing management actions in response to recommendations made in public scoping comments. Alternative B would designate all nominated ACECs that meet relevance and importance criteria.
Alternative C would minimize, mitigate, or compensate for impacts from resource uses and activities in occupied and unoccupied habitat. No new ACECs would be designated under Alternative C.
Alternative D would allocate resource uses and conserve resource values while sustaining and enhancing ecological integrity across the decision area, and designate a specific subset of nominated ACECs. Conservation measures focus on occupied and unoccupied habitat that includes a 1-mile buffer around habitat and could extend to linkage-connectivity areas.
Alternative E considers adopting applicable management direction from the interagency Candidate Conservation Agreement for the Gunnison sage-grouse, Gunnison Basin Population. The BLM considered three additional alternatives but dismissed them from detailed analysis as explained in the draft RMP amendment/EIS.
The State Directors have identified Alternative D as the preferred alternative. Alternative D was found to best meet the State Directors' planning guidance and was, therefore, selected as the preferred alternative because it: addresses conservation actions within occupied and unoccupied habitat areas and in linkage-connectivity areas; provides for allocating resource uses and conserving resources; and designates a specific subset of ACECs.
The BLM analyzed compensatory mitigation under Alternatives B, C, and D. Under Alternative B the BLM would avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts to Gunnison sage-grouse and their habitat in occupied and unoccupied habitat management areas and incorporate a minimum of a 5 to 1 ratio where 1 acre of disturbance results in 5 acres of mitigation.
Consistent with land use planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b), the BLM is announcing the opening of a 60-day comment period on the ACECs proposed for designation in the preferred alternative. Comments may be submitted using any of the methods listed in the
The proposed ACECs included in the preferred alternative, all located in Colorado, are:
• Dry Creek Basin ACEC (10,920 acres) for protection and enhancement of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Proposed management: manage as wind and solar energy exclusion area, right-of-way (ROW) exclusion; prohibit surface disturbing activities during
• Chance Gulch ACEC (13,150 acres) for protection and enhancement of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Proposed management: manage as wind and solar energy exclusion area, manage one mile buffer around active and inactive leks as ROW exclusion areas; in areas outside of the exclusion area, ROWs for pipelines, transmission/utility lines, communication sites, or other comparable infrastructure may only be authorized under the following criteria: infrastructure upgrade and/or reconstruction occurs or is co-located with the existing ROW, new utility lines are co-located on existing overhead lines to the maximum extent feasible, pipelines, communication sites, or other infrastructure are co-located within the disturbed footprint or ROW of existing structures, no new construction of roads/routes would be permitted, excluding pending applications which may be granted after appropriate evaluation at the authorized officer's discretion; maintain current, designated route system limiting both motorized and mechanized travel; limit over-snow vehicle travel to designated routes; close the area to all human use during lekking season (March 15 to May 15) with exceptions for administrative access and emergency maintenance; close to motorized (including e-bikes) travel during lekking and nesting season (March 15 to June 30) to prevent disturbance to breeding sage-grouse with exceptions for administrative access and emergency maintenance; prohibit surface disturbing activities during lekking, nesting, or early brood-rearing seasons (March 1 to July 15) unless needed for human health and safety; no new recreation facility construction allowed during lekking, nesting, or early brood-rearing seasons (March 1 to July 15), unless needed for human health and safety; close to non-energy solid mineral leasing; prohibit new trail development and close to fluid minerals exploration, leasing and/or development.
• Sapinero Mesa ACEC (17,240 acres) for protection and enhancement of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Proposed management: manage as wind and solar energy exclusion area; manage one mile buffer around active and inactive leks as ROW exclusion areas; in areas outside of the exclusion area, ROWs for pipelines, transmission/utility lines, communication sites, or other comparable infrastructure may only be authorized under the following criteria: infrastructure upgrade and/or reconstruction occurs or is co-located with the existing ROW, new utility lines are co-located on existing overhead lines to the maximum extent feasible, pipelines, communication sites, or other infrastructure are co-located within the disturbed footprint or ROW of existing structures, construction of roads/routes would be permitted, excluding pending applications which may be granted after appropriate evaluation at the authorized officer's discretion; maintain current, designated route system limiting motorized and mechanized travel; limit over-snow vehicle travel to designated routes; close the area west of County Road 26 to motorized and mechanized travel during lekking, nesting, and brood-rearing season (March 15 to July 15) to prevent disturbance to breeding, nesting, and brood-rearing sage-grouse, with exceptions for administrative access and emergency maintenance; area closed to all human use during lekking season (March 15 to May 15) with exceptions for administrative access and emergency maintenance; close to motorized (including e-bikes) travel during lekking and nesting season (March 15 to June 30) to prevent disturbance to breeding sage-grouse with exceptions for administrative access and emergency maintenance; prohibit surface disturbing activities during lekking, nesting, or early brood-rearing seasons (March 1 to July 15) unless needed for human health and safety; no new recreation facility construction allowed during lekking, nesting, or early brood-rearing seasons (March 1 to July 15), unless needed for human health and safety; close to non-energy solid mineral leasing; and close to fluid minerals leasing.
• Sugar Creek ACEC (17,210 acres) for protection and enhancement of Gunnison sage-grouse habitat. Proposed management: manage as wind and solar energy exclusion area, manage one mile buffer around active and inactive leks as ROW exclusion areas; in areas outside of the exclusion area, ROWs for pipelines, transmission/utility lines, communication sites, or other comparable infrastructure may only be authorized under the following criteria: infrastructure upgrade and/or reconstruction occurs or is co-located with the existing ROW, new utility lines are co-located on existing overhead lines to the maximum extent feasible, pipelines, communication sites, or other infrastructure are co-located within the disturbed footprint or ROW of existing structures, no new construction of roads/routes would be permitted, excluding pending applications which may be granted after appropriate evaluation at the authorized officer's discretion; maintain current, designated route system limiting motorized and mechanized travel; limit over-snow vehicle travel to designated routes; area closed to all human use during lekking season (March 15 to May 15) with exceptions for administrative access and emergency maintenance; close to dispersed camping during lekking and nesting season (March 15 to June 30); allow vegetation treatments and wildlife habitat improvements for the benefit of the relevant and important values; prohibit new trail development; close to non-energy solid mineral leasing; and close to fluid minerals leasing.
Existing ACECs in Colorado and Utah would continue to be designated under all alternatives and current management would remain except where updated. Following are the existing, currently designated ACECs, all in Colorado, that would receive updated management. Updates in management are specified below to protect the relevant and important values:
• Gunnison Sage-Grouse ACEC/Important Bird Area (existing, 22,190 acres) for management and protection of the Gunnison sage-grouse and its habitat. Proposed management would remain the same as existing with the following updates: for special status species, surface-disturbing activities will be restricted in special status species occupied locations and their potential habitat for their protection (March 1 to July 15); at minimum, prohibit surface-disturbing activities in occupied habitat management areas during lekking, nesting, or early brood-rearing (March 1 to July 15)—specific time and distance determinations will be based on site-specific conditions and may be modified, in coordination with the appropriate State wildlife agency and USFWS, due to documentation of local variations (
• West Antelope Creek ACEC (existing, 28,280 acres) to improve the capabilities of the resources in the unit to support wintering elk, deer, and bighorn sheep. Proposed management would remain the same as existing with the following updates: manage as wind and solar energy exclusion area, manage one mile buffer around active and inactive leks as ROW exclusion areas; seasonal habitat restrictions apply to prohibit surface disturbance in Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat management areas (March 1 to July 15), at minimum; prohibit surface-disturbing activities during lekking, nesting, or early brood-rearing (March 1 to July 15); no new recreation facility construction allowed (March 1 to July 15), unless needed for human health and safety, subject to valid existing rights; close to fluid mineral exploration, leasing, and/or development; close to non-energy solid mineral leasing; close designated routes to motorized travel from March 15 to May 15 and limit over-snow vehicle travel to designated routes; maintain current, designated route system limiting motorized and mechanized travel.
• South Beaver Creek ACEC (existing, 4,570 acres) for protection and enhancement of existing populations and habitat for skiff milkvetch. Proposed management would remain the same as existing with the following updates: remove the restriction for chemical spraying; manage as wind and solar energy exclusion area; manage one mile buffer around active and inactive leks as ROW exclusion areas; seasonal habitat restrictions apply to prohibit surface disturbance in Gunnison sage-grouse occupied habitat management areas from March 1 to July 15, at minimum; prohibit surface-disturbing activities during lekking, nesting, or early brood-rearing from March 1 to July 15; no new recreation facility construction allowed from March 1 to July 15, unless needed for human health and safety, subject to valid existing rights; close to fluid mineral exploration, leasing, and/or development; close to non-energy solid mineral leasing; close designated routes to motorized travel (March 15 to May 15) and limit over-snow vehicle travel to designated routes; maintain current, designated route system limiting motorized and mechanized travel.
The preferred alternative would not propose the following potential ACECs for designation: All BLM-administered surface lands within Gunnison sage-grouse Occupied Habitat Management Area and Unoccupied Habitat Management Area ACEC (Colorado and Utah); Gunnison Satellite Populations Habitat ACEC (Colorado and Utah); Northdale ACEC (Colorado); Kezar Basin ACEC (Colorado); North Parlin ACEC (Colorado); South Parlin ACEC (Colorado); Ohio Creek ACEC (Colorado); and Waunita ACEC (Colorado).
The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public participation consistent with the NEPA and land use planning processes, including a 30-day public protest period and a 60-day Governor's consistency review on the proposed RMP. The proposed RMP amendment/final EIS is anticipated to be available for public protest in the summer of 2024 with an approved RMP amendment and record of decision in the fall of 2024.
The BLM will hold three public meetings in the following locations: one meeting virtually hosted and two in-person meetings at Gunnison, CO, and Dove Creek, CO. The specific date(s) and location(s) of these meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through the ePlanning page (see
The BLM will continue to consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM MS 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent and segregation.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Yuma Field Office, Yuma, Arizona, intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider the effects of the Ranegras Plains Energy Center Project (Project) and by this notice is announcing the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues. The BLM also announces the segregation of 4,763 acres of public lands from appropriation under the public land laws, including the Mining Law, but not the mineral leasing or materials acts, for a period of 2 years from the date of publication of this notice, subject to valid existing rights. This segregation will facilitate the orderly administration of the public lands while the BLM considers potential solar and battery energy storage development on the described parcels.
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS. The BLM requests that the public submit comments concerning the scope of the analysis, potential alternatives, and identification of relevant information and studies by December 11, 2023. To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider issues raised by commenters in the Draft EIS, please ensure your comments are received prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later. A virtual public scoping meeting will be held 2 to 3 weeks after publication of this notice; the meeting date will be announced on the Project ePlanning website at least 15 days prior to the meeting. The segregation for the
You may submit comments on issues related to the Proposed Ranegras Plains Energy Center Project by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at the Project's ePlanning website:
Derek Eysenbach, Project Manager, at
The proposed Project location is approximately 30 miles east of Quartzsite, Arizona, along the south side of Interstate 10 near the Vicksburg Road exit. The Project would have a generating capacity of up to 700 megawatts alternating current and consist of solar photovoltaic modules, a battery energy storage system, electrical collection lines, a switchyard, operations and maintenance facilities, access roads, and an 11-mile-long, 500-kilovolt generation-tie transmission line (gen-tie line) to connect to the Delaney Colorado River Transmission Ten West Link Series Compensation Station.
The purpose and need for the action is to respond to Ranegras Plains Energy Center, LLC's application for a right-of-way (ROW) to construct, operate, maintain, and decommission a solar photovoltaic and battery energy storage project and associated facilities on public land administered by the BLM, consistent with Title V of FLPMA, regulations at 43 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 2800, and other applicable laws and regulations. In making its decision to issue a ROW grant, the BLM must first consider conformance with existing resource management plans (43 CFR 1610.5-3).
The BLM has identified two preliminary alternatives: the No Action Alternative and the proposed action. The proposed action would authorize a ROW for development of a solar photovoltaic facility, battery energy storage system, and gen-tie line on up to 4,763 acres of BLM-administered public land in La Paz County, Arizona. The entire project, including the proposed solar array and gen-tie line, also includes approximately 1,100 acres of Arizona State Trust lands and 1 acre of private lands. The No Action Alternative would deny the ROW application and the Project. Through comments received in the public scoping period, the BLM may develop action alternatives that would reduce impacts to preliminary resource concerns, including wildlife connectivity, off-highway vehicle recreation and access, and grazing/rangeland uses. The BLM welcomes comments on all preliminary alternatives as well as suggestions for additional alternatives.
Anticipated impacts from the proposed Project include up to 4,763 acres of ground disturbance for the solar facility, a battery energy storage system, transmission facilities, operations and maintenance facilities, access roads, and temporary work areas. Potential impacts may include a reduction in authorized grazing; vegetation removal; recreation, access, and land use changes; wildlife and migratory bird impacts including habitat loss and potential direct mortalities during construction and operations; visual impacts including glint and glare and an increase in nighttime brightness; potential impacts to cultural resources and Native American concerns; and socioeconomic impacts. Known resources to be addressed in the analysis include, but are not limited to, air quality; visual resources; environmental justice; social and economic values; mining and minerals; land uses; Native American religious concerns; recreation; grazing/rangelands; cultural resources; wildlife; migratory birds; threatened, endangered, and sensitive species; soils; water resources; invasive species; and paleontology. Impact analysis will also consider the cumulative impacts to natural and cultural resources from reasonably foreseeable future projects in the area.
In addition to the requested ROW grant, other Federal, State, and local authorizations would be required for the Project. These may include authorizations determined through consultation under the Endangered Species Act (16 United States Code (U.S.C.) 1536
The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public participation consistent with NEPA, including a 45-day comment period on the Draft EIS. The Draft EIS is anticipated to be available for public review in fall 2024, with a record of decision expected in summer 2025.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping period. The BLM will hold one virtual public scoping meeting (see the
Regulations at 43 CFR 2804.25(f) allow the BLM to segregate public lands included in an application for a ROW for solar energy development from the operation of the public land laws, including the Mining Law, by publication of a
The area described contains 4,674 acres, more or less, derived from GIS data received from the BLM Arizona State Office, on September 11, 2023.
The area described contains 89 acres, more or less, derived from GIS data received from the BLM Arizona State Office, on September 11, 2023.
These Federal agencies have agreed to participate as Cooperating Agencies under a Memorandum of Understanding to Improve Public Land Renewable Energy Project Permit Coordination: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Reclamation, Department of Defense, Department of Energy, and Environmental Protection Agency. Other Federal agencies, Tribal Nations, and State and local agencies wishing to be considered as a Cooperating Agency on this effort, either on the basis of their jurisdiction by law or special expertise, are invited to express their interest to Mr. Eysenbach, Project Manager (see
The BLM Arizona State Director is the deciding official for this notice of segregation. The authorized officer and decision maker for the Project is the BLM Yuma Field Office Manager.
The BLM will decide whether to approve, approve with modification(s), or deny issuance of a ROW grant to the applicant for the proposed Project.
The BLM will identify, analyze, and consider mitigation to address the reasonably foreseeable impacts to resources from the proposed action and all analyzed reasonable alternatives and, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.14(e), include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives. Mitigation may include avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction or elimination over time, and compensation; and may be considered at multiple scales, including the landscape scale.
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA process for this effort to help support compliance with applicable procedural requirements under the Endangered Species Act and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), including public involvement requirements of Section 106. Information about historic and cultural resources and threatened and endangered species within the area potentially affected will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM will consult with Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM Manual Sections 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with Tribal Nations and stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed Project that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a Cooperating Agency.
Before including your address, telephone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of availability.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the availability of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Cross-Tie 500-kilovolt (kV) Transmission Project (Cross-Tie Project or Project).
To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider comments in the Final EIS, please ensure that the BLM receives your comments within 45 days following the date the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) publishes its Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS in the
The Draft EIS is available for review on the BLM's ePlanning Project website at
Written comments related to the Cross-Tie Project may be submitted by any of the following methods:
•
•
Verbal comments related to the Cross-Tie Project may be submitted via telephone hotline at 1-888-674-0962. Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at the ePlanning website noted above and at the following office locations:
• BLM Bristlecone Field Office and Ely District Office, 702 North Industrial Way, Ely, Nevada 89301;
• BLM Caliente Field Office, 1400 Front Street, Caliente, Nevada 89008;
• BLM Cedar City Field Office and Color Country District Office, 176 East D.L. Sargent Drive, Cedar City, Utah 84721;
• BLM Fillmore Field Office, 95 East 500 North, Fillmore, Utah 84631;
• BLM West Desert District Office, 491 North John Glenn Road, Salt Lake City, Utah 84116;
• Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Ely Ranger District, 825 Avenue E, Ely, Nevada 89301; and
• Forest Service Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest Supervisor's Office, 1200 Franklin Way, Sparks, Nevada 89431.
Clara Stevens, Project Manager, address 95 East 500 North, Fillmore, Utah 84631; email
The applicant, TransCanyon, LLC (TransCanyon), submitted an Application for Transportation and Utility Systems and Facilities on Federal Lands (Standard Form 299) and a draft Plan of Development to the BLM and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest Service (Forest Service) for a permanent facility right-of-way (ROW) and a special use permit (SUP) for the construction, operation and maintenance (O&M), and decommissioning of the Cross-Tie Project.
The BLM Fillmore Field Office, in coordination with cooperating agencies, prepared a Draft EIS to analyze potential impacts from the Proposed Action and alternatives. New permanent and temporary land use authorizations would be required to construct, operate, and maintain, and decommission Project components. In Utah, the Proposed Action would cross approximately 98 miles of BLM administered land, 14 miles of state land, and 26 miles of private land for a total of 138 miles. In Nevada, the Proposed Action would cross 63 miles of BLM administered land, eight miles of Forest Service administered land, four miles of private land, and one mile of state land for a total of 76 miles. TransCanyon would obtain these land use authorizations through a ROW grant from the BLM, a SUP from the Forest Service, and easements or fee purchases for non-federal lands.
The purpose and need of the BLM federal action is to respond to the ROW application submitted by TransCanyon for the construction, O&M, and decommissioning of the proposed 500-kV transmission line on BLM-administered land between the Clover Substation in central Utah and the Robinson Summit Substation in east-central Nevada, in compliance with Title V of FLPMA (43 U.S.C. 1761-1771), the BLM's ROW regulations at 43 CFR part 2800, and other applicable federal laws and policies to grant ROWs over public land.
The purpose and need of the Forest Service federal action is to respond to an application for a SUP submitted by TransCanyon for the construction, O&M, and decommissioning of the proposed 500-kV transmission line on National Forest System land in east-central Nevada in compliance with FLPMA and the National Forest Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1601-1614), as well as the Humboldt National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan, as amended, which provides forest-wide standards and guidelines for management of National Forest System land crossed by the Project. The SUP application and authorization process objectives are to (1) authorize use and occupy National Forest System land that is in the public interest while avoiding and minimizing adverse effects and (2) ensure conformance with existing land and resource management plans.
For both agencies, FLPMA also provides the BLM and the Forest Service with discretionary authority to authorize use (
The BLM has analyzed six alternatives in detail, including the Proposed Action, four action alternatives, and the No Action Alternative. The Draft EIS analysis addresses the alternatives in two different ways. Within the Draft EIS, there is a comparison of each alternative to the comparable segment of the Proposed Action it replaces (segment specific), and there is also a comparison of start-to-finish alternatives. The start-to-finish alternatives are referred to as the Modified Proposed Action with Alternative A, B, C, or D. The segment alternatives can be substituted into a start-to-finish route in a variety of combinations to create a modified Proposed Action.
Under the No Action Alternative, the BLM would not approve a ROW grant and the Forest Service would not approve a SUP to construct, O&M, and decommission the Project. The Project infrastructure and facilities would not be built, and existing land uses and present activities in the area would continue consistent with the applicable land use plan governing management of the affected lands.
The Proposed Action, which is TransCanyon's desired alternative, includes an approximately 214-mile, 1,500-megawatt, 500-kV high-voltage alternating current (HVAC) overhead transmission line that would be constructed between the Clover Substation in central Utah and the Robinson Summit Substation in east-central Nevada. The Project would be situated within a 250-foot-wide ROW/SUP, 125 feet from centerline, which would maintain separation from other existing extra-high-voltage transmission lines as required by the North American Electric Reliability Corporation. The Project facilities would include a 500-kV HVAC overhead transmission line, new substation equipment at the Clover Substation in central Utah (within the existing substation footprint) and at the Robinson Summit Substation in east-central Nevada (within a 46-acre proposed expansion), regeneration stations near the line for the fiber optic ground wire, series compensation station(s), temporary and permanent access roads, and temporary work areas associated with construction activities.
The Alternative A segment would be 27 miles long, replacing a 23-mile-long segment of the Proposed Action in
The Alternative B segment would be 159 miles long, replacing a 69-mile-long segment of the Proposed Action in central and western Millard County, Utah, to minimize crossings of the Sevier A and Sevier B Military Operating Area (MOAs) (low-level flight training areas) that are part of the Department of Defense's Utah Test and Training Range (UTTR) airspace that overlies BLM-managed lands in Utah.Alternative B would cross into Beaver County, Utah, following identified utility corridors to Milford, Utah, then turn west and north following an identified Section 368 Energy Corridor back to the Proposed Action alignment near the Utah-Nevada state line. Start-to-finish, the Modified Proposed Action with Alternative B would increase the total length of the route from 214 miles to 304 miles.
The Alternative C segment would be 13 miles long, replacing a 7-mile-long segment of the Proposed Action in eastern White Pine County, Nevada, to minimize potential impacts to the culturally sensitive Spring Valley area and Bahsawahbee Traditional Cultural Property (TCP). Alternative C would diverge from the Proposed Action and follow U.S. Highway 6/50 southwest, then follow State Route 893 northwest back to the Proposed Action. Start-to-finish, the Modified Proposed Action with Alternative C would increase the total length of the route from 214 miles to 220 miles.
The Alternative D segment would be 297 miles long, replacing a 145-mile-long segment of the Proposed Action in Millard County, Utah, and eastern White Pine County, Nevada, to avoid areas of Tribal resource concerns in Spring Valley, Nevada. Alternative D would follow the Alternative B route alignment through Beaver County, Utah, then depart from Alternative B shortly after reentering Millard County, Utah. It would then head west, north of the county line, and cross into Lincoln County, Nevada. From there, the route would head west, then southwest to an energy corridor designated in the Ely District Resource Management Plan (RMP) near Atlanta, Nevada. The route would then follow the RMP corridor west and south until it intersects the Section 368 Energy Corridor that contains the existing One Nevada Transmission Line. It would then follow the One Nevada Transmission Line north to the Robinson Summit Substation. Start-to-finish, the Modified Proposed Action with Alternative D would increase the total length of the route from 214 miles to 366 miles.
The BLM has not identified a preferred alternative in the Draft EIS. Instead, input received on the Draft EIS during the public comment period will inform which alternative would be selected as the preferred alternative in the Final EIS.
Applicant-Committed Environmental Protection Measures (ACEPMs) are included as part of the Proposed Action and have been identified to reduce impacts on environmental resources. These measures would apply to all action alternatives. TransCanyon and its contractor(s) would adhere to the ACEPMs identified during the engineering/design phase and to the measures addressing construction, O&M, and decommissioning activities. A full list of the ACEPMs can be found in Appendix A of the Draft EIS, which includes TransCanyon's Plan of Development (POD). The POD is expected to continue to be developed with additional details and potentially additional ACEPMs as the NEPA process progresses, and up through any authorization(s) that may be issued. Additionally, resource sections within the Draft EIS contain additional measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for impacts to resources. The BLM is also working with state agencies to determine mitigation requirements for impacts to Greater sage-grouse.
The BLM serves as the lead federal agency for completing the Draft EIS. The EIS is being prepared by the BLM Fillmore Field Office, in coordination with the Cedar City Field Office in Utah, the BLM Bristlecone Field Office and Caliente Field Office in Nevada, and cooperating agencies. The BLM invited federal and state agencies and State, Tribal, and local governments to serve as cooperating agencies. The following entities accepted the invitation and are participating as cooperating agencies:
• Federal Agencies:
○ Forest Service (Humboldt-Toiyabe National Forest, Ely Ranger District)
○ EPA
○ U.S. Department of Defense (UTTR)
○ U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• State Agencies:
○ Utah Public Lands Policy Coordinating Office (with multiple State of Utah entities participating through this office, as noted below)
University of Utah Telescope Array Project
Utah Department of Agriculture and Food
Utah Department of Transportation
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources
Utah Trust Lands Administration
○ Nevada Department of Wildlife
○ Nevada Division of Minerals
○ Nevada Sagebrush Ecosystem Program
○ Nevada State Lands Division Nevada N-4 State Grazing Board
• Local Governments and Agencies:
○ Beaver County, Utah
○ Juab County, Utah
○ Millard County, Utah
○ Lincoln County, Nevada
○ Nye County, Nevada
○ White Pine County, Nevada
○ City of Ely, Nevada
○ Lincoln County Conservation District
• Tribal Governments:
○ Duckwater Shoshone Tribe
○ Te-Moak Tribe of Western Shoshone-Elko Band
Cooperating agency participation may include developing information and preparing analyses, contributing technical expertise to enhance the lead agency's interdisciplinary capabilities, and providing comments for those matters for which it has jurisdiction by law or special expertise. The Tribal governments noted above have elected to participate as cooperating agencies. The cooperating agency relationship established here supplements and is subordinate to the government-to-government relationship between Tribal Nations and the BLM.
The BLM anticipates releasing a Final EIS in August 2024 and anticipates issuing a Record of Decision in December 2024.
On May 2, 2022, the BLM published a Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS in the
This NOA initiates the Draft EIS review process. The BLM will hold one virtual and up to four in-person public information meetings associated with the Project. Possible in-person meeting locations include: Ely, Nevada, and Delta, Milford, and Nephi, Utah. The specific date(s) and location(s) of these meetings will be announced at least 10 days in advance through news releases, local media, social media, and the BLM's ePlanning Project website (see
The BLM will continue to consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM Manual Section 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Consultation will continue on an individual basis with interested Tribes.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972, the U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board (Board) will hold a public meeting.
The Board will meet in person from December 12 through 14, 2023; 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Mountain Time (MT) Tuesday through Thursday. The BLM will host two educational field tours for the Board on Tuesday, December 12, 8 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. MT, and on Thursday, December 14, 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. MT, which are open to the public. The December 14 public meeting will resume at 2:15 p.m. at the BLM National Training Center (see
The Board will meet in Phoenix, Arizona, at the BLM National Training Center in the Arizona room located at 9828 N 31st Ave., Phoenix, AZ 85051.
The meeting is open to the public. The public may attend the meeting in person or watch via live stream at
The final agenda will be posted 2 weeks prior to the meeting and can be found on the following website:
The tours will commence and conclude at the BLM National Training Center. Due to limited space, those wishing to attend the educational field tours should register via email to
Dorothea Boothe, Wild Horse and Burro Program Coordinator: telephone: (602) 906-5543, email:
The Board advises the Secretary of the Interior, the BLM Director, the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Chief of the U.S. Forest Service on matters pertaining to the management and protection of wild, free-roaming horses and burros on the Nation's public lands. The Board operates in accordance with 43 CFR 1784.
The Board, the BLM, and the USFS welcome comments from all interested parties. The public will have an opportunity to make a verbal statement to the Advisory Board in person and virtually via Zoom (audio only) on Wednesday, December 13, from 10:15 a.m. to 11:15 a.m. MT and on Thursday, December 14, from 3 p.m. to 4 p.m. MT. To provide comments via Zoom, interested parties must register by December 8, 2023 at the following website:
Beyond live captioning, any person(s) with special needs, such as for an auxiliary aid, interpreting service, assistive listening device, or materials in an alternate format, must notify Ms. Boothe 2 weeks before the scheduled meeting date. It is important to adhere to the 2-week notice to allow enough time to arrange for the auxiliary aid or special service. Live captioning will be available throughout the event on the BLM livestream page at
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, the BLM cannot guarantee that it will be able to do so.
National Indian Gaming Commission, Interior.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the National Indian Gaming Commission has adopted its annual fee rates of 0.00% for tier 1 and 0.08% (.0008) for tier 2, which maintain the current fee rates. These rates shall apply to all assessable gross revenues from each gaming operation under the jurisdiction of the Commission. If a tribe has a certificate of self-regulation, the fee rate on Class II revenues shall be 0.04% (.0004) which is one-half of the annual fee rate. The annual fee rates are effective November 1, 2023, and will remain in effect until new rates are adopted. The National Indian Gaming Commission has also adopted its fingerprint processing fee of $53 per card which represents an increase of $8 per card. The fingerprint processing fee is effective November 1, 2023, and will remain in effect until the Commission adopts a new rate.
Yvonne Lee, National Indian Gaming Commission, 1849 C Street NW, Mail Stop #1621, Washington, DC 20240; telephone (202) 632-7003; fax (202) 632-7066.
The Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) established the National Indian Gaming Commission, which is charged with regulating gaming on Indian lands.
Commission regulations (25 CFR 514) provide for a system of fee assessment and payment that is self-administered by gaming operations.
Pursuant to those regulations, the Commission is required to adopt and communicate assessment rates and the gaming operations are required to apply those rates to their revenues, compute the fees to be paid, report the revenues, and remit the fees to the Commission. All gaming operations within the jurisdiction of the Commission are required to self-administer the provisions of these regulations, and report and pay any fees that are due to the Commission. It is necessary for the Commission to maintain the fee rate to ensure that the agency has sufficient funding to fully meet its statutory and regulatory responsibilities as the gaming industry continues to emerge from the pandemic. In addition, it is critical for the Commission to maintain constantly an adequate transition carryover balance to cover any cash flow variations.
Pursuant to 25 CFR 514, the Commission must also review annually the costs involved in processing fingerprint cards and set a fee based on fees charged by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and costs incurred by the Commission. Commission costs include Commission personnel, supplies, equipment & infrastructure costs, and postage to submit the results to the requesting tribe. The number of fingerprint cards submitted to the NIGC for processing has significantly decreased since the pandemic. The fingerprint processing fee increase is a result of spreading the fixed costs allocated to fingerprint processing over a smaller number of cards processed. In addition, the FY24 fingerprint processing fee includes the cost allocation from the one-time capital investments associated with the Washington, DC headquarters office relocation and the Agency's hardware refresh of core networking and server computing devices required to support the Agency's infrastructure operations. Maintaining valid support agreements and replacing aging hardware when needed is vital to ensure maximum uptime for IT operations while
Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Interior.
Notice regarding Lease Sale 261.
With this notice, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) is announcing that it is postponing Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 261 pending further action by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. To comply with an injunction sought and obtained by the State of Louisiana and other plaintiffs from the district court, as well as a subsequent order from the Fifth Circuit, BOEM had previously provided notice of its intent to hold Lease Sale 261 on November 8, 2023. On October 26, 2023, however, the Fifth Circuit stayed the relevant injunction and order pending the merits panel's decision on appeal. To avoid preempting the Fifth Circuit's decision, and avoid duplication of effort, BOEM is now deferring Lease Sale 261 pending disposition of the appeal that is before the Fifth Circuit.
Therefore, BOEM will not open and announce bids for the sale on November 8, 2023. BOEM will make future announcements regarding when and under what terms Lease Sale 261 will be held after the Court issues its ruling or provides additional direction to BOEM. Additional information and announcements will be made available on BOEM's website prior to the sale date. See
The New Orleans Office Lease Sale Coordinator, Greg Purvis, at
On August 25, 2023, BOEM published in the
On September 21, 2023, six days before the planned sale, the district court issued a preliminary injunction order requiring BOEM to include the previously excluded blocks and modify the stipulation by removing the new Rice's whale protections. The court also ordered BOEM to hold the sale on or before September 30, 2023. On September 22, 2023, the government appealed and filed an emergency motion in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, requesting that the court stay or modify the injunction to avoid an inequitable sale and to allow for the administrative and legal processes necessary to hold the modified sale and provide the statutorily required notice to the public of the revised lease sale terms. (Case No. 23-30666). Intervenor-Defendants also appealed and filed an emergency motion in the Fifth Circuit, requesting that the Court stay the injunction in its entirety. On September 25, 2023, the Fifth Circuit issued an order directing BOEM to hold Lease Sale 261 as required by the district court, but permitting BOEM until November 8, 2023, to hold the sale. On October 6, 2023, BOEM published a revised Final NOS in accordance with the September 25, 2023, order, announcing the modified terms of the sale and notifying bidders that it would open bids on November 8, 2023. See 88 FR 69660. On October 26, 2023, the Fifth Circuit stayed the injunction in its entirety pending further action by that court and scheduled oral argument for November 13, 2023.
Under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act, BOEM has inherent discretion to postpone lease sales on reasonable grounds, including, as described in the October 6, 2023, notice, to comply with court orders. Because BOEM anticipates that the Fifth Circuit will further clarify the scope of BOEM's discretion and obligations concerning Lease Sale 261, BOEM has concluded that holding Lease Sale 261 before the Fifth Circuit resolves the appeal could result in duplication of effort and bidder confusion in the event that the November 8, 2023, sale is inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit's subsequent guidance. BOEM will therefore not hold Lease Sale 261 on November 8, 2023. Bidders wishing to participate in Lease Sale 261 should not submit bids until receiving further instructions from BOEM. Bids that were already received will be held by BOEM, and BOEM will notify bidders of how those bids will be handled once it receives further direction from the Fifth Circuit. In reaching this conclusion, BOEM is cognizant that the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 directs BOEM to hold Lease Sale 261 by September 30, 2023, a deadline that BOEM was prepared to meet prior to plaintiffs' lawsuits.
As set forth above, BOEM is postponing the sale beyond its originally scheduled date in response to plaintiffs' lawsuits and the resulting judicial orders.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, Department of Labor.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a pre-clearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the
Written comments must be submitted to the office listed in the
Send comments to Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, Division of Management Systems, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Room G225, 2 Massachusetts Avenue NE, Washington, DC 20212. Written comments also may be transmitted by email to
Nora Kincaid, BLS Clearance Officer, at 202-691-7628 (this is not a toll-free number.) (See
The National Compensation Survey (NCS) is an ongoing survey of earnings and benefits among private firms, States, and local government. The NCS is used to produce the Employment Cost Trends, including the Employment Cost Index (ECI) and Employer Costs for Employee Compensation (ECEC), employee benefits data (plan access, coverages, and provisions), Modeled Wage Estimates (MWE), and data used by the President's Pay Agent. This data is used by compensation administrators and researchers in the public and private sectors. Data from the NCS are used to help in determining monetary policy (as a Principal Federal Economic Indicator). The integrated program's single sample produces both time-series indexes and cost levels for industry and occupational groups, thereby increasing the analytical potential of the data.
The NCS employs probability methods for selection of occupations, which ensures that sampled occupations represent all occupations in the workforce, while minimizing the reporting burden on respondents. The survey collects data from a sample of employers. These data will consist of information about the duties, responsibilities, and compensation (earnings and benefits) for a sample of occupations for each sampled employer.
Data will be updated on a quarterly basis. The updates will allow for production of data on change in earnings and total compensation.
Office of Management and Budget clearance is being sought for an extension of the NCS.
The NCS collects earnings and work level data on occupations for the nation. The NCS also collects information on the cost, provisions, and incidence of major employee benefits through its benefit cost and benefit provision publications.
The BLS has been using a revised approach to the Locality Pay Survey (LPS) component of the NCS; this uses data from two current BLS programs—the Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics (OEWS) survey and the NCS program. This approach uses OEWS data to provide wage data by occupation and by area, while NCS data are used to specify grade level effects. This approach is also being used to extend the estimation of pay gaps to areas that were not included in the prior Locality Pay Survey sample, and these data have been delivered to the Pay Agent (in 2023, data for 115 areas were delivered).
The NCS has a national survey design. The NCS private industry sample is on a three-year rotational cycle, with one frozen sample year every ten years for the NCS private industry sample when a new NCS State and local government sample starts (approximately in 2025).
The NCS continues to provide employee benefit provision and participation data. These data include estimates of how many workers receive the various employer-sponsored benefits. The data also include information about the common provisions of benefit plans.
NCS collection will use a number of collection forms having unique private industry and government initiation and update collection forms and versions. For NCS update collection, the forms or screens give respondents their previously reported information, the dates they expected change to occur to these data, and space for reporting these changes.
For electronic collection, the NCS uses a Web-based system (Web-Lite) that allows NCS respondents, using Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) encryption and the establishment's schedule number, to upload data files to a secure BLS server that forwards those files to the assigned BLS field economist.
Some benefits, called “Other benefits,” data are collected to track the emergence of new or changing benefits over time. The BLS only asks whether sampled occupations receive these benefits and periodically modifies this list.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics is particularly interested in comments that:
• Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility.
• Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• 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,
All figures are based on a three-year average. The total responses are higher as some respondents are contacted multiple times.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and/or included in the request for Office of Management and Budget approval of the information collection request; they also will become a matter of public record.
Mine Safety and Health Administration, Labor.
Notice; correction.
This notice amends a petition for modification published in the
S. Aromie Noe, Office of Standards, Regulations, and Variances at 202-693-9440 (voice),
This notice corrects the docket number cited in the notice. Docket Number M-2023-021-C is incorrectly referenced in the
Office of Management and Budget.
Notice of a new system of records.
Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974 and Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-108, Federal Agency Responsibilities for Review, Reporting, and Publication under the Privacy Act, notice is hereby given that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is establishing the following new system of records: “OMB Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Requests System of Records, OMB/FOIAPA/01.” This system covers all information pertaining to Freedom of Information (FOIA) or Privacy Act requests and information relating to other agencies' FOIA or Privacy Act requests received through the National FOIA Portal (
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) and (11), this system of records notice (SORN) is effective upon its publication in today's
You may submit comments by:
For general questions and privacy issues, please contact Shraddha A. Upadhyaya by email at
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Circular No. A-108, OMB proposes to create a new system of records for OMB titled, “OMB Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Requests System of Records, OMB/FOIAPA/01” (OMB FOIA/PA Requests System).”
The OMB FOIA/PA Requests System covers all information related to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or
The Privacy Act embodies fair information practice principles in a statutory framework governing the means by which Federal Government agencies collect, maintain, use, and disseminate individuals' records. The Privacy Act applies to information that is maintained in a “system of records.” A “system of records” is a group of any records under the control of an agency from which information is retrieved by the name of an individual or by some identifying number, symbol, or other identifying particular assigned to the individual. In the Privacy Act, an individual is defined to encompass U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents. Additionally, the Judicial Redress Act of 2015 (JRA), 5 U.S.C. 552a note, provides citizens of designated foreign countries with certain rights of redress for intentional or willful disclosures of covered records, as defined by the JRA, except as otherwise permitted by the Privacy Act.
Under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, OMB receives requests from individuals for access to their own records or information pertaining to them, as well as requests from individuals to amend records pertaining to them, requests from individuals for notification if a record pertains to them, or requests from individuals for an accounting of disclosures of records pertaining to them. OMB's Privacy Act Procedures can be found at 5 CFR 1302.
The FOIA provides a right of access to certain records and information Federal agencies maintain and control. Any agency, upon any request for records which (i) reasonably describes such records and (ii) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed, shall make the records promptly available to any person. The FOIA does not apply to information that satisfies one of nine exemptions under 5 U.S.C. 552(b), unless disclosure is warranted under the foreseeable harm standard. Additionally, any reasonably segregable portion of a record shall be provided after deletion of the portions which are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552(b).
Under the FOIA, 5 U.S.C. 552, OMB receives requests for records from “any person” within the meaning of the statute. OMB makes available records in accordance with OMB's FOIA Procedures which can be found at 5 CFR 1303.
OMB also engages in inter-agency consultations of these requests when necessary to comply with OMB's legal obligations under FOIA and the Privacy Act. Inter-agency consultations include requests for consultation between OMB and other agencies and entities, which include requests for consultation from other agencies to OMB and from OMB to other agencies and entities.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(r), OMB has provided a report of this system of records to OMB and to Congress.
Below is the description of the OMB FOIA/PA Requests System.
OMB Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act Requests System of Records, OMB/FOIAPA/01.
The system may contain classified information, but only to the extent the FOIA or Privacy Act request requires review of classified information. Any classified information will be maintained on systems rated to store such information, in accordance with E.O. 12958, 60 FR 19825 (Apr. 20, 1995) and applicable executive order(s) governing classified information, 32 CFR 2001, and 5 CFR 1312.
Records are maintained at OMB, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC 20503.
OMB FOIA Officer, 725 17th Street NW, Washington, DC;
Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 552; Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a; 44 U.S.C. 3101; 5 U.S.C. 301; and E.O. 12598 and applicable executive order(s) governing classified information.
OMB receives requests pursuant to FOIA and the Privacy Act, including inter-agency consultations. OMB also adjudicates administrative appeals and handles litigation relating to these requests. The purpose of this system of records is:
—To fulfill obligations under the FOIA, and related policy and guidance, and to assist other agencies in doing the same.
—To fulfill obligations under the Privacy Act, and related policy and guidance, and to assist other agencies in doing the same.
This system includes all individuals who submit FOIA or Privacy Act requests and administrative appeals to OMB; individuals whose requests for records have been referred to OMB by other agencies or entities; attorneys or other persons representing individuals submitting such requests and appeals; individuals who are the subject of such requests and appeals or whose information may appear in records required for processing requests and appeals; and individuals who file litigation based on their requests.
This system includes records created, compiled, or received in response to FOIA and Privacy Act requests and administrative appeals and includes: The original requests and administrative appeals; responses to such requests and administrative appeals; all related memoranda, correspondence, notes, and other related or supporting documentation; and, in some instances, copies of requested records and records under administrative appeal.
OMB receives records from members of the public, including representatives of Federal, State, or local governments, non-government organizations, and the private sector, as well as from other federal agencies and entities.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), all or a portion of the records or information contained therein may be disclosed outside of OMB as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
A. To a federal, state, local, tribal, or foreign agency or entity for the purpose of consulting with that agency or entity to enable OMB to make a determination as to the propriety of access to, accounting of, or amendment of information, or for the purpose of verifying the identity of an individual or the accuracy of information submitted by an individual who has requested access to, accounting of, or amendment of information.
B. To any agency or entity that furnished the record or information for the purpose of permitting that agency or entity to make a decision as to access to or amendment of the record or information, or to a federal agency or entity for purposes of providing guidance or advice regarding the handling of particular requests.
C. To a submitter or subject of a record or information in order to obtain assistance to OMB in making a determination as to access, amendment, or accounting.
D. To appropriate agencies and entities, for the purpose of resolving an inquiry regarding compliance with the Freedom of Information Act.
E. To the Department of Justice (DOJ) when any of the following is a party to litigation before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body or has an interest in such litigation, and the use of such records by DOJ is deemed by OMB to be relevant and necessary to the litigation:
(1) OMB, or any component thereof;
(2) any employee or former employee of OMB in the employee's official capacity;
(3) any employee or former of employee of OMB in the employee's individual capacity where DOJ has agreed to represent the employee; or
(4) a Federal agency, a Federal entity, a Federal official, or the United States, where OMB determines that litigation is likely to affect OMB or any of its components.
F. In a proceeding before a court or adjudicative body before which OMB is authorized to appear, when OMB determines that the records are relevant and necessary to the litigation; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
G. To a congressional office in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of the individual to whom the record pertains.
H. To any agency or organization for the purpose of performing audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
I. To the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for purposes of records management and mail processing inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
J. To NARA, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfil its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures, and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
K. To appropriate officials and employees of a federal agency or entity when the information is relevant to a decision concerning the hiring, appointment, or retention of an employee; the assignment, detail, or deployment of an employee; the issuance, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract; or the issuance of a grant or benefit.
L. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when
(1) OMB suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records;
(2) OMB has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, OMB (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and
(3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with OMB's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
M. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when OMB determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in
(1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach; or
(2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
N. Where a record, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law—criminal, civil, or regulatory in nature—the relevant records may be referred to the appropriate Federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, international, or foreign law enforcement authority or other appropriate entity charged with the responsibility for investigating or prosecuting such violation or charged with enforcing or implementing such law.
O. To contractors and their agents, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for OMB, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to OMB officers and employees.
P. To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by Federal statute or treaty.
Records in this system are stored in electronic or paper form in secure facilities. The records may be stored on magnetic disc, tape, and digital media.
Records may be retrieved by full-text search or by individuals' FOIA/PA case number, name, title, or organization.
These records will be retired and destroyed in accordance with published records schedules of the Office of Management and Budget and the General Records Schedules as approved by NARA.
All electronic records are maintained in secure systems which require multi-factor authentication and that use security hardware and software to include multiple firewalls, encryption, identification, and authentication of users. All security controls are reviewed on a periodic basis by external assessors. The controls themselves include measures for access control, security awareness training, audits, configuration management, contingency planning, incident response, and maintenance. Access to the information technology systems containing the records in this system is limited to those individuals who need the information for the performance of their official duties and who have appropriate clearances or permissions.
Individuals' requests for access to records in this system of records may be sent to OMB's Privacy Officer, by mail to Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Room 9268, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to
Individuals' requests for amendment of a record in this system of records may be sent to OMB's Privacy Officer, by mail to Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Room 9268, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to
Individuals' requests for notification as to whether this system of records contains a record pertaining to them may be sent to OMB's Privacy Officer, by mail to Office of Management and Budget, 725 17th Street NW, Room 9268, Washington, DC 20503, or by email to
During the course of a FOIA or a PA action, exempt materials from other systems of records may in turn become part of the case records in this system. To the extent that copies of exempt records from those other systems of records are maintained in the OMB FOIA/PA Requests System, OMB hereby claims the same exemptions for the records from those other systems that are entered into this system, as claimed for the original primary systems of records of which they are a part.
None.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Technology, Innovation, and Engineering Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Committee reports to the NAC.
Thursday, November 30, 2023, 8:30 a.m.-5:00 p.m., Eastern Time.
Meeting will be virtual. See dial-in and Webex information below under
Mr. Mike Green, Designated Federal Officer, Space Technology Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, via email at
This meeting will only be available by Webex or telephonically for members of the public. If dialing in via toll number, you must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. Any interested person may join via Webex at
If dialing in, please mute your telephone.
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the National Space-Based Positioning, Navigation and Timing (PNT) Advisory Board. This will be the 29th meeting of the PNT Advisory Board.
Wednesday, December 6, 2023, from 9:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., Central Time; and Thursday, December 7, 2023, from 9:00 a.m.-12:00 p.m., Central Time.
South Shore Harbour Resort and Conference Center; 2500 South Shore Blvd., League City, TX 77573.
Mr. James Joseph Miller, Designated Federal Officer, PNT Advisory Board, Space Operations Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 262-0929 or
This meeting will be open to the public up to the capacity of the meeting room. In-person attendees will be requested to sign a register prior to entrance to the proceedings. Webcast details to watch the meeting remotely will be available on the PNT Advisory Board website at:
The agenda for the meeting will include the following:
For further information, visit the PNT Advisory Board website at:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to meet the scheduling availability of key participants.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, NASA announces a meeting of the National Space Council Users' Advisory Group (UAG).
Friday, December 1, 2023, from 11:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m., Eastern Time.
Virtual meeting via dial-in teleconference and WebEx only.
Mr. James Joseph Miller, UAG Designated Federal Officer and Executive Secretary, Space Operations Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 262-0929 or
The agenda for the meeting will include the following:
For further information about membership and a detailed agenda, visit the UAG website at:
Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS), National Foundation of the Arts and the Humanities (NFAH).
Notice of Meeting.
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, notice is hereby given that the National Museum and Library Services Board will meet to advise the Director of the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) with respect to duties, powers, and authority of IMLS relating to museum, library, and information services, as well as coordination of activities for the improvement of these services.
The meeting will be held on December 13, 2023, from 9 a.m. Mountain Time until adjourned.
The meeting will convene in a hybrid format. Virtual meeting and audio conference technology will be used to connect virtual attendees with in-person attendees. Instructions for joining will be sent to all registrants. In-person attendees will meet in the Phoenix Metropolitan Area at a to-be-announced location. Due to room-capacity limitations, members of the public who wish to join in-person must inform IMLS by November 27, 2023.
Katherine Maas, Chief of Staff and Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Institute of Museum and Library Services, Suite 4000, 955 L'Enfant Plaza North SW, Washington, DC 20024; (202) 653-4798;
The National Museum and Library Services Board is meeting pursuant to the National Museum and Library Service Act, 20 U.S.C. 9105a, and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), as amended, 5 U.S.C. App.
The 48th Meeting of the National Museum and Library Services Board, which is open to the public, will convene at 9 a.m. Mountain Standard Time on December 13, 2023.
The agenda for the 48th Meeting of the National Museum and Library Services Board will be as follows:
If you wish to attend the meeting, please inform IMLS as soon as possible, but no later than close of business on December 6, 2023, by contacting Katherine Maas at
National Science Foundation.
Notice of request for information.
The National Science Foundation, on behalf of the National Science and Technology Council Subcommittee on Ocean Science and Technology (SOST), requests input from all interested parties to inform the development of a National Ocean Biodiversity Strategy (Strategy), covering the genetic lineages, species, habitats, and ecosystems of United States (U.S.) ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes waters. The Strategy will strengthen the knowledge foundation and coordination on which federal agencies and other parties can align priorities and investments toward more cost-effective and successful solutions to the increasing challenges that require information on biodiversity and living resources. The Strategy will align research and monitoring on ocean life for safe and sustainable management, conservation, development, and climate solutions; and improve delivery of biodiversity information to support wise
Responses are due by 11:59 p.m. eastern time on February 28, 2024. Responses received after this deadline may not be taken into consideration.
Interested individuals and organizations should submit comments electronically to
SOST agencies may post responses to the RFI, without change, on their websites and may use the information received as they see fit. NSF therefore requests that no business proprietary information, copyrighted information, or personally identifiable information be submitted in response to the RFI. The U.S. Government will not pay for the responsible preparation or for the use of any information contained in the response.
For further information, please contact Gabrielle Canonico, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
People are an integral part of nature and vice versa. Even in the continental heartland, our lives, livelihoods, health, and identities depend on the ocean's biodiversity, meaning the variety of life in all its aspects—species, genetic lineages, habitats, and associated ecosystems and interactions—from the sea surface to the deep ocean, the coasts, and the Great Lakes, and from microbes to whales. These living resources provide our food, clean air and water, a favorable climate, recreational and cultural benefits, and critical resources and economic opportunities. Indeed the U.S. ocean economy supports 2.4 million jobs across multiple sectors including fishing, tourism, shipping, and energy generation, which contributed $397 billion to the U.S. gross domestic product in 2019. Much of that economic engine is driven by living organisms.
Our natural heritage, and the ways of life that it supports, are in crisis. A comprehensive analysis reports that around 1 million species worldwide face extinction, many within decades, unless aggressive action is taken to reduce drivers of biodiversity loss in the near future. The biodiversity crisis is closely intertwined with the ongoing crises of climate change and inequity among people, and it is increasingly clear that these challenges must be approached together to reach lasting, just solutions that support human health, economies, national security, and other domestic and global challenges. To address them we need biological intelligence: trusted, accessible, and scientifically rigorous inventories and knowledge of ocean species and habitats, their interactions, and the ecosystem functions and services to people that they support.
That knowledge will come from long-term monitoring of biodiversity and associated environmental drivers and conditions, strategically located across the nation's expansive marine territory. These activities are critical to the ability of managers, rights holders, and resource users to make decisions that effectively steward uses of the ocean, track change in its vital signs, design effective climate solutions, and grow the ocean economy. But we are far from that goal. Information on ocean life and ecosystems is currently collected by many parties using a wide range of methods; the data are heterogeneous, generally not coordinated, and often not shared. Resulting information products are routinely created without engaging users `on the ground' and with poor understanding of their needs for actionable information. This lack of coordination and interoperability wastes limited resources and harms our ability to effectively sustain multiple uses of a healthy ocean. As a result, relevant information about many aspects of ocean life and ecosystem services is unavailable or inaccessible.
The Strategy will address these challenges by facilitating, streamlining, and coordinating the delivery of knowledge on ocean life and ecosystems to develop ocean spaces sustainably, including advancing conservation plans and decision processes jointly by co-design with resource users and rights-holders. It will advance capacity to forecast changes in ocean life and the ecosystem services it provides by ensuring that data are comparable and shared across sectors (government, non-governmental organizations, private, academic) and regions (subnational, national, international), much as weather data are shared across international meteorological organizations to enable nowcasts and accurate forecasts that are widely used on a daily basis.
The SOST is developing this Strategy because the linked climate, biodiversity, and equity crises have created an urgent need for biological information that can enable coordinated responses and solutions. Equally important, leveraging the exponentially growing quantity and variety of ocean biodiversity information for human well-being requires integration with biogeochemistry, physics, geology, and social and economic data to locate both people and the rest of nature in integrated knowledge systems that support effective, just, and sustainable development and conservation.
The U.S. has one of the largest exclusive economic zones in the world, with a comparable wealth of biodiversity and living resources. Collecting and delivering the necessary biodiversity knowledge at this national scale is an ambitious goal that requires rapid, large-scale, cross-sectoral advances in facilitating integration of communities, sectors, and information types. It must engage all Americans, including Tribal Nations, Indigenous communities, and local communities. Delivery of information needs to be in
Rapidly advancing technology is one road to reaching that ambition. Emerging technologies now enable biomolecular classification of organisms, tracking of animal migration and behavior through tagging, acoustics, imaging, and remote sensing across previously impossible scales of geography and time. The resulting timely, accessible, and accurate information on ocean life is fundamental for our social and economic security at all levels of governance. It is also fundamental to maintain international leadership as needs for food, water, and other resources continue to grow.
Achieving these goals requires better coordinating data and information sharing and resulting actions among federal agencies, states, tribal communities, academic, and private sector initiatives. The Strategy aims to provide the critical science, data, and knowledge essential to guide long-term conservation based on best evidence, and to make it more accessible to support a collaborative and inclusive approach. The Strategy will identify information users and engage with them to understand what information they find useful, and in what forms. The Strategy will support consistent and reliable assembly and management of ocean biodiversity data that is necessary, but currently lacking, for ongoing federal activities, such as the first National Nature Assessment, Natural Capital Accounting efforts, the National Strategy for a Sustainable Ocean Economy, advancing Nature-Based Solutions, development of a National eDNA Strategy, and the Ocean Climate Action Plan, consistent with FAIR and CARE principles.
Developing and implementing the National Ocean Biodiversity Strategy will advance more cost-effective, strategic, nimble, and equitable management of the nation's living marine resources and cultural heritage. Importantly, the Strategy will support solutions to the intertwined equity crisis by engaging and supporting Indigenous Knowledge and prioritizing cross-sector user needs from local to national levels.
The Strategy also seeks to strengthen and increase visibility of U.S. leadership in global initiatives focused on solutions to the climate and biodiversity crises. Specifically, the High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy acknowledged the pressing need for national contributions to a globally coordinated effort to collect information on ocean biodiversity and on extinction risk, and highlighted the need to support long-term biodiversity monitoring. Similarly, U.S. leadership of a number of programs and activities within the UN Decade of Ocean Science for Sustainable Development supports emerging communities of practice and the development of harmonized, standards-based approaches to address this need directly.
Respondents may provide information for one or as many topics below as they choose. Submissions should clearly indicate which questions are being addressed. The Strategy will be developed by an interagency working group under SOST that is co-led by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, in partnership with the Smithsonian Institution and other federal agencies. The working group seeks input from Tribal Nations, local, State, federal and Territorial governments, the private sector, academia, non-governmental organizations, a wide range of stakeholders, and the public on high-level goals and how to achieve them in the following areas:
• What are the most pressing topics and considerations for the National Ocean Biodiversity Strategy to address?
• What actions can federal agencies take to facilitate the harmonization of ocean biodiversity investments and policy to ensure benefits across all sectors?
• What are the priority needs and most promising approaches in science and technology to provide useful information on ocean biodiversity (species, genetic lineages, habitats, ecosystems) and the ecosystem processes and services they support?
• How can we best align the efforts of knowledge holders with the needs of knowledge users?
• How can ocean biodiversity data be made more usable and available? Which existing mechanisms or repositories could be leveraged?
• How could public and private partnerships be developed or enhanced to explore and characterize ocean life, which existing partnerships could be leveraged, and how might opportunities for participation by diverse parties in such partnerships be maximized?
• What are the key needs for training and education to improve broad knowledge and stewardship of ocean life?
• How could the public be engaged in developing and implementing improved understanding and stewardship of ocean life?
• Is there anything else you would like to be considered in the development of the National Ocean Biodiversity Strategy?
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
To register for in-person attendance or for virtual meeting attendees to receive the Zoom link, please send your request to the following email:
National Transportation Safety Board.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given of the appointment of members of the National Transportation Safety Board, Performance Review Board (PRB).
Anh Bolles, Executive Resources Manager, Human Capital Management and Training, National Transportation Safety Board, 490 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20594-0001, (202) 314-6355.
Section 4314(c)(1) through (5) of title 5, United States Code requires each agency to establish, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Office of Personnel Management, one or more SES Performance Review Boards (PRB). The board reviews and evaluates the initial appraisal of a senior executive's performance by the supervisor and considers recommendations to the appointing authority regarding the performance of the senior executive.
The following have been designated as members of the 2022 Performance Review Board of the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB):
Ms. Veronica Marshall, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of Human Capital Management and Training, National Transportation Safety Board, PRB Chair.
Mr. Morgan Turrell, Director, Office of Marine Safety, National Transportation Safety Board.
Mr. Akbar Sultan, Director, Airspace Operations and Safety Program, National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Ms. Kathryn Catania, Deputy Director, Office of Safety Recommendations and Communications, National Transportation Safety Board (alternate member to review the evaluations of SES members serving on this PRB).
4:00 p.m., Wednesday, November 29, 2023.
1255 Union Street NW, Suite 500, Washington, DC 20002.
Part of this meeting will be open to the public. The rest of this meeting will be closed to the public.
Audit Committee Board of Directors meeting.
The Interim General Counsel of the Corporation has certified that in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(2) permit the closure of the following portion(s) of this meeting:
• Executive (Closed) Session
Jenna Sylvester, Paralegal, (202) 568-2560;
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 3, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 3, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 3, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 31, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 2, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on October 30, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 2, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 2, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 2, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Postal Service
Notice.
The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.
Sean Robinson, 202-268-8405.
The United States Postal Service® hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on November 1, 2023, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a
Railroad Retirement Board.
Notice.
As required by the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (Act), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) hereby publishes its notice for calendar year 2024 of account balances, factors used in calculating experience-based employer contribution rates, computation of amounts related to the
The balance in notice (1) and the determinations made in notices (3) through (7) are based on data as of June 30, 2023. The balance in notice (2) is based on data as of September 30, 2023. The determinations made in notices (5) through (7) apply to the calculation, under section 8(a)(1)(C) of the Act, of employer contribution rates for 2024. The determinations made in notices (8) through (11) are effective January 1, 2024. The determination made in notice (12) is effective for registration periods beginning after June 30, 2024.
Secretary to the Board, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 N Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275.
Sheryl Enders, Bureau of the Actuary and Research, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 N Rush Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611-1275, telephone (312) 751-4729.
The RRB is required by section 8(c)(1) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (45 U.S.C. 358(c)(1)) as amended by Public Law 100-647, to proclaim by October 15 of each year certain system-wide factors used in calculating experience-based employer contribution rates for the following year. The RRB is further required by section 8(c)(2) of the Act (45 U.S.C. 358(c)(2)) to publish the amounts so determined and proclaimed. The RRB is required by section 12(r)(3) of the Act (45 U.S.C. 362(r)(3)) to publish by December 11, 2023, the computation of the calendar year 2024 monthly compensation base (section 1(i) of the Act) and amounts described in sections 1(k), 2(c), 3 and 4(a-2)(i)(A) of the Act which are related to changes in the monthly compensation base. Also, the RRB is required to publish, by June 11, 2024, the maximum daily benefit rate under section 2(a)(3) of the Act for days of unemployment and days of sickness in registration periods beginning after June 30, 2024.
Pursuant to section 8(c)(2) and section 12(r)(3) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (Act) (45 U.S.C. 358(c)(2) and 45 U.S.C. 362(r)(3), respectively), the Board gives notice of the following:
1. The accrual balance of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance (RUI) Account, as of June 30, 2023, is $363,050,002.39;
2. The September 30, 2023, balance of any new loans to the RUI Account, including accrued interest, is zero;
3. The system compensation base is $4,152,337,222.44 as of June 30, 2023;
4. The cumulative system unallocated charge balance is ($476,329,911.37) as of June 30, 2023;
5. The pooled credit ratio for calendar year 2024 is zero;
6. The pooled charged ratio for calendar year 2024 is zero;
7. The surcharge rate for calendar year 2024 is zero;
8. The monthly compensation base under section 1(i) of the Act is $1,985 for months in calendar year 2024;
9. The amount described in sections 1(k) and 3 of the Act as “2.5 times the monthly compensation base” is $4,962.50 for base year (calendar year) 2024;
10. The amount described in section 4(a-2)(i)(A) of the Act as “2.5 times the monthly compensation base” is $4,962.50 with respect to disqualifications ending in calendar year 2024;
11. The amount described in section 2(c) of the Act as “an amount that bears the same ratio to $775 as the monthly compensation base for that year as computed under section 1(i) of this Act bears to $600” is $2,564 for months in calendar year 2024;
12. The maximum daily benefit rate under section 2(a)(3) of the Act is $94 with respect to days of unemployment and days of sickness in registration periods beginning after June 30, 2024.
A surcharge is added in the calculation of each employer's contribution rate, subject to the applicable maximum rate, for a calendar year whenever the balance to the credit of the RUI Account on the preceding June 30 is less than the greater of $100 million or the amount that bears the same ratio to $100 million as the system compensation base for that June 30 bears to the system compensation base as of June 30, 1991. If the RUI Account balance is less than $100 million (as indexed), but at least $50 million (as indexed), the surcharge will be 1.5 percent. If the RUI Account balance is less than $50 million (as indexed), but greater than zero, the surcharge will be 2.5 percent. The maximum surcharge of 3.5 percent applies if the RUI Account balance is less than zero.
The ratio of the June 30, 2023 system compensation base of $4,152,337,222.44 to the June 30, 1991 system compensation base of $2,763,287,237.04 is 1.50268027. Multiplying 1.50268027 by $100 million yields $150,268,027.00. Multiplying $50 million by 1.50268027 produces $75,134,013.50. The Account balance on June 30, 2023, was $363,050,002.39. Accordingly, the surcharge rate for calendar year 2024 is zero.
For years after 1988, section 1(i) of the Act contains a formula for determining the monthly compensation base. Under the prescribed formula, the monthly compensation base increases by approximately two-thirds of the cumulative growth in average national wages since 1984. The monthly compensation base for months in calendar year 2024 shall be equal to the greater of (a) $600 or (b) $600 [1 + {(A−37,800)/56,700}], where A equals the amount of the applicable base with respect to tier 1 taxes for 2024 under section 3231(e)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Section 1(i) further provides that if the amount so determined is not a multiple of $5, it shall be rounded to the nearest multiple of $5.
Using the calendar year 2024 tier 1 tax base of $168,600 for A above produces the amount of $1,984.13, which must then be rounded to $1,985. Accordingly, the monthly compensation base is determined to be $1,985 for months in calendar year 2024.
For years after 1988, sections 1(k), 3, 4(a-2)(i)(A) and 2(c) of the Act contain formulas for determining amounts related to the monthly compensation base.
Under section 1(k), remuneration earned from employment covered under the Act cannot be considered subsidiary remuneration if the employee's base year compensation is less than 2.5 times the monthly compensation base for months in such base year. Under section 3, an employee shall be a “qualified employee” if his/her base year compensation is not less than 2.5 times the monthly compensation base for months in such base year. Under section 4(a-2)(i)(A), an employee who leaves work voluntarily without good cause is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits until he has been paid compensation of not less than 2.5 times the monthly compensation base for months in the calendar year in which the disqualification ends.
Multiplying 2.5 by the calendar year 2024 monthly compensation base of $1,985 produces $4,962.50. Accordingly, the amount determined under sections 1(k), 3 and 4(a-2)(i)(A) is $4,962.50 for calendar year 2024.
Under section 2(c), the maximum amount of normal benefits paid for days of unemployment within a benefit year and the maximum amount of normal
The calendar year 2024 monthly compensation base is $1,985. The ratio of $1,985 to $600 is 3.30833333. Multiplying 3.30833333 by $775 produces $2,564. Accordingly, the amount determined under section 2(c) is $2,564 for months in calendar year 2024.
Section 2(a)(3) contains a formula for determining the maximum daily benefit rate for registration periods beginning after June 30, 1989, and after each June 30 thereafter. Legislation enacted on October 9, 1996, revised the formula for indexing maximum daily benefit rates. Under the prescribed formula, the maximum daily benefit rate increases by approximately two-thirds of the cumulative growth in average national wages since 1984. The maximum daily benefit rate for registration periods beginning after June 30, 2024, shall be equal to 5 percent of the monthly compensation base for the base year immediately preceding the beginning of the benefit year. Section 2(a)(3) further provides that if the amount so computed is not a multiple of $1, it shall be rounded down to the nearest multiple of $1.
The calendar year 2023 monthly compensation base is $1,895. Multiplying $1,895 by 0.05 yields $94.75. Accordingly, the maximum daily benefit rate for days of unemployment and days of sickness beginning in registration periods after June 30, 2024, is determined to be $94.
By Authority of the Board.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 935NY (Order Exposure Requirements) to include reference to Rule 971.1NYP (Single-Leg Electronic Cross Transactions) to exempt orders submitted to the Customer Best Execution (“CUBE”) Auction on Pillar from the order exposure requirements. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 935NY (Order Exposure Requirements) to include reference to the recently-adopted Rule 971.1NYP (Single-Leg Electronic Cross Transactions) to exempt orders submitted to the CUBE Auction on Pillar from the order exposure requirements.
Rule 971.1NY describes the CUBE Auction, which is an electronic crossing mechanism for single-leg orders with a price improvement auction on the Exchange (the “CUBE”).
In connection with the Exchange's migration to the Pillar trading platform, which began on October 23, 2023, the Exchange adopted Rule 971.1NYP to describe the operation of the CUBE on Pillar (the “Pillar CUBE”).
Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it would be consistent with the Act to exempt orders submitted to Pillar CUBE from the one-second order exposure requirement.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange believes that adding a cross-reference to newly-adopted Rule 971.1NYP and thus extending the exe4mption from the one-second order exposure requirement set forth in Rule 935NY to include the Pillar CUBE would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system. Pillar CUBE was adopted in connection with the Exchange's migration to the Pillar trading platform and offers features that are substantively identical to the existing CUBE Auction. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that it would promote just and equitable principles of trade to exempt orders submitted to Pillar CUBE from the one-second order exposure requirement, particularly because this would result in consistent treatment of CUBE Orders whether submitted to the existing CUBE or to Pillar CUBE. Like the existing CUBE Auction, Pillar CUBE provides ATP Holders a minimum of 100 milliseconds to respond to CUBE Orders, which should promote timely executions, while ensuring adequate exposure of Pillar CUBE Orders.
In addition, the proposed rule change would promote clarity and transparency of which rules would be eligible for the exception specified in Rule 935NY. Finally, adding the reference to Pillar CUBE would promote internal consistency in Exchange rules and would ensure that CUBE Orders submitted to Pillar CUBE are afforded the same treatment as CUBE Orders submitted to the existing CUBE.
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 does not believe that its proposed rule change will impose any burden on intra-market competition because any User on the Exchange may utilize Pillar CUBE and all orders submitted to Pillar CUBE would be treated in the same manner for purposes of Rule 935NY (
The Exchange does not believe that its proposed rule change will impose any burden on inter-market competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because other options exchanges are free to adopt (if they haven't already done so) electronic crossing mechanisms with price improvement auctions and to seek to have orders submitted to such mechanisms exempt from order exposure requirements.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to 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) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Commission finds that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to waive the 30-day operative delay. Exchange Rule 935NY currently allows Users to utilize the CUBE Auction to satisfy the requirement in Exchange Rule 935NY that a User expose an agency order on the Exchange for at least one second before trading with the agency order as principal. The proposal would amend Exchange Rule 935NY to allow Users to utilize the Pillar CUBE Auction in Exchange Rule 971.1NYP for the same purpose. As discussed above, the Exchange states that the Pillar CUBE Auction offers features that are substantively identical to the existing CUBE Auction. The Commission believes that the proposal does not raise new or novel regulatory issues and that waiver of the operative delay will allow the Exchange to immediately provide consistent treatment, for purposes of Exchange Rule 935NY, of agency orders submitted to the CUBE and the Pillar CUBE Auctions. Accordingly, the Commission waives the 30-day operative delay and designates the proposal operative upon filing.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.37-E to specify the Exchange's source of data feeds from MIAX PEARL LLC (“MIAX PEARL”) for purposes of order handling, order execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update and amend the use of data feeds table in
The Exchange proposes to make this change operative in the fourth quarter of 2023, and, in any event, before December 31, 2023.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes its proposal to update the table in Rule 7.37-E(d) to include the MIAX PEARL direct feed will ensure that the Rule correctly identifies and publicly states on a market-by-market basis all of the specific SIP and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks for each of those functions. The proposed rule change also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors and the public interest by providing additional specificity, clarity, and transparency in the Exchange's rules.
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. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition because providing the public and market participants with up-to-date information about the data feeds the Exchange will use for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, as well as for regulatory compliance would enhance transparency and enable investors to better assess the quality of the Exchange's execution and routing services. The Exchange also believes the proposal would enhance competition because it would potentially enhance the performance of its order handling and execution of orders in equity securities by receiving market data directly from MIAX PEARL. Finally, the proposed rule change would not impact competition between market participants because it will affect all market participants equally.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.37 to specify the Exchange's source of data feeds from MIAX PEARL LLC (“MIAX PEARL”) for purposes of order handling, order execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update and amend the use of data feeds table in Rule 7.37(d), which sets forth on a market-by-market basis the specific securities information processor (“SIP”) and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks related to each of those functions. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the table in Rule 7.37(d) to specify that, with respect to MIAX PEARL, the Exchange will receive a MIAX PEARL direct feed as its primary source of data for order handling, order execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance, and will use the SIP Data Feed as its secondary source for data from MIAX PEARL.
The Exchange proposes to make this change operative in the fourth quarter of 2023, and, in any event, before December 31, 2023.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes its proposal to update the table in Rule 7.37(d) to include the MIAX PEARL direct feed will ensure that the Rule correctly identifies and publicly states on a market-by-market basis all of the specific SIP and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks for each of those functions. The proposed rule change also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors and the public interest by providing additional specificity, clarity, and transparency in the Exchange's rules.
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. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition because providing the public and market participants with up-to-date information about the data feeds the Exchange will use for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, as well as for regulatory compliance would enhance transparency and enable investors to better assess the quality of the Exchange's execution and routing services. The Exchange also believes the proposal would enhance competition because it would potentially enhance the performance of its order handling and execution of orders in equity securities by receiving market data directly from MIAX PEARL. Finally, the proposed rule change would not impact competition between market participants because it will affect all market participants equally.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to Section
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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.37 to specify the Exchange's source of data feeds from MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX PEARL”) for purposes of order handling, order execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update and amend the use of data feeds table in Rule 7.37(e), which sets forth on a market-by-market basis the specific securities information processor (“SIP”) and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks related to each of those functions. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the table in Rule 7.37(e) to specify that, with respect to MIAX PEARL, the Exchange will receive a MIAX PEARL direct feed as its primary source of data for order handling, order execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance, and will use the SIP Data Feed as its secondary source for data from MIAX PEARL.
The Exchange proposes to make this change operative in the fourth quarter of 2023, and, in any event, before December 31, 2023.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes its proposal to update the table in Rule 7.37(e) to include the MIAX PEARL direct feed will ensure that the Rule correctly identifies and publicly states on a market-by-market basis all of the specific SIP and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks for each of those functions. The proposed rule change also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors and the public interest by providing additional specificity, clarity, and transparency in the Exchange's rules.
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. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition because providing the public and market participants with up-to-date information about the data feeds the Exchange will use for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, as well as for regulatory compliance would enhance transparency and enable investors to better assess the quality of the Exchange's execution and routing services. The Exchange also believes the proposal would enhance competition because it would potentially enhance the performance of its order handling and execution of orders in equity securities by receiving market data directly from MIAX PEARL. Finally, the proposed rule change would not impact competition between market participants because it will affect all market participants equally.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 7.37E to specify the Exchange's source of data feeds from MIAX PEARL, LLC (“MIAX PEARL”) for purposes of order handling, order execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update and amend the use of data feeds table in Rule 7.37E(d), which sets forth on a market-by-market basis the specific securities information processor (“SIP”) and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks related to each of those functions. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to amend the table in Rule 7.37E(d) to specify that, with respect to MIAX PEARL, the Exchange will receive a MIAX PEARL direct feed as its primary source of data for order handling, order execution, order routing, and regulatory compliance, and will use the SIP Data Feed as its secondary source for data from MIAX PEARL.
The Exchange proposes to make this change operative in the fourth quarter of 2023, and, in any event, before December 31, 2023.
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes its proposal to update the table in Rule 7.37E(d) to include the MIAX PEARL direct feed will ensure that the Rule correctly identifies and publicly states on a market-by-market basis all of the specific SIP and proprietary data feeds that the Exchange utilizes for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, and for performing the regulatory compliance checks for each of those functions. The proposed rule change also removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and protects investors and the public interest by providing additional specificity, clarity, and transparency in the Exchange's rules.
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. Rather, the Exchange believes that the proposal will enhance competition because providing the public and market participants with up-to-date information about the data feeds the Exchange will use for the handling, execution, and routing of orders, as well as for regulatory compliance would enhance transparency and enable investors to better assess the quality of the Exchange's execution and routing services. The Exchange also believes the proposal would enhance competition because it would potentially enhance the performance of its order handling and execution of orders in equity securities by receiving market data directly from MIAX PEARL. Finally, the proposed rule change would not impact competition between market participants because it will affect all market participants equally.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change 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 under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”),
FINRA is proposing to adopt (1) FINRA Interpretive Material 1013-3 (“IM-1013-3”) that would set forth a short-form membership application process for firms that apply for FINRA membership due to the amendments to Exchange Act Rule 15b9-1,
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On August 23, 2023, the Commission adopted amendments to Exchange Act Rule 15b9-1 that narrowed the exemption from membership in a registered national securities association (“Association”) for certain SEC-registered brokers or dealers that effect securities transactions other than on a national securities exchange of which they are a member.
An entity seeking to become a new FINRA member firm must undergo an application process that typically begins by filing Form NMA (Application for New Membership) with FINRA in accordance with Rule 1013.
In lieu of completing Form NMA and the other requirements under Rule 1013, including the new membership interview, proposed IM-1013-3 would allow an Eligible Firm to undergo a new membership application process that would permit completing a short-form application. An Eligible Firm would otherwise remain subject to all applicable FINRA rules, including the provisions of the FINRA Rule 1000 Series (Membership Application and Associated Person Registration).
FINRA recognizes that Eligible Firms have already undergone a membership application and review process with at least one national securities exchange to determine whether these firms were fit for membership. In addition, FINRA currently has substantial information about and experience with these firms and therefore is familiar with their businesses and associated risks (
Nonetheless, depending on particular facts and circumstances, FINRA may find it necessary to obtain additional information to evaluate an Eligible Firm for membership. To that end, proposed IM-1013-3 would provide that FINRA, in the public interest and for the protection of investors, may require an Eligible Firm to provide FINRA with additional information or documents or meet any other requirement pursuant to Rule 1013, or to apply for membership pursuant to the full application and interview process under Rule 1013.
Proposed IM-1013-3 would also require an Eligible Firm to submit the
As stated above, the fee for an application for new membership, submitted through Form NMA, is typically subject to the fee structure set forth under Section 4(e) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws.
FINRA has filed the proposed rule change for immediate effectiveness. FINRA will announce the implementation date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
As discussed above, as a result of amendments to Exchange Act Rule 15b9-1, certain SEC-registered brokers or dealers that effect securities transactions other than on a national securities exchange of which they are a member will no longer qualify for an exemption from Association membership. FINRA understands that as a result, approximately 62 firms may seek to become FINRA members by the compliance date of amended Exchange Act Rule 15b9-1.
The proposed rule change to implement the short-form membership application process would allow FINRA to review membership applications from Eligible Firms efficiently while maintaining investor protection. The partial membership application fee waiver is aligned with the proposed short-form membership application process and the related streamlined review process.
The economic baseline for the proposed rule change includes the full application and interview process provided in Rule 1013, the membership application fee set forth in Section 4(e) of Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws, and the recent amendments to Exchange Act Rule 15b9-1. FINRA understands that approximately 62 firms may seek to become FINRA members by the compliance date for amended Exchange Act Rule 15b9-1.
Eligible Firms that successfully become FINRA members through the short-form membership application process would benefit from financial and non-financial cost savings given that these firms would not be required to provide documents and other information that are required under the full application and interview process. Eligible Firms would also receive a financial benefit from paying only one-half of the membership application fee. Becoming FINRA members more quickly would also resolve earlier any uncertainty firms may have about being able to join FINRA by the Commission's compliance date for its amendments to Exchange Act Rule 15b9-1.
Relative to the baseline, FINRA anticipates little or no additional risks to market integrity or investors. FINRA will obtain additional information or documents or require a firm to go through the regular NMA process if such is in the public interest and for the protection of investors. A firm that seeks to materially expand or change its business operations when applying would be required to apply for FINRA membership pursuant to all requirements under Rule 1013. A firm that is approved for FINRA membership and subsequently contemplates a business expansion to include activities beyond the scope underlying the new membership approval or a material change in business operations would be required to apply for approval for a change in business operations pursuant to Rule 1017 and be subject to the appropriate fee pursuant to Schedule A to the FINRA By-Laws.
Relative to the baseline in which Eligible Firms would go through the full application and interview process and pay the full membership application fee, FINRA anticipates minimal competitive effects, if any. A streamlined membership application process for Eligible Firms would provide them certainty that they will be able to continue their business in compliance with amended Exchange Act Rule 15b9-1. Such certainty would mitigate any concerns regarding their ability to compete in the security markets without interruption.
In addition, Eligible Firms that successfully become FINRA members through the short-form membership application process would retain the resources that they would have otherwise spent on the full application and interview process and would pay only one-half of the membership application fee. These firms may use these resources for operational or investment purposes. Regarding the membership application fee, however, FINRA anticipates that the median amount waived would be $6,250.
FINRA considered charging the full membership application fee for Eligible Firms. However, FINRA believes a partial membership application fee waiver is appropriate because, as stated above, FINRA would not need to obtain the same amount of information from an Eligible Firm applicant or dedicate the same resources to evaluate such applicant as it would for a typical new applicant because FINRA is able to leverage the substantial information about and experience with these firms gained by virtue of the regulatory services FINRA provides pursuant to the RSAs with the national securities exchanges of which the Eligible Firms are members.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days after the date of the filing, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to (1) amend FINRA Rules 6710 and 6750 to provide that FINRA will disseminate information on individual transactions in U.S. Treasury Securities that are On-the-Run Nominal Coupons reported to FINRA's Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine (“TRACE”) on an end-of-day basis with specified dissemination caps for large trades, and (2) amend FINRA Rule 7730 to include U.S. Treasury Securities within the existing fee structure for end-of-day and historic TRACE data.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On July 10, 2017,
Since the commencement of TRACE reporting for U.S. Treasury Securities, FINRA has actively studied the reported data and, in consultation with the Treasury Department, considered ways that it can enhance transparency in the U.S. Treasury Security market. On March 10, 2020, FINRA began posting on its website weekly, aggregate data on the trading volume of U.S. Treasury Securities reported to TRACE.
In remarks at the 2022 U.S. Treasury Market Conference,
Consistent with the Treasury Department's proposed policy, and in furtherance of FINRA's mission as a national securities association to protect investors and promote market integrity, FINRA believes that providing transaction-level information for trades in On-the-Run Nominal Coupons, with end-of-day dissemination and appropriate cap sizes, is an appropriate next step to increase transparency in transactions in U.S. Treasury Securities. Accordingly, as described in more detail below and in consultation with the Treasury Department, FINRA is proposing to commence dissemination of individual transaction information at this time for On-the-Run Nominal Coupons,
Under Rule 6750(a), FINRA disseminates information on all transactions in TRACE-Eligible Securities,
Under the proposed rule change, FINRA would begin disseminating individual transaction information for On-the-Run Nominal Coupon U.S. Treasury Securities on an end-of-day basis. As for all individual TRACE transaction information that FINRA
To provide clarity regarding the scope of transactions in U.S. Treasury Securities that would be subject to individual dissemination under amended Rule 6750, FINRA is proposing to add a definition of “On-the-Run Nominal Coupon” as new paragraph (ll) of Rule 6710 (Definitions).
As described above, under the proposed rule change all individual transactions in On-the-Run Nominal Coupons reported to TRACE on a given trading day would generally be included in the end-of-day dissemination file for such date. However, to further mitigate concerns around information leakage for large trades and in consideration of the different risk and liquidity characteristics among different U.S. Treasury Security tenors, FINRA would implement transaction size dissemination caps to indicate that the size of a trade was above a designated threshold. This approach is consistent with the Treasury Department's proposed policy as well as FINRA's existing dissemination protocols for other types of TRACE-Eligible Securities.
Accordingly, in consultation with the Treasury Department, FINRA proposes to apply the following transaction size dissemination caps based on the maturity of the On-the-Run Nominal Coupon at issuance:
• Two Years: $250 million;
• Three Years: $250 million;
• Five Years: $250 million;
• Seven Years: $150 million;
• 10 Years: $150 million;
• 20 Years: $50 million; and
• 30 Years: $50 million.
Thus, for example, a $200 million transaction in a 10-year On-the-Run
FINRA is also proposing amendments to Rule 7730 (Trade Reporting and Compliance Engine) to expand the existing fee framework for the TRACE End-of-Day Transaction File and the Historic TRACE Data product to include data products providing for the dissemination of information on individual transactions in On-the-Run Nominal Coupons. Rule 7730, among other things, sets forth the TRACE data products offered by FINRA in connection with information on TRACE-Eligible Securities and associated data fees.
Among other products, Rule 7730 provides for the dissemination of an End-of-Day TRACE Transaction File and Historic TRACE Data. Rule 7730(g)(6) defines the End-of-Day TRACE Transaction File to mean a daily file that includes all transaction data disseminated as part of Real-Time TRACE transaction data on that day, which is separately available for each data set for which Real-Time TRACE transaction data is available (
Rule 7730 sets forth, among other things, the fees applicable to receive the End-of-Day TRACE Transaction File and Historic TRACE Data from FINRA, which apply individually for each data set (
FINRA is proposing that the End-of-Day TRACE Transaction File and Historic Data include a new set of data for U.S. Treasury Securities, as outlined above, with the same fees for the Treasury data set that exist for other sets of TRACE-Eligible Securities. To effectuate these changes, under the proposed rule change, FINRA would amend the existing definition of “End-of-Day TRACE Transaction File” in Rule 7730(g)(6) to include the End-of-Day Transaction File for U.S. Treasury Securities as a separately available daily file that includes transaction data for On-the-Run Nominal Coupons reported to TRACE on that day.
FINRA has an expansive and robust regulatory program regarding U.S. Treasury Securities, involving TRACE reporting requirements; dissemination of aggregate data and, if this filing is approved, dissemination of individual transaction data; surveillance and examination for complete and accurate reporting; and surveillance, examinations, and enforcement for manipulation and other unfair and prohibited trading practices, both in the U.S. Treasury Security market and across markets and products. FINRA to date has not implemented any additional fees to recover its implementation or ongoing operation costs with respect to its regulatory programs concerning activity in U.S. Treasury Securities.
If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(5) of the Act,
Thus, FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is in the public interest and consistent with the Act.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment, as set forth below, to further analyze the regulatory need for the proposed amendments to the TRACE rules, their potential economic impacts, and the alternatives considered in assessing how to best meet FINRA's regulatory objectives.
Under existing rules, transaction-level data in U.S. Treasury Securities reported to TRACE is used for regulatory and other official sector purposes and is not publicly disseminated.
FINRA believes that the proposed amendments relating to dissemination of individual transaction information for U.S. Treasury Securities are consistent with FINRA's ongoing TRACE transparency initiatives. The proposal may create a more level playing field, increase understanding of market activity, enhance market liquidity, reduce transaction costs, and assist in price efficiency and valuation.
FINRA analyzed secondary market activity in U.S. Treasury Securities from September 1, 2022, to February 28, 2023 using transactions reported to TRACE.
Further analysis of the data shows that the average daily number of trades and average daily dollar volume of On-the-Run Nominal Coupons were approximately 166,240 and $392.80 billion respectively which were substantially higher than the number and volume of trades in off-the-run nominal coupons (approximately 68,079 and $150.18 billion respectively).
Table 2 provides more detail regarding the trades in the On-the-Run Nominal Coupons that are subject to the proposed amendments. On-the-Run Nominal Coupons on average accounted for approximately 55 percent of the total daily number of trades and 53.7 percent of the total daily volume of trades in U.S. Treasury Securities during the sample period.
Given the unique and fundamental role of the U.S. Treasury Securities market in the global economy, promoting the market's liquidity, efficient functioning, and resilience in times of stress is crucial both to Treasury market participants and the broader financial system.
The following sections outline the potential benefits and costs of the proposed dissemination of end-of-day and historical transaction-level information for On-the-Run Nominal Coupons, with appropriate dissemination caps for large trades. The discussion is informed by the public comments submitted in response to the Treasury Department's RFI,
While the RFI and survey respondents expressed mixed opinions on the impact of increased transparency on market liquidity and resilience, they broadly supported a gradual and calibrated approach to providing additional transparency in the Treasury Security market.
The academic literature also provides insights on the effects of post-trade transparency in other fixed income markets and investigates the effect of transparency on price discovery, market liquidity, and the welfare of different classes of market participants. Several studies found that the transparency following the initiation of TRACE resulted in substantially lower trading costs and bid-ask spreads in the corporate bond market, not only for bonds whose trades were disseminated, but for other bonds as well.
FINRA believes that end-of-day public dissemination of transaction information on On-the-Run Nominal Coupons, as described above, would similarly benefit market participants by providing access to a single-source, comprehensive data set, subject to the proposed fees. The availability of this information, together with the historic TRACE data product for U.S. Treasury Securities, may also prompt further research and facilitate a better understanding of the U.S. Treasury Securities market, ultimately benefiting investors and other market participants and providing insight into how to better support the resiliency of the U.S. Treasury Securities market in times of stress.
Market participants (and dealers in particular) expressed a concern in response to the Treasury Department's RFI and Sia Partners/SIFMA survey that releasing transaction details could potentially expose trading strategies or
The academic papers and industry reports that studied the impacts of post-trade transparency in other markets have found evidence of dealers' reluctance to carry inventory in the disseminated securities and moving flow to alternative markets.
Accordingly, the proposed rule change incorporates multiple mitigants, developed in consultation with the Treasury Department, to address these concerns. First, the scope of the proposed rule change is limited to only transactions in On-the-Run Nominal Coupons, which are highly liquid. Second, delayed, end-of-day dissemination would further protect market participants against information leakage. Third, FINRA has conducted careful analysis and consulted with Treasury to specify appropriate transaction size dissemination caps calibrated to the maturity, liquidity and trading concentration in the underlying security to preserve the anonymity of market participants trading large transactions. In setting the proposed transaction size dissemination caps, FINRA considered both the percentage of traded market volume that would be disseminated (versus reported) across each maturity along with the daily number of unique intermediaries trading each security at or above the cap size for each maturity. This approach balances providing similar levels of transparency across maturities with sensitivity to information leakage concerns regarding reverse engineering of other market participants' identities, positions, or trading strategies. In this regard, FINRA analyzed the concentration of dealer activity and market liquidity in trades above various cap sizes in each specific Treasury maturity.
The proposed dissemination caps would—across all maturities—result in 0.09 percent of transactions being capped. Specifically, for the two-year, three-year, and five-year notes (which would be subject to a $250 million dollar cap), 0.08 percent, 0.08 percent, and 0.03 percent of transactions, respectively, would be capped upon dissemination (
There is no anticipated operational impact on member firms as a result of FINRA's proposed end-of-day and historical dissemination of On-the-Run Nominal Coupon data, as reporting requirements will remain unchanged. As noted above, the disseminated data would be available to market participants for a fee. The proposed fees for the Treasury data set are the same as those that exist for other types of TRACE-Eligible Securities. FINRA does not anticipate any negative competitive effects as a result of the proposed fees. The proposed end-of-day and historical dissemination of transactions in On-the-Run Nominal Coupon U.S. Treasury Securities, subject to their related fees, will provide an option for all market participants, including smaller firms, to access post-trade transparency in the U.S. Treasury Securities market at a reasonable cost. Some market participants may choose to access the data indirectly through their data vendors as the vendors may externally display the data.
FINRA, in consultation with the Treasury Department, considered several alternatives with respect to the scope of the Treasury Securities that would be subject to dissemination under the proposed rule change, dissemination timeframes, and transaction size dissemination caps.
Regarding the scope of the U.S. Treasury Securities proposed to be subject to dissemination, FINRA considered including off-the-run and other types of U.S. Treasury Securities. However, since On-the-Run Nominal Coupons are both highly liquid and represent a significant portion of the Treasury Securities volume, FINRA believes that disseminating transaction-level data for On-the-Run Nominal Coupons would improve Treasury Securities market transparency with limited risk for market participants. The RFI and survey respondents' concerns regarding the potential impact of disseminating transaction data on their ability to manage their inventory risk were more pronounced for the less-liquid segments of the market, such as off-the-run U.S. Treasury Securities.
FINRA also considered real-time and less delayed dissemination of transaction level data as potential dissemination timeframe alternatives. However, weighing the potential benefits of providing the market with more timely data against concerns about protecting the confidentiality of market participants' positions and trading strategies, FINRA believes that, on balance, end-of-day dissemination will prudently balance the timeliness of transparency and concerns regarding potential negative impacts. End-of-day dissemination will provide FINRA and others the ability to research the proposed rule change's impact.
FINRA considered setting a single transaction size dissemination cap applicable to all transactions in On-the-Run Nominal Coupons. However, since liquidity and trading volume varies across U.S. Treasury Securities with different maturities, FINRA, in consultation with the Treasury Department, determined that it is appropriate to propose dissemination caps that are calibrated to the maturity, liquidity, interest rate sensitivity, and trading concentration of the underlying U.S. Treasury Security.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order (“Order”) under sections 17(d) and 57(i) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) and rule 17d-1 under the Act to permit certain joint transactions otherwise prohibited by sections 17(d) and 57(a)(4) of the Act and rule 17d-1 under the Act.
Applicants request an order to amend a previous order granted by the Commission that permits certain business development companies (“BDCs”) and closed-end management investment companies to co-invest in portfolio companies with each other and with certain affiliated investment entities.
Kayne Anderson Energy Infrastructure Fund, Inc., Kayne Anderson Nextgen Energy & Infrastructure, Inc., Kayne Anderson BDC, Inc., Kayne DL 2021, Inc., Kayne Anderson Capital Income Partners (QP), L.P., Kayne Anderson Infrastructure Income Fund, L.P., Kayne Anderson Midstream Institutional Fund, L.P., Kayne Anderson MLP Fund, L.P., Kayne Equity Yield Strategies, L.P., Kayne Simplified Midstream, L.P., Kayne Senior Credit Fund III, L.P., Kayne Senior Credit III Offshore Fund, L.P., Kayne Liquid Credit Fund, L.P., KA Credit Advisors, LLC, KA Credit Advisors II, LLC, KA Fund Advisors, LLC, Kayne Anderson Capital Advisors, L.P., Kayne Anderson Fund Advisors, LLC, Kayne Senior Credit III Manager, L.P., Kayne Senior Credit Funding III, LLC, Kayne Senior Credit Funding III Offshore, LLC, Kayne Senior Credit III Mini-Master Fund, L.P., Kayne Senior Credit IV Manager, L.P., Kayne Senior Credit Fund IV, L.P., Kayne Senior Credit IV Mini-Master Fund, L.P., Kayne Senior Credit IV Offshore Fund, L.P.,
The application was filed on October 3, 2022, and amended on June 9, 2023, and August 10, 2023.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
The Commission:
Laura L. Solomon, Senior Counsel, or Kyle R. Ahlgren, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' second amended and restated application, dated August 10, 2023, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Notice of request for public comment and submission to OMB of proposed collection of information.
The Department of State has submitted the information collection described below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this Notice is to allow 30 days for public comment.
Submit comments up to December 11, 2023.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument and supporting documents, to Andrea Battista, who may be reached at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• 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.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC), located in the Political-Military Affairs Bureau of the Department of State, has the principal mission of licensing the export and temporary import of defense articles or defense services as enumerated in the United States Munitions List (USML), and to ensure that the sale, transfer, or brokering of such items are in the interest of United States national security and foreign policy. Sections 120.22 and 129.9 of the International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR) (22 CFR parts 120-130) may be used to request an advisory opinion or guidance on: whether DDTC would likely grant a license or other approval for the export of a particular defense article or defense service to a particular country (§ 120.22(a)); an interpretation of the requirements set forth in the regulations (§ 120.22(c)); whether an activity constitutes brokering within the scope of Part 129—Registration and Licensing of Brokers (§ 129.9(a)); or other guidance on other aspects of part 129 (§ 129.9(c)).
Any person may submit requests for advisory opinions to DDTC via mail to PM/DDTC, SA-1, 12th Floor, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls, Bureau of Political Military Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC 20522.
Advisory Opinion requests, however, are preferred and processed more quickly when electronically submitted via the Defense Export Control and Compliance System (DECCS). DECCS users are also able to retrieve responses using this same system. DDTC staff members have defined the data fields which are most relevant and necessary for requests for Advisory Opinions and developed the means to accept this information from the industry in the secure system in DECCS.
This information will be collected by mail or electronic submission to the Directorate of Defense Trade Controls.
Request for Information for the 2024 Trafficking in Persons Report.
The Department of State (“the Department”) requests written information to assist in reporting on the degree to which the United States and foreign governments meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons (“minimum standards”) that are prescribed by the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000, as amended (“TVPA”). This information will assist in the preparation of the Trafficking in Persons Report (“TIP Report”) that the Department submits annually to the U.S. Congress on governments' concrete actions to meet the minimum standards. Foreign governments that do not meet the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so may be subject to restrictions on nonhumanitarian, nontrade-related foreign assistance from the United States, as defined by the TVPA. Submissions must be made in writing to the Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons at the Department of State by February 1, 2024. Please refer to the
Submissions must be received by 5 p.m. EST on February 1, 2024.
Written submissions and supporting documentation may be submitted by the following method:
Submissions may include written narratives that answer the questions presented in this Notice, research, studies, statistics, fieldwork, training materials, evaluations, assessments, and other relevant evidence of local, state/provincial, and federal/central government efforts. To the extent possible, precise dates and numbers of officials or citizens affected should be included. Questions below seek to gather information and updates from the details provided and assessment on government efforts made in the 2023 TIP Report.
Furthermore, we request information on the government's treatment of “underserved communities,” including how the government may have systemically denied opportunities to a community to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life that has led to heighted risk to human trafficking or how the government's anti-trafficking response may have treated certain groups differently.
Written narratives providing factual information should provide citations of sources, and copies of and links to the source material should be provided. Please send electronic copies of the entire submission, including source material. If primary sources are used, such as research studies, interviews, direct observations, or other sources of quantitative or qualitative data, provide details on the research or data-gathering methodology and any supporting documentation. The Department only includes in the TIP Report information related to trafficking in persons as defined by the TVPA (Div. A, Pub. L. 106-386); it does not include, and is therefore not seeking, information on prostitution, migrant smuggling, visa fraud, or child abuse, unless such crimes also involve the elements of sex trafficking or forced labor.
• The recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, obtaining, patronizing, or soliciting of a person for the purpose of a commercial sex act that is induced by force, fraud, or coercion, or in which the person induced to perform such act has not attained 18 years of age.
○ Persons under age 18 in commercial sex are trafficking in persons victims regardless of whether force, fraud, or coercion were involved.
• The recruitment, harboring, transportation, provision, or obtaining
○ Forced labor may take the form of domestic servitude, forced begging, forced criminal activity (
• Children recruited or used as soldiers or for labor or services can be a severe form of human trafficking when the activity involves force, fraud, or coercion. Children may be victims regardless of gender.
The Department prepares the TIP Report with information from across the U.S. Government, foreign government officials, nongovernmental and international organizations, survivors of trafficking in persons, published reports, and research related to every region. The TIP Report focuses on concrete actions that governments take to fight trafficking in persons, including prosecutions, convictions, and sentences for traffickers, as well as victim identification and protection measures and prevention efforts. Each TIP Report narrative also includes prioritized recommendations for each country. These recommendations are used to assist the Department in measuring governments' progress from one year to the next and determining whether governments meet the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons or are making significant efforts to do so.
The TVPA creates a four-tier ranking system. Tier placement is based principally on the extent of concrete government action to combat trafficking. The Department first evaluates whether the government fully meets the TVPA's minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. Governments that do so are placed on Tier 1. For other governments, the Department considers the extent of such efforts. Governments that are making significant efforts to meet the minimum standards are placed on Tier 2. Governments that do not fully meet the minimum standards and are not making significant efforts to do so are placed on Tier 3. Finally, the Department considers Watch List criteria and, when applicable, places countries on the Tier 2 Watch List. For more information, the 2023 TIP Report can be found at
Since the inception of the TIP Report in 2001, the number of countries included and ranked has more than doubled; the 2023 TIP Report included 188 countries and territories. Around the world, the TIP Report and the promising practices reflected therein have inspired legislation, national action plans, policy implementation, program funding, protection mechanisms that complement prosecution efforts, and a stronger global understanding of this crime.
Since 2003, the primary reporting on the United States' anti-trafficking activities has been through the annual Attorney General's Report to Congress and Assessment of U.S. Government Activities to Combat Human Trafficking (“AG Report”) mandated by section 105 of the TVPA (22 U.S.C. 7103(d)(7)). Since 2010, the TIP Report, through a collaborative interagency process, has included an assessment of U.S. government anti-trafficking efforts in light of the minimum standards to eliminate trafficking in persons set forth by the TVPA.
The TVPA sets forth the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking in persons as follows:
(1) The government of the country should prohibit severe forms of trafficking in persons and punish acts of such trafficking.
(2) For the knowing commission of any act of sex trafficking involving force, fraud, coercion, or in which the victim of sex trafficking is a child incapable of giving meaningful consent, or of trafficking which includes rape or kidnapping or which causes a death, the government of the country should prescribe punishment commensurate with that for grave crimes, such as forcible sexual assault.
(3) For the knowing commission of any act of a severe form of trafficking in persons, the government of the country should prescribe punishment that is sufficiently stringent to deter and that adequately reflects the heinous nature of the offense.
(4) The government of the country should make serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons.
For purposes of (4) above, the following factors should be considered as indicia of serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons:
(1) Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates and prosecutes acts of severe forms of trafficking in persons, and convicts and sentences persons responsible for such acts, that take place wholly or partly within the territory of the country, including, as appropriate, requiring incarceration of individuals convicted of such acts. For purposes of the preceding sentence, suspended or significantly reduced sentences for convictions of principal actors in cases of severe forms of trafficking in persons shall be considered, on a case-by-case basis, whether to be considered an indicator of serious and sustained efforts to eliminate severe forms of trafficking in persons. After reasonable requests from the Department of State for data regarding investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences, a government which does not provide such data, consistent with a demonstrably increasing capacity of such government to obtain such data, shall be presumed not to have vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted or sentenced such acts.
(2) Whether the government of the country protects victims of severe forms of trafficking in persons and encourages their assistance in the investigation and prosecution of such trafficking, including provisions for legal alternatives to their removal to countries in which they would face retribution or hardship, and ensures that victims are not inappropriately incarcerated, fined, or otherwise penalized solely for unlawful acts as a direct result of being trafficked, including by providing training to law enforcement and immigration officials regarding the identification and treatment of trafficking victims using approaches that focus on the needs of the victims.
(3) Whether the government of the country has adopted measures to prevent severe forms of trafficking in persons, such as measures to inform and educate the public, including potential victims, about the causes and consequences of severe forms of trafficking in persons, measures to
(4) Whether the government of the country cooperates with other governments in the investigation and prosecution of severe forms of trafficking in persons and has entered into bilateral, multilateral, or regional law enforcement cooperation and coordination arrangements with other countries.
(5) Whether the government of the country extradites persons charged with acts of severe forms of trafficking in persons on substantially the same terms and to substantially the same extent as persons charged with other serious crimes (or, to the extent such extradition would be inconsistent with the laws of such country or with international agreements to which the country is a party, whether the government is taking all appropriate measures to modify or replace such laws and treaties so as to permit such extradition).
(6) Whether the government of the country monitors immigration and emigration patterns for evidence of severe forms of trafficking in persons and whether law enforcement agencies of the country respond to any such evidence in a manner that is consistent with the vigorous investigation and prosecution of acts of such trafficking, as well as with the protection of human rights of victims and the internationally recognized human right to leave any country, including one's own, and to return to one's own country.
(7) Whether the government of the country vigorously investigates, prosecutes, convicts, and sentences public officials, including diplomats and soldiers, who participate in or facilitate severe forms of trafficking in persons, including nationals of the country who are deployed abroad as part of a diplomatic, peacekeeping, or other similar mission who engage in or facilitate severe forms of trafficking in persons or exploit victims of such trafficking, and takes all appropriate measures against officials who condone or enable such trafficking. A government's failure to appropriately address public allegations against such public officials, especially once such officials have returned to their home countries, shall be considered inaction under these criteria. After reasonable requests from the Department of State for data regarding such investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentences, a government which does not provide such data, consistent with a demonstrably increasing capacity of such government to obtain such data, shall be presumed not to have vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted, or sentenced such acts.
(8) Whether the percentage of victims of severe forms of trafficking in the country that are non-citizens of such countries is insignificant.
(9) Whether the government has entered into effective, transparent partnerships, cooperative arrangements, or agreements that have resulted in concrete and measurable outcomes with—
(A) domestic civil society organizations, private sector entities, or international nongovernmental organizations, or into multilateral or regional arrangements or agreements, to assist the government's efforts to prevent trafficking, protect victims, and punish traffickers; or
(B) the United States toward agreed goals and objectives in the collective fight against trafficking.
(10) Whether the government of the country, consistent with the capacity of such government, systematically monitors its efforts to satisfy the criteria described in paragraphs (1) through (8) and makes available publicly a periodic assessment of such efforts.
(11) Whether the government of the country achieves appreciable progress in eliminating severe forms of trafficking when compared to the assessment in the previous year.
(12) Whether the government of the country has made serious and sustained efforts to reduce the demand for —
(A) commercial sex acts; and
(B) participation in international sex tourism by nationals of the country.
Submissions should include, but need not be limited to, answers to relevant questions below for which the submitter has direct professional experience. Citations to source material should also be provided. Note the country or countries that are the focus of the submission. Please see the
1. What were the government's major accomplishments in addressing human trafficking since April 1, 2023? In what significant ways have the government's efforts to combat trafficking in persons changed in the past year? How have new laws, regulations, policies, or implementation strategies (
2. Over the past year, what were the greatest deficiencies in the government's anti-trafficking efforts? What were the limitations on the government's ability to address human trafficking problems in practice?
3. Please provide additional information and/or recommendations to improve the government's anti-trafficking efforts overall.
4. Please highlight effective strategies and practices that other governments could consider adopting.
5. Please provide observations regarding the implementation of existing laws, policies, and procedures. Are there gaps in anti-trafficking legislation that could be amended to improve the government's response? Are there any government policies that have undermined or otherwise negatively affected anti-trafficking efforts within that country?
6. Do government officials understand the nature of all forms of trafficking? If not, please provide examples of misconceptions or misunderstandings. Did the government effectively provide or support anti-trafficking trainings for officials? If not, how could they be improved?
7. Please provide observations on overall anti-trafficking law enforcement efforts and the efforts of police and prosecutors to pursue trafficking cases. Is the government equally vigorous in pursuing forced labor and sex trafficking, internal and transnational trafficking, and crimes that involve its own nationals or foreign citizens? Were anti-trafficking laws equitably enforced, or were certain communities disproportionately affected?
8. Please note any efforts to investigate and prosecute suspects for knowingly soliciting or patronizing a
9. Does law enforcement pursue trafficking cases that would hold accountable private employers or corporations for forced labor in supply chains?
10. Do judges appear appropriately knowledgeable and sensitized to trafficking cases? Do they implement and encourage trauma-informed practices in their courts?
11. Were there allegations of official complicity in trafficking crimes, via contacts, media, or other sources, including of state-sponsored forced labor? If so, what measures did the government take to end such practices? What proactive measures did the government take to prevent official complicity in trafficking in persons crimes? How did the government respond to reports of complicity that arose during the reporting period, including investigations, prosecutions, convictions, and sentencing of complicit officials? Were these efforts sufficient?
12. Is there evidence that nationals of the country deployed abroad as part of a diplomatic, peacekeeping, or other similar mission have engaged in or facilitated trafficking, including in domestic servitude? Has the government vigorously investigated, prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced nationals engaged in these activities?
13. Did the government make a coordinated, proactive effort to identify victims of all forms of trafficking? If there were any new (or changes to preexisting) formal/standard procedures for screening for trafficking, including of individuals in immigration detention or removal proceedings, and for victim referral to protection services, were those procedures sufficient and how did the government implement them? Did officials effectively coordinate among one another and with relevant NGOs to conduct screenings and refer victims to care? Did the government deploy mechanisms (
14. If commercial sex is legalized or decriminalized in the country, how did health officials, labor inspectors, or police identify trafficking victims among persons involved in commercial sex? If commercial sex is illegal, did the government proactively identify trafficking victims during law enforcement operations or other encounters with commercial sex establishments?
15. If the government operates or funds any trafficking-specific hotlines (including those run by NGOs), did calls to those hotlines lead to victim identification, victim referral to care, and/or criminal investigations?
16. Were there any new (or changes to preexisting) services available for victims and survivors (legal, medical, food, shelter, interpretation, mental health care, employment, training, etc.)? If NGOs provide the services, does the government adequately support their work either financially or otherwise? Did all victims and survivors of both labor and sex trafficking—regardless of citizenship, gender identity, racial/ethnic identity, sexual orientation, religious affiliation, and physical ability—receive the same quality and level of access to services?
17. What was the overall quality of victim care? How could victim services be improved? Are services victim-centered and trauma-informed? Were services linked to whether a victim assisted law enforcement or participated in a trial, or whether a trafficker was convicted? Could victims choose independently whether to enter a shelter, and could they leave at will if residing in a shelter? Could victims seek employment and work while receiving assistance?
18. Where were child victims placed (
19. What is the level of cooperation, communication, and trust between service providers and law enforcement?
20. Were there means by which victims could obtain restitution from defendants in criminal cases or file civil suits against traffickers for damages, and did this happen in practice? Did prosecutors request and/or courts order restitution in all cases where it was required, and if not, why?
21. Please provide observations on trafficking victims and survivors' ability to access justice, as they define it, and the treatment of survivors throughout the criminal legal process. How did the government encourage victims to assist in the investigation and prosecution of trafficking, and did it do so in a trauma-informed way? How did the government protect victims during the trial process and ensure victims were not re-traumatized during participation in the process? If a victim was a witness in a court case, was the victim permitted to obtain employment, move freely about the country, or leave the country pending trial proceedings? In what ways could the government increase support for victims in prosecutions against the traffickers?
22. Did the government provide, through a formal policy or otherwise, temporary or permanent residency status, or other relief from deportation, for foreign national victims of human trafficking who may face retribution or hardship in the countries to which they would be deported? Were foreign national victims given the opportunity to seek legal employment while in this temporary or permanent residency? Were such benefits linked to whether a victim assisted law enforcement, whether a victim participated in a trial, or whether there was a successful prosecution? Does the government repatriate victims who wish to return home or assist with third country resettlement? Are victims awaiting repatriation or third country resettlement offered services? Are victims indeed repatriated, or are they deported?
23. Does the government effectively assist its nationals exploited abroad? Does the government work to ensure victims receive adequate assistance and support for their repatriation while in destination countries? Does the government provide adequate assistance to repatriated victims after their return to their countries of origin, and if so, what forms of assistance?
24. Does the government arrest, detain, imprison, or otherwise punish trafficking victims (whether or not identified as such by authorities) for unlawful acts committed as a direct result of being trafficked (forgery of documents, illegal immigration, unauthorized employment, prostitution, theft, or drug production or transport, etc.)? If so, do these victims disproportionately represent a certain gender, race, ethnicity, or other group or particular type of trafficking?
25. What efforts has the government made to prevent human trafficking? Did the government enforce any policies that further marginalized communities already overrepresented among trafficking victims, increasing their risk to human trafficking? If so, did it take efforts to address those policies?
26. If the government had a national action plan to address trafficking, how was it implemented in practice? Were NGOs and other relevant civil society stakeholders consulted in the development and implementation of the plan?
27. Please describe any government-funded anti-trafficking information or education campaigns or training, whether aimed at the public or at
28. Did the government seek and include the input of survivors in crafting its anti-trafficking laws, regulations, policies, programs, or in their implementation? If so, did the government take steps to ensure input was received and incorporated from a diverse group of survivors?
29. How did the government regulate, oversee, and screen for trafficking indicators in the labor recruitment process, including for both licensed and unlicensed recruitment and placement agencies, individual recruiters, sub-brokerages, and microfinance lending operations? Did the government prohibit (in any context) charging workers recruitment fees and prohibit the recruitment of workers through knowingly fraudulent job offers (including misrepresenting wages, working conditions, location, or nature of the job), contract switching, and confiscating or otherwise denying workers access to their identity documents? If there are laws or regulations on recruitment, did the government effectively enforce them? Did the government allow migrant workers to change employers in a timely manner without obtaining special permissions?
30. Did the government coordinate with other governments (
31. Did government policies, regulations, or agreements relating to migration, labor, trade, and investment facilitate vulnerabilities to, or incidence of, forced labor or sex trafficking? If so, what actions did the government take to ensure that its policies, regulations, and agreements relating to migration, labor, trade, border security measures, and investment did not facilitate trafficking?
32. Did the government take tangible action to prevent forced labor in domestic or global supply chains? Did the government make any efforts to prohibit and prevent trafficking in the supply chains of its own public procurement?
33. If the government has entered into bilateral, multilateral, or regional anti-trafficking information-sharing and cooperation arrangements, are they effective and have they resulted in concrete and measurable outcomes? If not, why?
34. Did the government provide assistance to other governments in combating trafficking in persons through trainings or other assistance programs?
35. What measures has the government taken to reduce the participation by nationals of the country in international and domestic child sex tourism?
36. Please provide any information about trafficking trends and government anti-trafficking efforts in non-sovereign territories and semi-autonomous regions to prosecute traffickers, identify and provide services to victims, and prevent trafficking.
37. Were there any changes to the country's trafficking situation, including the forms of trafficking that occur, industries and sectors in which traffickers exploit victims, countries/regions in which traffickers recruit victims, locations and regions in which trafficking occurs, and recruitment methods? Are citizens of the country identified as victims of human trafficking abroad? As COVID-19-related restrictions have lifted in many parts of the world, were there additional changes in trafficking trends?
38. What groups, including underserved communities, are at particular risk of human trafficking? Underserved communities are populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life. This term may include, but is not limited to, women and girls, persons with disabilities, indigenous peoples, people of African descent, racial and ethnic minorities, refugees and internally displaced people, religious minorities, LGBTQI+ persons, rural residents, migrants, as well as those who are otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.
39. Chinese/Cuban/North Korean workers: Are any of these populations subjected to or at high risk of forced labor in the country as part of government-to-government agreements and/or in foreign government-affiliated projects?
40. Please provide any information about trafficking trends, general numerical data on victims identified, or risk factors stemming from climate-related change or disasters, as well as any efforts to mitigate these vulnerabilities; the ongoing armed conflict following Russia's full-scale invasion of Ukraine; and the use of technology to recruit and exploit victims.
41. Using the definition of “child soldier” as defined by the Child Soldiers Prevention Act of 2008 (CSPA), describe instances, cases, and reports, including anecdotal reports, of:
a. Use of any person under the age of 18 in direct hostilities as a member of governmental armed forces, police, or other security forces;
b. Conscription or forced recruitment of persons under the age of 18 into governmental armed forces, police, or other security forces;
c. Voluntary recruitment of any person under 15 years of age into governmental armed forces, police, or other security forces;
d. Recruitment (forced or voluntary) or use in hostilities of persons under the age of 18 by armed groups distinct from the armed forces of a state.
e. Abuse of male and female children recruited by governmental armed forces, police, or other security forces, and government-supported armed groups (
42. Did the government provide support to an armed group that recruits and/or uses child soldiers? What was the extent of the support (
43. Describe any government efforts to prevent or end child soldier recruitment or use, including efforts to disarm, demobilize, and reintegrate former child soldiers. (
Surface Transportation Board.
Decision No. 1; Notice of acceptance of primary application; Notice of acceptance of related filings for consideration; Issuance of procedural schedule.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is accepting the primary application (Application) filed October 6, 2023, by CSX Transportation Inc. (CSXT), and accepting for consideration two related filings. The Application seeks Board approval for CSXT to acquire and operate the assets comprising the rail line of Meridian & Bigbee Railroad, L.L.C. (MNBR) that runs approximately 93.68 miles between the cities of Burkville, Ala., and Myrtlewood, Ala., in Lowndes, Dallas, Wilcox and Marengo Counties (the Eastern Line). This proposal is referred to as the “Proposed Transaction.” The related filings are notices of exemption seeking Board approval of transactions involving trackage rights of other carriers (Related Transactions).
The effective date of this decision is November 3, 2023. CSXT is directed to supplement its Application as discussed in this decision by November 21, 2023. Any person who wishes to participate in this proceeding as a Party of Record must file, no later than November 27, 2023, a notice of intent to participate. All comments, protests, requests for conditions, and any other evidence and argument in opposition to the Application and related filings, including filings by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), must be filed by December 11, 2023. Responses to comments, protests, requests for conditions, other opposition, and rebuttal in support of the Application or related filings must be filed by January 8, 2023.
Any filing submitted in this proceeding should be filed with the Board via e-filing on the Board's website. In addition, one copy of each filing must be sent (and may be sent by email only if service by email is acceptable to the recipient) to each of the following: (1) Secretary of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (2) Attorney General of the United States, c/o Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Room 3109, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; (3) CSXT's representative, Peter W. Denton, Steptoe & Johnson LLP, 1330 Connecticut Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20036; (4) AGR's and MNBR's representative, Justin J. Marks, Clark Hill PLC, 1001 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Suite 1300 South, Washington, DC 20004; and (5) any other person designated as a Party of Record on the service list.
Jonathon Binet at (202) 245-0368. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.
CSXT seeks the Board's prior review and authorization pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 and 49 CFR part 1180 to acquire from MNBR and operate the Eastern Line. (Appl. 1.) The Eastern Line consists of two segments totaling approximately 93.68 miles: (1) extending from milepost XXB 189.00 near Burkville to milepost XXB 222.00 at Western Junction, a distance of about 30.22 miles;
Prior to 2003, CSXT and its predecessors owned and operated the Eastern Line. (
In Docket No. AB 1335X, MNBR filed a verified notice of exemption under the
The Board finds that the Application is complete and that the Transaction is a minor transaction based upon the preliminary determination that the Proposed Transaction's anticipated contribution to the public interest in meeting significant transportation needs clearly outweighs any potential anticompetitive effects. 49 CFR 1180.2(b), (c). The Board makes this preliminary determination based solely on the evidence presented in the Application. The Board emphasizes that this is not a final determination and may be revisited or rebutted by subsequent filings and evidence submitted into the record for this proceeding. The Board also adopts a procedural schedule for consideration of the Application and directs CSXT to file certain supplemental information.
Finally, an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be prepared to comply with the Board's obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370m-11 (NEPA), and related environmental laws.
CSXT states that the Proposed Transaction and the CPKC Transaction are not contingent on each other “in that the [Proposed] Transaction could proceed regardless of whether the CPKC Transaction is consummated.” (
CSXT claims that the Proposed Transaction will have public benefits that are “large, important, and obvious.” (Appl. 14-15.) CSXT states that for the traffic that currently moves to or from CSXT, eliminating MNBR as an intermediate carrier will reduce costs and streamline the movement of traffic. (
Additionally, CSXT states that once the transaction is consummated, it will make significant investments in the track, roadbed, bridges, warning devices, and wayside detectors on the Eastern Line, which will increase safety, reliability, and train speeds. (
CSXT is requesting that the employee protective conditions established in
Although, per
When a transaction does not involve the merger or control of two or more Class I railroads, its classification will differ depending upon whether the transaction would have “regional or national transportation significance.” 49 U.S.C. 11325. Under 49 CFR 1180.2, a transaction that does not involve two or more Class I railroads is to be classified as “minor”—and thus not having regional or national transportation significance—if a determination can be made that either: (1) the transaction clearly will not have any anticompetitive effects, or (2) any anticompetitive effects will clearly be outweighed by the transaction's anticipated contribution to the public interest in meeting significant transportation needs. A transaction not involving the control or merger of two or more Class I railroads is to be classified as “significant” if neither of these determinations can be made.
The Board finds the Proposed Transaction to be a “minor transaction” because it appears from the face of the Application that the efficiency and other public interest benefits would clearly outweigh the potential anticompetitive effects of the transaction. Shippers that are currently served by MNBR would be served by CSXT post-transaction and this service could become more efficient due to the elimination of MNBR as an intermediate carrier and the upgrades to the line planned by CSXT. These upgrades could also improve the safety of operations over the Eastern Line. In addition, CSXT has committed to keeping the Selma gateway open for interchange with NSR on commercially reasonable terms and, for the one shipper on the Eastern Line that currently connects to both CSXT and NSR, CSXT has committed to keep current rates in place for five years. The Proposed Transaction, in combination with the CPKC Transaction, would create a direct connection between CSXT and CPKC at Myrtlewood. This new East-West Class I connection, along with the infrastructure upgrades planned by CSXT and CPKC, could provide a more efficient route for existing and future traffic moving between the eastern and southeastern United States and the southwestern United States and Mexico, potentially providing both economic and environmental benefits. Diverting existing traffic to the new Myrtlewood gateway from congested gateways such as New Orleans could also improve the efficiency of operations at those existing gateways.
For these reasons, based on the information provided in the Application, the Board finds the Proposed Transaction to be a minor transaction under 49 CFR 1180.2(c). This determination should not be read to mean that the proposed Transaction is insignificant or of little importance. Indeed, after the record is fully developed, the Board will conduct a careful review before making a final determination as to whether the Proposed Transaction would substantially lessen competition, create a monopoly, or restrain trade, and whether any anticompetitive effects would be outweighed by the public interest.
Specifically, in its reply to NSR's Request, CSXT broadly claims that “[n]o gateways would be closed as a result of either transaction” and that previously-used gateways “would remain fully open.” (CSXT Reply, 7, Oct. 27, 2023;
Additionally, in its supplement, to further inform the Board's analysis, CSXT shall provide a list of all origination/destination areas,
To assist the Board in evaluating the Proposed Transaction, in conjunction with CPKC's proposed acquisition of the Western Line, CSXT will be directed to provide additional operational information. As NSR notes, the Application does not include an analysis of the potential operational impacts to shippers or Amtrak passengers on rail segments outside the Eastern Line and Western Line. (NSR Reply 12-13.) Accordingly, the Board directs CSXT to detail any impacts anticipated on other rail operations, including (1) potential impacts on any passenger rail operations that involve crossing the Eastern Line, and (2) delays that may be occasioned because a line is scheduled to handle increased traffic due to route consolidations or traffic diversions. Additionally, CSXT shall provide a description of the effect of any deferred maintenance or delayed capital improvements on the subject lines and associated equipment. This should include the schedule for eliminating such deferrals, details of general system rehabilitation (including rehabilitation relating to the transaction, such as proposed yard and terminal modifications), and how these activities will lead to service improvements or operating economies anticipated from the transaction.
If a request is made in the notice of intent to participate to have more than one name added to the service list as a Party of Record representing a particular entity, the extra name(s) will be added to the service list as a “Non-Party.” Any person designated as a Non-Party will receive copies of Board decisions, orders, and notices but not copies of official filings. Persons seeking to change their status must accompany that request with a written certification that they have complied with the service requirements set forth at 49 CFR 1180.4 and any other requirements set forth in this decision.
In its Application, CSXT submitted environmental information, including estimated volume increases on the Eastern Line by track segment (Exhibit 4). The estimated volume for each segment includes transaction-related projections for five years (through 2029), as well as no-action projections (traffic including increases that would occur without the Proposed Transaction). CSXT presented two scenarios for its traffic projections. The first scenario assumes that the Proposed Transaction would occur without the CPKC Transaction. CSXT expects that this scenario would not produce significant changes to the existing traffic because the same number of trains currently operated by MNBR and CSXT over the Eastern Line would be operated by CSXT post-transaction. In the second scenario, CSXT assumes that both the Proposed Transaction and the CPKC Transaction would occur at the same time. CSXT states that the second scenario would result in an increase in gross-ton miles of 100%. (Appl., Ex. 4, Env't Info. 7.) According to CSXT, the Proposed Transaction would result in improved efficiency and potential traffic diversions from truck to more environmentally favorable rail. (Appl., Ex. 4, Env't Info. 9.)
The EA process will address potential environmental impacts of activities associated with both the Western Line and the Eastern Line, including changes in rail line traffic and rail yard activity changes. OEA will prepare a Draft EA and issue it for public comment. Following the close of the comment period, OEA will prepare a Final EA. The Final EA will address the comments received on the Draft EA, present OEA's final conclusions regarding the potential environmental impacts of the transactions, and set forth OEA's final recommendations to the Board, including recommended environmental mitigation measures.
This action will not significantly affect either the quality of the human environment or the conservation of energy resources.
1. The Application filed in Docket No. FD 36727 and the related verified notice of exemption filed in Docket Nos. FD 36724 are accepted for consideration.
2. CSXT shall file the supplemental information described above by November 21, 2023.
3. The filing in Docket No. AB 1335X is accepted to the extent discussed above. MNBR may file supplemental evidence and argument in support of an individual exemption in that docket by November 21, 2023.
4. The parties to this proceeding must comply with the procedural schedule shown in the Appendix to this decision and the procedural requirements described in this decision.
5. NSR's request to hold this proceeding in abeyance is denied.
6. This decision is effective on November 3, 2023.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz. Board Member Schultz, joined by Board Member Fuchs, concurred with a separate expression.
I agree that this Proposed Transaction should be classified as minor and that the record at this stage of the proceeding indicates that any anticompetitive effects of the Proposed Transaction will clearly be outweighed by the Proposed Transaction's anticipated contribution to the public interest in meeting significant transportation needs. On this record, I would not order CSXT to submit this extensive amount of supplemental information at this stage in the proceeding. While the Board has the authority to require the filing of supplemental information, the better course here would have been to assess whether any supplemental information is necessary after full analysis of all comments and requests for conditions and again after responses to those comments and requests, when the Board would benefit from the full views of shippers, railroads, and the broader public.
October 6, 2023—Application filed.
November 3, 2023—Board notice of acceptance of application served.
November 21, 2023—CSXT's supplemental information due.
November 27, 2023—Notices of intent to participate in this proceeding due.
December 11, 2023—All comments, protests, requests for conditions, and any other evidence and argument in opposition to the application, including filings of DOJ and DOT, due.
January 8, 2024—Responses to comments, protests, requests for conditions, and other opposition due. Rebuttal in support of the application due.
TBD—Record closes.
No later than 45 days after close of the record—Date by which a final decision will be served.
30 days after service—Board's decision becomes effective.
Surface Transportation Board.
Decision No. 1; notice of acceptance of application; notice of acceptance of related filings for consideration; issuance of procedural schedule.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) is accepting for consideration the primary application (Application) filed October 6, 2023, by Canadian Pacific Kansas City Limited (CPKCL), a noncarrier, on behalf of itself and its wholly owned subsidiary, The Kansas City Southern Railway Company (KCS) d/b/a CPKC (collectively, Applicants). The Application seeks Board approval for KCS, a Class I rail carrier, to acquire from Meridian & Bigbee Railroad, L.L.C. (MNBR), a Class III rail carrier, and to operate approximately 50.4 route miles of rail line between Meridian, Miss., and Myrtlewood, Ala. (the Western Line). This proposal is referred to as the “Proposed Transaction.” The Board is also accepting for consideration three related filings.
The effective date of this decision is November 3, 2023. Applicants are directed to supplement their Application as discussed in this decision by November 21, 2023. Any person who wishes to participate in this proceeding as a Party of Record must file, no later than November 27, 2023, a notice of intent to participate. All comments, protests, requests for conditions, and any other evidence and argument in opposition to the Application and related filings, including filings by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), must be filed by December 11, 2023. Responses to comments, protests, requests for conditions, other opposition, and rebuttal in support of the Application must be filed by January 8, 2024.
Any filing submitted in this proceeding should be filed with the Board via e-filing on the Board's website. In addition, one copy of each filing must be sent (and may be sent by email only if service by email is acceptable to the recipient) to each of the following: (1) Secretary of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590; (2) Attorney General of the United States, c/o Assistant Attorney General, Antitrust Division, Room 3109, Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530; (3) Applicants' representative, David F. Rifkind, Stinson LLP, 1775 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 800, Washington, DC 20006; and (4) any other person designated as a Party of Record on the service list.
Valerie Quinn at (202) 740-5567. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.
Applicants seek the Board's prior review and authorization pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 11323-25 and 49 CFR part 1180 for KCS to acquire from MNBR and operate the Western Line, which comprises approximately 50.4 route miles of rail line between milepost 0.0± at Meridian and milepost 50.4± at Myrtlewood. (Appl. 1, 21-22.) According to the Application, KCS would also acquire all operating rail property owned by MNBR on the Western Line, including yards at Meridian; Naheola, Ala.; and Myrtlewood; as well as stations at Meridian; Whynot, Miss.; Yantley, Ala.; Cromwell, Ala.; Jachin, Ala.; Naheola; and Myrtlewood. (
CPKC's family of operating railroads in the United States includes two Class I rail carriers (including KCS) and four Class II rail carriers. (
MNBR, a subsidiary of Genesee & Wyoming, Inc. (G&W), currently operates approximately 168 miles of single-track mainline between Meridian and Montgomery, Ala. (
Applicants state that KCS is acquiring the Western Line to establish a direct interchange with CSXT at Myrtlewood, and that the Proposed Transaction is contingent on CSXT acquiring and resuming operations on the Eastern Line. (
According to the Application, MNBR would continue to provide local and overhead rail service on the Western Line post-transaction much as it does today, except that it would no longer act as an intermediate bridge carrier for CPKC-CSXT traffic. (
The Board finds that the Application is complete and that the Proposed Transaction is a minor transaction based upon the preliminary determination that the Proposed Transaction's anticipated contribution to the public interest in meeting significant transportation needs clearly outweighs any potential anticompetitive effects. 49 CFR 1180.2(b), (c). The Board makes this preliminary determination based solely on the evidence presented in the Application. The Board emphasizes that this is not a final determination and may be revisited or rebutted by subsequent filings and evidence submitted into the record for this proceeding. The Board also adopts a procedural schedule for consideration of the Application and directs Applicants to file certain supplemental information.
Finally, an Environmental Assessment (EA) will be prepared to comply with the Board's obligations under the National Environmental Policy Act, 42 U.S.C. 4321-4370m-11 (NEPA), and related environmental laws.
According to Applicants, this new freight rail corridor would provide a shorter and more efficient route for existing CPKC-CSXT traffic and a new, highly attractive option for new customers. (
CSXT is seeking this discontinuance authority under the Board's two-year-out-of-service class exemption procedures, although another carrier, MNBR, has been providing local service over the same line during that two-year period. In
Although, per
When a transaction does not involve the merger or control of two or more Class I railroads, the Board's treatment differs depending upon whether the transaction would have “regional or national transportation significance.” 49 U.S.C. 11325. Under 49 CFR 1180.2, a transaction that does not involve two or more Class I railroads is to be classified as “minor”—and thus not having regional or national transportation significance—if a determination can be made that either: (1) the transaction clearly will not have any anticompetitive effects, or (2) any anticompetitive effects of the transaction will clearly be outweighed by the transaction's anticipated contribution to the public interest in meeting significant transportation needs. A transaction not involving the control or merger of two or more Class I railroads is to be classified as “significant” if neither of these determinations can be made. (
The Board finds the Proposed Transaction to be a “minor transaction” because it appears from the face of the Application that the efficiency and other public interest benefits would clearly outweigh the potential anticompetitive effects of the transaction. The Proposed Transaction, in conjunction with CSXT's acquisition of the Eastern Line, would create a new, direct Class I to Class I connection that could provide potential improvements in the efficient movement of existing and future intermodal, automotive, and other interline traffic between the Southeastern United States and the Southwestern United States and Mexico. (
Applicants represent that there would be no two-to-one shippers as a result of the Proposed Transaction,
For these reasons, based on the information provided in the Application, the Board finds the Proposed Transaction to be a minor transaction under 49 CFR 1180.2(c). This determination should not be read to mean that the Proposed Transaction is insignificant or of little importance. Indeed, after the record is fully developed, the Board will conduct a careful review before making a final determination as to whether the Proposed Transaction would substantially lessen competition, create a monopoly, or restrain trade, and whether any anticompetitive effects would be outweighed by the public interest.
In CPKC's reply to NSR's Request, CPKC maintains that it is “bound by KCSR's 2004 commitment not to close the Laredo gateway,” and hence that “UP will continue to have the opportunity to compete to participate in flows of traffic between Mexico and CSXT destinations in the U.S. Southeast via Laredo and New Orleans.” (CPKC Reply 5 n.3, Oct. 27, 2023.) CPKC also states, “[t]he newly invigorated rail service that CPKC is pursuing via this transaction is an outgrowth of the Board's approval of the CP/KCS transaction, which for example enabled the combined CPKC system to offer improved transportation solutions—and thereby to compete more effectively against its much larger rivals—for traffic of automotive manufacturers and parts suppliers.” (
Additionally, in its supplement, to further inform the Board's analysis, CPKC additionally shall provide a list of all origination/destination areas,
To assist the Board in evaluating the Proposed Transaction, in conjunction with CSXT's proposed acquisition of the Eastern Line, the Applicants will be directed to provide additional operational information. As NSR notes, the Application does not include an analysis of the potential operational impacts to shippers or Amtrak passengers on rail segments outside the Eastern Line and Western Line. (NSR Reply 12-13.) Accordingly, the Board directs Applicants to detail any impacts anticipated on other rail operations, including (1) potential impacts on any passenger rail operations that involve crossing the Western Line and (2) delays that may be occasioned because a line is scheduled to handle increased traffic due to route consolidations or traffic diversions. Applicants also shall provide a description of the effect of any deferred maintenance or delayed capital improvements on the subject lines and associated equipment. This should include the schedule for eliminating such deferrals, details of general system rehabilitation (including rehabilitation relating to the transaction, such as proposed yard and terminal modifications), and how these activities will lead to service improvements or operating economies anticipated from the transaction.
If a request is made in the notice of intent to participate to have more than one name added to the service list as a Party of Record representing a particular entity, the extra name(s) will be added to the service list as a “Non-Party.” Any person designated as a Non-Party will receive copies of Board decisions, orders, and notices but not copies of official filings. Persons seeking to change their status must accompany that request with a written certification that they have complied with the service requirements set forth at 49 CFR 1180.4 and any other requirements set forth in this decision.
In the Application, Applicants submitted environmental information,
The EA process will address potential environmental impacts of activities associated with both the Western Line and the Eastern Line, including changes in rail line traffic and rail yard activity. OEA will prepare a Draft EA and issue it for public comment. Following the close of the comment period, OEA will prepare a Final EA. The Final EA will address the comments received on the Draft EA, present OEA's final conclusions regarding the potential environmental impacts of the transactions, and set forth OEA's final recommendations to the Board, including recommended environmental mitigation measures.
1. The Application filed in Docket No. FD 36732 and the related filings in Docket Nos. FD 36730 and FD 36731 are accepted for consideration.
2. Applicants shall file the supplemental information described above by November 21, 2023.
3. The filing in Docket No. AB 55 (Sub-No. 814X) is accepted to the extent discussed above. CSXT may file supplemental evidence and argument in support of an individual exemption in that docket by November 21, 2023.
4. The parties to this proceeding must comply with the procedural schedule shown in the Appendix to this decision and the procedural requirements described in this decision.
5. NSR's request to hold this proceeding in abeyance in denied.
6. This decision is effective on November 3, 2023.
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz. Board Member Schultz, joined by Board Member Fuchs, concurred with a separate expression.
Board Member Schultz, with whom Board Member Fuchs joins, concurring:
I agree that the Proposed Transaction should be classified as minor and that the record at this stage of the proceeding indicates that any anticompetitive effects of the Proposed Transaction will clearly be outweighed by the Proposed Transaction's anticipated contribution to the public interest in meeting significant transportation needs. On this record, I would not order Applicants to submit this extensive amount of supplemental information at this stage in the proceeding. While the Board has the authority to require the filing of supplemental information, the better course here would have been to assess whether any supplemental information is necessary after full analysis of all comments and requests for conditions and again after responses to those comments and requests, when the Board would benefit from the full views of shippers, railroads, and the broader public.
9:00 a.m. CT on November 9, 2023.
Cadence Bank Center, 375 E Main Street, Tupelo, Mississippi.
Open.
The TVA Board of Directors will hold a public meeting on November 9, 2023, at the Cadence Bank Center, 375 E Main Street, Tupelo, Mississippi.
The meeting will be called to order at 9:00 a.m. CT to consider the agenda items listed below. TVA management will answer questions from the news media following the Board meeting.
On November 8, at the Cadence Bank Center, the public may comment on any agenda item or subject at a board-hosted public listening session which begins at 2:00 p.m. CT and will last until 4:00 p.m. Preregistration is required to address the Board.
For more information: Please call Ashton Davies, TVA Media Relations at (865) 632-6000, Knoxville, Tennessee. Anyone who wishes to comment on any of the agenda in writing may send their comments to: TVA Board of Directors, Board Agenda Comments, 400 West Summit Hill Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee 37902.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for extension of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) approval for renewal of an existing information collection that is summarized below under
Please submit comments by January 8, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 0047 by any of the following methods:
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Wendy McAbee, 202-366-5658, Office of Bridge and Structures, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of availability and request for comments.
This document provides the public with notice that on October 28, 2023, Trinity Railway Express (TRE) submitted a request to field test trains on TRE's positive train control (PTC)-equipped Silver Line subdivision, which is equipped with the Interoperable Electronic Train Management System (I-ETMS). TRE's October 2023 test request also withdraws its pending test request that it had previously filed with FRA on August 29, 2023. FRA is publishing this notice and inviting public comment on TRE's request to test its PTC system on the Silver Line subdivision.
FRA will consider comments received by January 8, 2024. FRA may consider comments received after that date to the extent practicable and without delaying implementation of a PTC system.
Gabe Neal, Staff Director, Signal, Train Control, and Crossings Division, telephone: 816-516-7168, email:
In general, Title 49 United States Code (U.S.C.) section 20157(h) requires FRA to certify that a host railroad's PTC system complies with title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 236, subpart I, before the technology may be operated in revenue service. On December 23, 2020, FRA certified TRE's I-ETMS PTC system under 49 CFR 236.1015 and 49 U.S.C. 20157(h). Pursuant to 49 CFR 236.1035, a railroad must obtain FRA's approval before field testing an uncertified PTC system, or a product of an uncertified PTC system, or any regression testing of a certified PTC system on the general rail system.
Interested parties are invited to comment on TRE's test request by submitting written comments or data. During its review of the test request, FRA will consider any comments or data submitted within the timeline specified in this notice and to the extent practicable, without delaying testing of valuable or necessary modifications to a PTC system.
In accordance with 49 CFR 211.3, FRA solicits comments from the public to better inform its decisions. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Notice of meeting.
Pursuant to United States Code, Title 31, section 5135(b)(8)(C), the United States Mint announces the Citizens Coinage Advisory Committee (CCAC) public meeting scheduled for November 28, 2023.
Jennifer Warren, United States Mint Liaison to the CCAC; 801 9th Street NW,
Interested members of the public may either attend the meeting in person or watch the meeting live stream on YouTube at
If you will be attending in person, please contact Jennifer Warren (
Public should call the CCAC HOTLINE at (202) 354-7502 for the latest updates on meeting time and access information.
The CCAC advises the Secretary of the Treasury on any theme or design proposals relating to circulating coinage, bullion coinage, Congressional Gold Medals, and national and other medals; advises the Secretary of the Treasury with regard to the events, persons, or places to be commemorated by the issuance of commemorative coins in each of the five calendar years succeeding the year in which a commemorative coin designation is made; and makes recommendations with respect to the mintage level for any commemorative coin recommended.
For members of the public interested in watching on-line or attending in person, this is a reminder that the public attendance is for observation purposes only. Members of the public may submit matters for the CCAC's consideration by email to
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; request for public comment.
The Federal Trade Commission commences a rulemaking to promulgate a trade regulation rule entitled “Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees,” which would prohibit unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees for goods or services, specifically, misrepresenting the total costs of goods and services by omitting mandatory fees from advertised prices and misrepresenting the nature and purpose of fees. The Commission finds these unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees to be prevalent based on prior enforcement, the comments it received in response to an advance notice of proposed rulemaking, and other information discussed in this proposal. The Commission now solicits written comment, data, and arguments concerning the utility and scope of the trade regulation rule proposed in this notice of proposed rulemaking to prevent the identified unfair or deceptive practices.
Comments must be received on or before January 8, 2024.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Comment Submissions part of the
Janice Kopec or Stacy Cammarano, Division of Advertising Practices, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission, 202-326-2550 (Kopec), 202-326-3308 (Cammarano),
The Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) invites interested parties to submit data, views, and arguments on the proposed Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees and, specifically, on the questions set forth in Section X of this notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPRM”). The comment period will remain open until January 8, 2024.
The Commission published, on November 8, 2022, an Advance notice of proposed rulemaking (“ANPR”) under the authority of Section 18 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (“FTC Act”), 15 U.S.C. 57a(b)(2); the provisions of Part 1, Subpart B, of the Commission's Rules of Practice, 16 CFR 1.7 through 1.20; and 5 U.S.C. 553.
The ANPR described the Commission's history of taking law enforcement action against, and educating consumers about, unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees, and it asked a series of questions to inform the Commission about whether such practices are prevalent and, if so, whether and how to proceed with a NPRM.
Based on the substance of these comments, as well as the Commission's history of enforcement and other information discussed in this preamble, the Commission has reason to believe that unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees are prevalent
The Commission received over 12,000 comments in response to the ANPR. Publicly posted comments are available on this rulemaking's docket at
As discussed in this preamble, the comments raised concerns about widespread deceptive practices in
Commenters provided examples of these practices related to a wide array of goods and services, such as hotels, short-term lodging, ticket sales, rental housing, financial services, auto sales, internet service providers, and other market sectors. Many commenters addressed multiple sectors in a single comment. In this section, we discuss comments from individual commenters and other stakeholders, including consumer, policy, and industry groups, about these widespread practices. The breadth and number of comments strongly support a rule to tackle the harm caused to consumers and businesses from these practices across various industries, by requiring all-in pricing and other measures to prevent false and misleading representations about fees.
Commenters stated businesses routinely engage in deceptive bait-and-switch pricing tactics by advertising prices that fail to include mandatory fees and that end up misrepresenting total prices because fees imposed later increase total prices significantly.
Commenters stated consumers often do not know what fees are for because businesses routinely do not clearly or conspicuously disclose the nature or purpose of fees, including the identity of the goods or services for which the fees are charged.
Commenters stated that, even when businesses purport to disclose the nature or purpose of fees, the disclosures may not be truthful. Commenters described fees as arbitrary and not bearing any reasonable relationship to the costs of goods or services provided.
The FTC received comments regarding a wide range of industries from individual commenters and consumer, policy, and industry groups. Individual commenters frequently raised concerns about these practices in connection with more than one industry in a single comment, with some describing the existence of mandatory, hidden, or misrepresented fees across the economy.
Consumer groups—the Consumer Federation of America, Consumer Reports, Truth in Advertising, UnidosUS, and the Institute for Policy Integrity—expressed support for rulemaking.
The information presented by consumer groups shows that false advertising of total prices occurs across industries. Consumer Reports' 2018 WTFee?! Survey “found that at least 85% of Americans have experienced a hidden or unexpected fee for a service in the previous two years, and 96% found them highly annoying” and that “[n]early two-thirds of those surveyed by [Consumer Reports] said they were paying more now in surprise charges than they did five years ago.”
Individual commenters stated hotels, online travel agencies (“OTAs”), and vacation rental providers often do not include fees, such as hotel resort fees and vacation rental fees such as cleaning fees, in advertised nightly rates, artificially lowering the true cost of hotel rooms and rentals vis-a-vis competitors.
Comments from the lodging industry generally argued further regulation is not necessary because resort fees provide value to consumers
In connection with tickets for live entertainment, individual commenters noted that it is nearly impossible to obtain tickets at advertised prices because ticket sellers inflate these prices with fees.
One ticket seller argued that State and Federal laws prohibiting unfair or deceptive trade practices already adequately address any problems with unfair or deceptive fees,
Although entities in the ticketing sector argued that ticket fees are not “junk” fees, but provide value to consumers
Comments related to ticket sales supported greater pricing transparency with most supporting all-in pricing that specifies the full final cost to consumers including mandatory, but not optional, fees.
Individual commenters submitted many observations about restaurants and prepared food and grocery delivery services. They noted that restaurants routinely add fees to bills that were not
Individual commenters made similar observations about transportation-related goods and services. They noted that airlines fail to include mandatory fees in advertised prices and misrepresent fees.
Industry comments related to auto sales, including ancillary goods and services, did not support a rulemaking.
The comments from auto industry representatives stated the law already prohibits failing to disclose mandatory fees, and that fees are adequately disclosed.
Comments noted that a fees rule could overlap or conflict with State and Federal laws and regulations.
One commenter, the National Automobile Dealers Association (“NADA”), urged that, if the FTC proceeds with rulemaking, such a rulemaking should have “a strict focus with clear rules on how to adequately disclose so as to avoid consumer harm.” Any rule should not go beyond addressing the failure to disclose mandatory costs.
Individual comments about telecommunications, including internet, television, and telephone services, noted that consumers are confronted with advertised rates that do not include mandatory fees, which are only disclosed after consumers contract for services and in ways that consumers find difficult to understand.
Citing a Consumer Reports study and its own research, New America's Open Technology Institute (“OTI”) stated internet service providers routinely do not include internet service fees, such as installation and activation fees, equipment fees, penalties for exceeding data caps, and early termination fees, in advertised prices, and that these fees should be considered as part of the true monthly cost of internet service that should be incorporated into advertised prices or prohibited when they are arbitrary or do not reflect added value.
The Rural Broadband Association (“NTCA”) noted that many internet service provider fees are related to mandatory government programs that provide value to consumers.
Comments from individual consumers about rental housing fees stated leasing companies advertise monthly rents that do not include fees for mandatory ancillary services that unexpectedly and significantly increase renters' monthly expenditures.
Consumer and policy groups noted that landlords do not adequately disclose many unavoidable fees or fail to explain the purpose of fees,
The comments also recommended that a rule prohibit certain rental-related fees as invalid per se because they are exploitative
The comments further noted that institutions of higher learning often charge mandatory fees that are not included in advertised tuition fees.
Individual commenters argued that fees charged in connection with bank accounts, credit cards, and other financial products are excessive and not adequately disclosed.
Some comments from the consumer financial services
Industry comments recommended that the FTC clearly define or clarify the meaning of “junk fees,”
The comments stated fees in the consumer financial services market cannot be equated with fees charged in other markets, such as live event or resort fees.
Consumer and policy groups also commented on a number of unfair or deceptive practices regarding fees imposed on incarcerated people and supported rulemaking.
Many commenters argued that the prevalence of hidden fees cannot be effectively addressed by tools currently available to the FTC without a rulemaking.
The comments broadly supported FTC action to address the identified deceptive practices by requiring price transparency. Many individual commenters,
Many individual commenters and consumer groups, concerned with the cumulative impact of fees, also recommended that the FTC prohibit or limit fees, such as fees that are of little to no value to consumers,
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Association of National Advertisers argued that Congress has not authorized comprehensive unfair or deceptive fees rulemaking, and that the ANPR is too broad to comply with rulemaking procedures.
Other commenters disagreed. For example, Policy Integrity argued that the FTC has clear congressional authority to tackle deceptive or unfair practices through rulemaking, and that doing so would not supersede that authority.
This proposed rule addresses prevalent fee practices that are unlawful under Section 5 of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 45, because they are unfair or deceptive to consumers. The Commission has identified two practices that, for the reasons described herein, are unfair or deceptive practices under Section 5 of the FTC Act: (1) practices that misrepresent the total costs by omitting mandatory fees from advertised prices, and (2) practices that misrepresent the nature and purpose of fees or charges. The comments received in response to the ANPR and the Commission's history of enforcement actions and other complementary work, discussed in Section III.C, demonstrate the prevalence of these practices.
As shown in the comments received, advertising misrepresentations and unlawful practices related to pricing and added fees are chronic problems confronting consumers. These problems are prolific and occur across industries affecting a large majority of the population.
The comment record supports a finding that bait-and-switch pricing practices are prevalent. Specifically, commenters identified pricing structures that do not disclose the total price for goods or services, but instead advertise a lower cost to consumers that is ultimately inflated by mandatory charges.
Pricing structures that do not initially disclose the total cost of a good or service are deceptive even if the total cost is disclosed at some point during the transaction. It has long been the FTC's position that misleading door openers are deceptive.
It is also well established that it is deceptive to sell a product that is not fit for the purpose for which it is sold.
The pricing structures described in this section are material where they are likely to affect consumers' choices or conduct regarding the goods or services at issue. Material facts are those that are important to consumers' choices or conduct regarding a product, and certain categories of information are presumptively material.
Pricing structures that do not clearly and conspicuously disclose the total price are also unfair under Section 5 because they are likely to cause substantial injury, they are not reasonably avoidable by consumers, and the injury is not outweighed by benefits to consumers or competition. Unfair or deceptive fee practices can cause significant consumer harm and reduce competition.
Often, these harms disproportionately impact consumers who are already targets of discrimination. The Consumer Federation of America, along with ten other organizations, submitted a comment that compiled examples of how unfair or deceptive fees uniquely harm low-income, Black, Latino, limited English-speaking, and disabled consumers.
Injury to consumers comes in the form of higher prices and search costs. Several studies have shown that consumers spend more money on the same goods when they are not shown the total price up front.
In addition, consumers who wish to compare prices incur additional search costs to make direct comparisons of products when the full price is not disclosed up front.
Where mandatory fees are disclosed at the same time as but separately from the base price, consumers are nevertheless harmed. The practice of dividing the price into multiple components without disclosing the total, generally referred to as partitioned pricing, distorts consumer choice.
Consumers cannot reasonably avoid these injuries. First, as explained in this section, the search costs necessary to avoid the harm of paying higher prices are themselves a harm to consumers. As the Institute for Policy Integrity explained in its petition for a rulemaking on these practices, also
Finally, consumer injury is not outweighed by benefits to consumers or competition. The practice of advertising prices that are not the full price does not benefit consumers or competition. Consumers do not receive any benefit from the misleading price presentation.
The comment record supports a finding that practices that misrepresent the nature and purpose of fees are prevalent. Specifically, commenters identified pricing structures that misrepresented information about the nature and purpose of fees and charges.
Charges that misrepresent their nature and purpose are deceptive because they mislead reasonable consumers. False claims and those that lack a reasonable basis are inherently likely to mislead consumers.
Moreover, it is unfair for businesses to misrepresent the nature and purpose of charges. Charging consumers under false pretenses causes substantial injury, including where the injury is a “small harm to a large number of people” or “where it raises a significant risk of concrete harm.”
To prevent the misrepresentations described in this section, it is necessary for businesses to clearly and conspicuously disclose the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay that is excluded from the total price. Where charges are excluded from the total price, disclosures of the nature and purpose of such charges are necessary to determine whether such fees are truly optional and properly excluded from the total price, and for the consumer to decide whether to accept the optional charge.
The FTC has brought many cases concerning misrepresentations of the total price of goods or services and the nature and purpose of charges, which are described in greater detail in Section III.C.
The Commission's prior work, and complementary actions by State and private actors, further support a finding that the unfair or deceptive practices identified in Sections III.A. and III.B. are prevalent. To address these unfair or deceptive practices, the Commission has brought enforcement actions and engaged in other efforts to address unfair or deceptive fee practices. The Commission has brought numerous cases alleging businesses have misrepresented the total costs of goods and services because their prices do not include all mandatory fees.
The Commission has similarly brought numerous cases alleging businesses have mispresented the nature and purpose of fees.
The Commission also addressed misrepresentations about the nature and purpose of fees, including their amount and whether they were mandatory, in
To complement its law enforcement efforts, the FTC has engaged with the public through a variety of measures over more than a decade to address unfair or deceptive practices related to fees. For example, in 2012, the FTC's Bureau of Economics held a conference designed to “examine the theoretical motivation for drip pricing and its impact on consumers, empirical studies, and policy issues pertaining to drip pricing.”
The Commission's law enforcement partners have also brought actions addressing unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees. For example, State Attorneys General have brought cases against hotel chains and delivery apps involving unfair or deceptive fees.
Some States have also taken legislative or regulatory action involving unfair or deceptive fees. For example, California
Regulators in countries such as Canada and Australia, as well as international bodies such as the European Union, have also begun regulating unfair and deceptive fee practices. In September 2023, the United Kingdom solicited public comment on drip pricing. That numerous countries outside of the United States have addressed fees and deceptive pricing through legislation and law enforcement lends additional support to the conclusion that these types of fees are prevalent. Paragraph 74.01(1.1) of the Canadian Competition Act
The Commission believes that the proposed rule will substantially improve its ability to combat the most prevalent unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees and other charges and may also strengthen deterrence against these practices in the first instance. While unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees are already unlawful under Section 5 of the FTC Act, which prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices, the proposed rule (if finalized) will allow the Commission to seek civil penalties against violators and
The Commission's objectives in commencing this rulemaking are to deter deceptive and unfair acts or practices involving fees, to promote a level playing field that enables comparison shopping and allows honest businesses to compete, and to expand the available remedies where such practices are uncovered. In the ANPR, the Commission described how a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision,
The proposed rule will make available the shorter path in a broader set of Commission enforcement actions so that it can more efficiently redress consumers. Currently, the Commission can directly pursue in Federal court Section 19 remedies, including civil penalties and consumer redress, for unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees only if those practices violate certain other rules or statutes enforced by the Commission, such as the Commission's Telemarketing Sales Rule (“TSR”),
The Commission's proposed rule is straightforward. It borrows from existing rules and statutory definitions by declaring that unfair or deceptive practices with respect to fees are unlawful. These unfair or deceptive practices include bait-and-switch pricing and misrepresenting the nature and purpose of fees. As noted in Section III, case law, the Commission's experience, the experience of commenters, and other evidence cited herein are replete with examples of such unfair or deceptive practices.
Several commenters raised questions about jurisdiction. The Commission's enforcement of the proposed rule is subject to all existing limitations of the law: of unfair or deceptive acts or practices under the FTC Act; of the FTC's jurisdiction; and of the U.S. Constitution—the Commission cannot bring a complaint to enforce the rule if the complaint would exceed the Commission's jurisdiction or offend the Constitution.
The Commission invites written comments on the proposed Rule, and, in particular, answers to the specific questions set forth in Section X.
Proposed § 464.1 contains definitions for the following terms: “Ancillary Good or Service,” “Business,” “Clear(ly) and Conspicuous(ly),” “Government Charges,” “Pricing Information,” “Shipping Charges,” and “Total Price.” Each of these terms is used in the proposed Rule.
“Ancillary Good or Service” is defined as any additional good(s) or service(s) offered to a consumer as part of the same transaction. This would include goods or services not necessary to render the primary good or service fit for its intended use but are nevertheless offered as part of the same transaction. An Ancillary Good or Service may be mandatory or optional. For example, if a hotel offers a consumer the option to purchase or decline trip insurance with a room reservation, the insurance would be an optional ancillary service. If a housing rental agreement includes a fee that the consumer cannot reasonably avoid for a trash valet service, it would be a mandatory ancillary service. If a business includes a fee the consumer cannot reasonably avoid to process the payment for any good or service, such payment processing would be a mandatory ancillary service.
“Business” is defined as an individual, corporation, partnership, association, or any other entity that offers goods or services, including, but not limited to, online, in mobile applications, and in physical locations. This definition is industry neutral. However, this definition contains a carveout for certain motor vehicle dealers that must comply with 16 CFR 463, requiring a cash price disclosure and prohibiting misrepresentations. On July 13, 2022, the Commission published in the
“Clear(ly) and Conspicuous(ly)” is defined consistently with longstanding Commission interpretation and practice.
“Government Charges” means all fees or charges imposed on consumers by a Federal, State, or local government agency, unit, or department. This definition covers only fees or charges imposed by the government on consumers and does not encompass fees or charges that the government imposes on a business and that the business chooses to pass on to consumers.
“Pricing Information” is defined as any information relating to any amount a consumer may pay.
“Shipping Charges” is defined as all fees or charges that reasonably reflect the amount a Business incurs to send physical goods to a consumer through the mail, including private mail services. This definition does not include delivery through couriers, such as those in mobile delivery applications. This definition is limited to the amount that reasonably reflects what a Business incurs to send goods. Thus, for the purposes of the provision that references Shipping Charges, a Business cannot artificially inflate the cost of shipping.
“Total Price” is defined as the maximum total of all fees or charges a consumer must pay for a good or service and any mandatory Ancillary Good or Service, except that Shipping Charges and Government Charges may be excluded. The use of the phrase “maximum total” would allow businesses to apply discounts and rebates after disclosing the Total Price. Because the Total Price includes all charges that a consumer must pay, it covers mandatory charges. As explained in Section III.A., because there is an implied representation that a good or service offered for sale is fit for the purposes for which it is sold, a Business cannot treat a feature as optional if it is necessary to render the good or service fit for its intended use. The Total Price need not include Shipping Charges (all fees or charges that reasonably reflect the amount a Business incurs to send physical goods to a consumer through the mail, including private mail services) and Government Charges (all fees or charges imposed on consumers by a Federal, State, or local government agency, unit, or department). Because the Shipping Charges must reasonably reflect the amount a Business incurs, a Business cannot artificially inflate the cost of shipping that is excluded from the Total Price. A Business likewise cannot artificially inflate taxes excluded from the Total Price because the definition of Government Charges covers only those charges imposed by the government on consumers.
The prohibition against bait-and-switch pricing in proposed § 464.2(a) would cover unlawful conduct by Businesses that offer, display, or advertise an amount a consumer may pay without Clearly and Conspicuously disclosing the Total Price. In this rule, the Total Price includes all charges that a consumer must pay for a good or service, including any mandatory Ancillary Good or Service. As explained in Section V.A., Total Price need not include Shipping Charges and Government Charges. Proposed § 464.2(b) clarifies that a Business that is required to disclose the Total Price in an offer, display, or advertisement under § 464.2(a) must disclose it more prominently than any other Pricing Information.
The prohibition on hidden fees applies to amounts “offered, displayed, or advertised” by a Business even if a different entity provides the good or service. For example, if an online travel agent advertises a price for a hotel room provided by a hotel chain, the online travel agent must display the Total Price, inclusive of mandatory fees charged by the hotel chain. Similarly, if a Business advertises a price for a product that it provides to the consumer and requires an ancillary good or service provided by another entity, such as payment processing, the charge for the mandatory ancillary good or service must be included in the Total Price.
The Commission anticipates the possibility of providing certain exclusions from the proposed rule, including for some financial products where the Total Price cannot practically be determined. As discussed in Section X, the Commission is seeking comment on the proper scope of any such exclusion. Further, as discussed in Section V.A., the proposed rule also contains a carveout for certain motor vehicle dealers that must comply with 16 CFR 463, which requires cash price disclosures and prohibits certain misrepresentations.
The prohibition against misrepresenting the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay in § 464.3(a) covers misrepresentations about a fee's nature and purpose, which includes the refundability of such fees as well as the identity of any good or service for which fees are charged.
Section 464.3 includes a preventative disclosure requirement pursuant to the Commission's Section 5 authority.
Sections 464.3(a) and (b) operate together to prohibit Businesses from misrepresenting the nature and purpose of fees by using vague descriptions. For example, a meal delivery app that chooses to itemize a mandatory service charge as part of the Total Price cannot mislead consumers about the service for which the fee is charged. If a portion of the service charge is used to compensate a delivery driver while another portion is used to compensate the Business for providing the online application, a description that combines both portions without specifying the recipient of each portion of the service charge would violate § 464.3(a). Similarly, a Business must disclose, and cannot misrepresent the nature and purpose of, Shipping Charges, Government Charges, optional fees, voluntary gratuities, and invitations to tip that are excluded from
The relation to State laws provision in § 464.4 would prevent the rule from superseding State laws unless there is an inconsistency.
The Commission can decide to finalize the proposed rule if the rulemaking record, including the public comments in response to this NPRM, supports such a conclusion. The Commission may, either on its own initiative or in response to a commenter's request, engage in additional processes, which are described in 16 CFR 1.12 and 1.13. If the Commission on its own initiative decides to conduct an informal hearing, or if a commenter files an adequate request for such a hearing, then a separate notice will issue under 16 CFR. 1.12(a). Based on the comment record and existing prohibitions against unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees under Section 5 of the FTC Act, the Commission does not currently identify any disputed issues of material fact that need to be resolved at an informal hearing.
Under Section 22 of the FTC Act, the Commission, when it publishes any NPRM, must include a “preliminary regulatory analysis.” 15 U.S.C. 57b-3(b)(1). The required contents of a preliminary regulatory analysis are (1) “a concise statement of the need for, and the objectives of, the proposed rule,” (2) “a description of any reasonable alternatives to the proposed rule which may accomplish the stated objective,” and (3) “a preliminary analysis of the projected benefits and any adverse economic effects and any other effects” for the proposed rule and each alternative, along with an analysis “of the effectiveness of the proposed rule and each alternative in meeting the stated objectives of the proposed rule.” 15 U.S.C. 57b-3(b)(1)(A)-(C).
This proposed rule is needed to address the prevalent business practices of presenting incomplete pricing information that obscures the total price and misrepresenting the nature and purpose of fees, which are unfair or deceptive practices. The proposed rule aims to (a) prohibit and prevent these unlawful practices, (b) foreclose businesses from circumventing the purpose of the rule, such as by mischaracterizing essential components of a product as optional add-on components, shipping, or taxes, (c) promote a level playing field that enables comparison shopping and allows honest businesses to compete, and (d) empower the Commission to provide monetary redress to consumers and to seek civil penalties if warranted. Section IV provides more detail regarding the need for, and the objectives of, the proposed rule. The NPRM addresses the other requirements in this section.
The Commission believes that the benefits of proceeding with the rulemaking will significantly outweigh the costs, but it welcomes public comment and data (both qualitative and quantitative) on any benefits and costs to inform a final regulatory analysis. Critical to the Commission's analysis is the legal consequence that any eventual rule would allow not only for the ability to redress consumers who are harmed by rule violations, but also for the deterrence value of the threat of civil penalties against violators. Such results are likely to provide benefits to consumers and competition, as well as to the agency, without imposing any significant costs on consumers or competition. It is difficult to quantify with precision what all those benefits may be, but it is possible to describe them qualitatively.
It is useful to begin with the scope of the problem the proposed rule would address. As discussed in the ANPR and documented in the comments received and existing literature on shrouded pricing, unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees pervade various industries, harming consumers and competition. For example, empirical and theoretical models suggest that mandatory hidden fees may lead consumers to pay more than they otherwise would in a truly transparent marketplace. This can lead to a transfer of wealth away from consumers to the firms who successfully hide their true prices. Studies suggest that unfair or deceptive pricing strategies may also lead consumers to put less effort into searching for lower prices. Deceptive pricing may harm competition by directing consumers away from businesses with the best price and honest practices to businesses with prices that are higher, less transparent, and more deceptive. This makes it harder for the genuine price cutter to attract consumers and enables the higher-priced rival to effectively shroud its comparatively higher prices, thereby reducing real price competition.
Given the proliferation of unfair or deceptive pricing practices relating to fees, it is not surprising that cases relating to unfair or deceptive fee practices have recently constituted, and are likely to constitute in the future, a meaningful share of Commission enforcement actions, and in many of those actions a rule may prove to be the only or the most practicable means for achieving consumer redress. As such, a significant anticipated benefit of a final rule is the ability to obtain monetary relief, especially consumer redress, as well as civil penalties. While such relief could also be obtained for certain fee-related practices with an existing rule or statute, such as the TSR, ROSCA, and the Negative Option Rule, by no means do all unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees implicate an existing rule or statute.
To succeed at obtaining consumer redress without a rule violation, the Commission must first obtain an administrative cease-and-desist order based on Section 5 violations. Then, to secure consumer redress for victims, the Commission must file an action in Federal court under Section 19(a)(2) and persuade a court in each case that the conduct at issue is “one which a reasonable man would have known under the circumstances was dishonest or fraudulent.”
Accordingly, without a rule, the Section 19(a)(2) path often requires consumer victims to wait many years before the Commission can deliver redress to them, even six years or more.
Another potential significant benefit is deterrence of unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees. The Commission anticipates that most companies that are subject to any eventual rule would comply with it right away, especially as their competitors would also be bound by it. And for companies that do not immediately comply, an eventual rule that makes it less likely they could evade redressing consumers and more likely that they have to pay civil penalties can have only helpful deterrence effects, whatever their magnitude.
In analyzing the potential costs and benefits of the proposed rule, the Commission also considered several alternatives to the rule including terminating the rulemaking, pursuing narrower rule alternatives and pursuing broader rule alternatives. One potentially reasonable alternative to the proposed rule is to terminate the rulemaking and rely instead on the existing tools that the Commission currently possesses to combat unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees, such as consumer education and enforcement actions brought under Sections 5 and 19(a)(2) of the FTC Act. Termination of the rulemaking would offer the benefit of preserving some Commission resources that would be required to continue the rulemaking in the short term, but it would come at a significant cost. The cost that is most significant is the failure to strengthen the set of tools available in support of the Commission's enforcement program against unfair or deceptive practices relating to fees, depriving it of the benefits outlined in this section.
Other potential reasonable alternatives to the proposed rule could narrow the proposed rule's scope. As discussed in Section III, bait-and-switch pricing and misrepresentations relating to fees are prevalent across the economy. However, much media attention has been focused on fees related to live-event ticketing and short-term lodging, and the Commission received many comments related to these two sectors in response to the ANPR. An alternative to the proposed rule would be to propose a rule addressing pricing only in these specific sectors. The Commission believes, however, that limiting the proposed rule to specific sectors that have received extensive attention would leave the door open to widespread unfair or deceptive practices in other sectors. One benefit of the proposed industry-neutral rule is that consumers will likely have greater confidence in knowing when the rule applies to their purchases compared to a sectoral rule in which only certain industries are required to show Total Price. Further, comments received in response to the ANPR, described in Section II, noted the importance of applying a proposed rule to all market sector members to establish a level playing field and to avoid granting individual industry members competitive advantages by excluding them from rule coverage. A narrower alternative rule could fail to address the identified unfair or deceptive fee practices in large swaths of the economy and give some businesses an unfair competitive advantage.
In addition, the proposed rule could have been subject to further narrowing principles, including proposing a rule that exempted small businesses or focused solely on online-only transactions. An alternative rule that exempted small businesses from the proposed requirements in § 464.2 could have the benefit of avoiding compliance costs borne by small businesses with smaller profit margins that might cause them to be impacted disproportionately by the proposed rule. On the other hand, a rule exempting small businesses might impose more uncertainty and compliance costs for businesses to determine whether the rule applies to them and, as noted in this section, comments from industry favored a rule that applied to industry members equally to avoid the creation of competitive advantages. Narrowing the scope of the rule in this way could also reduce consumer benefits arising from increased price transparency across markets and lower consumer confidence regarding whether the rule applies to specific purchases.
Another narrower alternative rule focused on online-only transactions could preserve many benefits discussed in this section of an industry-neutral rule because it would cover many of the industries about which the Commission received a large number of comments. As a result, this alternative would likely still benefit a large number of consumers. It may also avoid unintended consequences in some industries, particularly those with complicated pricing structures.
As noted in Section II, many comments to the ANPR expressed frustration with fees commenters deemed “excessive” or “worthless.” An alternative to the proposed rule would be to address these fees explicitly. Such an alternative would benefit consumers who are paying excessive amounts for basic goods or services and those who are paying for goods or services that provide them little to no value by prohibiting businesses from charging such fees. This economic transfer would allow consumers to save their money or spend it elsewhere on other goods or services that
In sum, the alternative of terminating the rulemaking would not sufficiently accomplish the Commission's objectives. Other alternatives discussed here would accomplish some, but not all, of the Commission's objectives. The Commission seeks comment on these alternatives and any other potentially reasonable alternatives. While there may be other alternatives that could potentially accomplish the stated objectives, the Commission would benefit from additional data to conduct preliminary analyses of projected benefits and adverse economic effects.
The following analysis describes the anticipated impacts of the proposed rule. Our analysis concludes that on an economy-wide basis, there are positive benefits to the proposed rule if the benefit per consumer is at least $6.65 per consumer per year over a 10-year period.
1. Prohibits offering, displaying, or advertising an amount a consumer may pay without adequate disclosure of the Total Price, as defined in the proposed rule.
2. Prohibits misrepresentations regarding the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay, and requires disclosures of the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay that is excluded from the Total Price. This includes disclosing the refundability of such fees, and the identity of any good or service for which fees are charged.
Where possible, the Commission quantifies the benefits and costs and notes that some potential benefits and costs are unquantified. If a benefit or cost is quantified, the sources of the data relied upon are indicated. If an assumption is needed, the text makes clear which quantities are being assumed. Because there is data available to quantify some of the potential benefits and costs in the live-event ticketing and short-term lodging industries and mandatory fees are commonplace in these industries, this preliminary analysis provides quantified benefits and costs for these specific industries separately. Mandatory fees are also common in the restaurant industry. Some of the costs for this industry are quantified, but there is insufficient data to quantify benefits for this industry.
The Commission uses 10 years for the time period of analysis because FTC rules are subject to review every 10 years. Tables 1.A and 1.B summarize the main findings of the regulatory impact analysis. Table 1.A presents the potential benefits and costs of the proposed rulemaking. Panel A summarizes the costs, benefits, and resulting net benefits for the live-event ticketing and short-term lodging industries—the two industries for which data are available to estimate both costs and benefits of the proposed rule. Quantified benefits in these industries derive from time savings consumers would experience due to greater price transparency, leading to more efficient shopping processes. Quantified costs derive from the costs to firms of complying with the proposed rule.
The quantified net benefits for both the live-event ticketing and short-term lodging industries are positive. There are also unquantified benefits and costs. Unquantified benefits may arise from a reduction in deadweight loss as consumers experience greater price transparency and make fewer mistake purchases. Unquantified costs may stem from unintended consequences of the rule, such as any adjustment costs or
Panel B summarizes the costs and benefits for the restaurant industry and all other remaining industries. Quantified costs derive from compliance. Due to a lack of data, all benefits, including both the increase in time savings and reduction in deadweight loss, of the proposed rule for these industries are unquantified. The inability to quantify such benefits does not indicate that such benefits are trivial; indeed, such unquantified benefits may be substantial.
For both quantified benefits and costs, we provide a range representing the set of assumptions that result in a “low-end” or “high-end” estimate. These estimates are calculated as present values over the 10-year time frame. Benefits and costs are more valuable to society the sooner they occur. A discount rate (3% or 7%) is used to adjust estimated benefits and costs for differences in timing; a higher discount rate is associated with a greater value for benefits and costs in the present.
Table 1.B presents low-end and high-end estimates of the total quantified economy-wide costs and the necessary “break-even benefit” per consumer. Since the Commission is unable to quantify the benefits of the proposed rule at the economy level, we instead calculate the minimum value the proposed rule would need to generate for the average consumer in order for the total benefits of the proposed rule to outweigh its quantified costs. Under the high-end cost assumptions with a 7% discount rate, we find that each consumer would need to experience a benefit of $6.65 per year over 10 years for the proposed rule's benefits to exceed its quantified economy-wide compliance costs.
Insufficient information about or salience of mandatory fees when consumers start the purchasing process for a product may result in a market failure.
A market failure may also occur when firms shroud total prices through non-aggregated partitioned pricing, in which all of the components of the total price (base price, fees, etc.) are presented to consumers up front but without the total price itself.
A well-functioning market for a good (or service) depends, in part, on its consumers having accurate information regarding the price of the good. By revealing hidden mandatory fees later in the purchasing process through drip pricing, a firm imposes additional costs on consumers of acquiring this information. By employing partitioned pricing but failing to provide an upfront total price, a firm imposes similar added costs. In either case, several harms may arise. First, keeping consumer choices fixed, the added search cost to acquire price information reduces consumer surplus with no countervailing increase of producer surplus. Second, shrouded prices make comparison shopping more difficult, leading consumers to make suboptimal consumption decisions.
Overall, consumers may find it too costly to search for total price information for some or all goods under consideration. This leads consumer demand to become less elastic, and consumers will accept higher prices relative to an efficient equilibrium. Additionally, as shrouded prices make it harder for consumers to comparison shop, firms may gain more market power that allows them to raise prices.
Figure 1 illustrates this effect of shrouded prices on consumer demand. In this model, the demand curve
As a consequence of the higher price paid by consumers, there is a transfer of surplus from consumers to sellers. This transfer correlates with additional profit for producers, who thus have an incentive to increase consumer costs in this manner.
Additionally, products are vertically differentiated in many markets, with higher quality items selling at higher prices. In such markets, drip pricing may lead to equilibria characterized by inefficiently high qualities in addition to inefficiently high quantities.
As explained in Section VII.C.1.a, sellers have incentives to distort consumer demand toward an inefficient equilibrium. This inefficiency may also arise in a behavioral context.
There are several studies that show how consumer behavior changes as a result of drip pricing. One study found that when optional surcharges are dripped, individuals are more likely to select a more expensive option (after including surcharges) than what they would have chosen under upfront pricing.
Another prominent study looked at how consumers respond to the salience of sales tax on goods, which affects the full price of a product.
The model of incomplete price information, described in Section VII.C.1.a, provides a framework for assessing the potential costs, benefits, and transfers associated with the proposed rule. The proposed rule would result in positive net benefits if it increases the ease with which consumers can learn total prices and if the proposed rule improves consumer comprehension of fees as they relate to total price, facilitates comparison shopping, reduces search costs, or otherwise allows consumers to make choices that increase net welfare.
Under the current regime, if a seller in a given industry utilizes hidden fees, that seller may acquire a larger market share by advertising lower initial prices than other sellers not using hidden fees. Absent a Federal rule, competitive forces will drive other firms within an industry to also use hidden fees. These firms may have to accept a lower market share if they don't use hidden fees, even though their total prices are similar to their competitors. Thus, one potential outcome of the proposed rule is that firms that currently do not use drip pricing (in an industry where drip pricing is common) will no longer face the competitive pressure to employ hidden fees and may experience higher revenue if consumers can more easily compare prices across firms.
The proposed rule would also generate societal costs as firms would have to adjust how they convey prices to consumers. The proposed rule could increase economic efficiency if it improves consumers' price calculations and the resulting reduction in deadweight loss exceeds the cost to firms of providing more transparent pricing. It may also facilitate price comparisons by consumers, increase competition among sellers, and put downward pressure on prices. Due to a lack of data, it is difficult to fully quantify all the potential effects of the proposed rule on the full economy. Where there may be impacts that we are unable to quantify, we provide a qualitative description.
Consumers would benefit from the proposed rule in several ways. In addition to reductions in search costs and deadweight loss, which are described in greater detail in Section VII.C.1, there may be unquantified benefits from § 464.3 of the proposed rule, which in part prohibits misrepresentation regarding the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay that is excluded from the Total Price. Another potential unquantified benefit to consumers from the proposed rule is reduced frustration and consumer stress that is often associated with surprise fees that distort the purchasing process.
The proposed rule may also provide a benefit to firms in the form of harmonized, nation-wide compliance requirements. In the absence of the proposed rule, individual States may pursue enforcement actions against firms using drip pricing or enact their own drip pricing prohibitions.
Consumers may save time searching for total price on goods and services as a result of the proposed rule. In a well-functioning market, consumers find it beneficial to spend time comparison shopping for low prices. When mandatory fees are obscured, however, consumers incur longer search times to discover full prices and make informed purchasing decisions. The purchase process for a given transaction takes longer than it would otherwise, as a consumer learns the full price at the end of the process and may need to re-assess whether they wish to purchase at a higher price than originally expected or look for other options. The proposed rule would eliminate the need for additional, inefficient amounts of time to determine the total price from sellers who do not provide the total price up front. At this time, we quantify the reduction in search costs in the live-event ticketing and short-term lodging industries. We do not quantify the benefits of the reductions in search costs in other industries because we lack the data to quantify such benefits, but we acknowledge that it is a positive benefit to the proposed rule.
As discussed in Section VII.C.1.a, consumers' incomplete price information may distort consumer demand. This distortion may shift a market to an inefficient equilibrium and generate deadweight loss, which results from consumers purchasing higher quantities of the good than they would if fully informed. Under the proposed rule, consumers would learn the total price up front. Thus, consumers' demand distortion would likely be mitigated, and some fraction of the welfare-reducing transactions would be prevented. In other words, resources supporting overconsumption become available for better societal use, and the deadweight loss is reduced or eliminated. The provision of full pricing information may also reduce consumers' mistake purchases with respect to product quality. Drip pricing might lead consumers to purchase goods of inefficiently high quality; the proposed rule may allow consumers to choose efficient levels of quality. In addition, the requirement to disclose the refundability of any fees not included in the total price may also reduce the quantity of consumers' mistake purchases. Absent the proposed rule, if businesses do not disclose that certain charges are not refundable, consumers might make purchases assuming that they are refundable. Thus, the proposed rule may result in consumers purchasing closer to the efficient quantity of goods. We do not quantify the reduction in deadweight loss, but we acknowledge that it is a positive benefit to the proposed rule.
The Commission expects that prices are likely to adjust in response to the transparency facilitated by the proposed rule. These price adjustments serve to transfer welfare from one side of the market to the other; consumer welfare would increase, and producer profits would decrease by the same amount. Typically, transfers of welfare from one set of people in the economy to another are documented in a regulatory analysis, but do not change net social welfare.
Because the proposed rule is sector-neutral and economy-wide, all firms will be affected to some degree. Firms operating in the United States will likely do a basic regulatory review to determine how the proposed rule applies to them. Firms that are not already in compliance with the proposed rule may incur additional costs to re-optimize prices of goods and services. These firms may also incur costs to adjust how they display price information in order to disclose the full price whenever a price is quoted, and add required disclosures regarding refundability of fees not included in Total Price (
In addition, there may be some costs related to unintended consequences of the proposed rule. For instance, consumers who are used to an existing pricing structure that separately discloses mandatory fees at the end of the purchase process may mistakenly make inefficient purchases while adjusting to the new regime of all-in total pricing. For example, consumers accustomed to dripped ticketing fees may initially under-consume when shopping for tickets with upfront all-in pricing. The societal cost of such inefficiencies would be temporary and decrease as consumers adjust to the all-in pricing required by the proposed rule.
As another example, while the proposed rule excludes government charges and shipping from the required disclosure of total price, the proposed rule requires any internal handling costs associated with packaging a good that were previously presented as fees at the end of the purchase process to be incorporated in the total price. Internal handling costs include costs not attributable to the amount sellers are charged by third party shipping services like UPS or USPS. Since shipping and handling charges are currently often combined into one fee, businesses may have to change how they account for handling costs and how they advertise shipping and handling costs in order to comply with this provision.
The total costs of the proposed rule are uncertain because it is unclear how, across a variety of industries, firms would adjust prices, change their price displays and disclosures, and upgrade their systems in response to the proposed rule. This section quantifies economy-wide compliance costs to the extent possible, while recognizing that we cannot quantify all costs. The degree to which the proposed rule generates benefits for all industries in the economy is unclear, due to a lack of reliable information on how these fees affect search and decision-making at the economy level and the way in which pricing and search costs vary across industries. As such, we are unable to quantify economy-wide benefits. Instead, we determine the break-even level of benefits the proposed rule must generate in order to outweigh the quantified costs we estimate and, thus, generate a net positive benefit to society.
As a preview, we conclude in Section VII.C.2.d.(2) that if the proposed rule results in a benefit of at least $6.65 per consumer per year over 10 years, then the benefits from reduced search time will exceed quantified compliance costs. It seems likely that consumers would experience search time savings of this amount.
Section VII.C.3 provides more detailed quantitative analyses of costs for three specific industries about which we have more information regarding mandatory fees: live-event ticketing, short-term lodging, and restaurants. However, there are likely other industries that may need to change their current practices to comply with the proposed rule, if finalized. To determine compliance costs for the remainder of the economy, we assume that 90% of these firms already comply with the proposed rule and that the other 10% of these firms do not currently comply with the proposed rule.
The Commission quantifies the compliance costs utilizing assumptions on the number of hours required to check compliance with and, if necessary, come into compliance with the proposed rule. We expect that in response to the proposed rule, firms will initially determine whether and how the proposed rule applies to them given their current pricing and fee disclosure strategies. We assume firms whose current practices align with the proposed rule will incur one hour of lawyer time to confirm their compliance.
We do not have data on the exact costs firms not presently compliant will incur to comply with the proposed rule. We acknowledge that some firms in some industries may have already developed the tools required to comply with the proposed rule because they operate in jurisdictions with similar rules, such as all-in pricing requirements.
Transitioning to compliance for these types of firms should be relatively straightforward. For other firms and in other industries, transitioning to compliance may require additional time and costs. To capture both the variation and uncertainty of costs across industries, we make a series of low-end and high-end assumptions on the number of hours required to comply with the proposed rule. For example, we assume that firms not presently compliant will employ a low end of 5 hours and a high end of 10 hours of lawyer time to determine what is necessary to comply with the proposed rule. While some firms may forgo formal legal advice, this range of lawyer time serves as a proxy for any costs associated with understanding the proposed rule and preparing to comply with it.
The proposed rule's prohibition on drip pricing may lead to shifts in consumer demand, and consequently, shifts in market equilibria. In response, firms transitioning away from drip pricing may need to determine new optimal prices and contracts. In addition, the proposed rule's requirement that internal handling fees must be separated from shipping fees and included in the total price may require firms to invest more resources to better monitor, measure, and adjust both the shipping cost and the total price to comply with this provision. We assume these price re-optimizations require
The Commission expects that the drip pricing employed by firms not presently compliant with the proposed rule is, in many cases, manifested in online sales. In such cases, firms will also need to adjust both advertised prices as well as purchase processes for online sales, and we assume these adjustments require firms to incur a one-time, upfront cost of web developer time. Firms may also need to add required disclosures regarding the refundability of any fees not included in the Total Price. We assume firms not presently compliant will employ a low end of 40 hours and a high end of 80 hours of web developer time to become compliant with the proposed rule.
It may be the case that once the firm incurs the one-time transition costs, there are no additional costs. For a low-end estimate of costs, we assume annual costs are $0 because there are zero additional hours of labor. However, it may be the case that as firms transition into compliance with the proposed rule, firms need to reevaluate their pricing policies to ensure continued compliance by employing additional lawyer time on an annual basis. Because the proposed rule applies to the entire economy, it is difficult to know the exact annual compliance costs that firms may incur as the various industries adapt to the proposed rule. For the high-end cost estimate, we assume firms require an average of 10 hours of lawyer time for annual compliance checks. These potential annual compliance costs are proxied with lawyer time but may take other forms that are unknown at this time.
Table 2 presents the economy-wide compliance costs, as well as the sum of the industry-specific compliance costs described in more detail in Section VII.C.3. Since the proposed rule is sector-neutral and economy-wide, we begin with the total number of firms in the U.S. (6,140,612), subtract the number of firms in the live-event ticketing, short-term lodging, and restaurant industries, and then assume that 90% of the remaining firms are already in compliance with the proposed rule.
For firms not presently in compliance with the proposed rule, we express compliance costs as present values, and we estimate them by adding one-time costs with recurring annual costs, discounted at either 3% or 7%. We add to these costs the regulatory familiarization costs for firms in the remainder of the economy already compliant with the proposed rule as well as the present value of compliance costs for the three industries discussed in Section VII.C.3 to arrive at the total present value of compliance costs for the economy as a whole. Table 3 presents the per-firm annualized compliance costs for the economy as a whole, separated by firms already in compliance, which incur a one-time compliance check, and firms not presently in compliance, which incur both one-time and recurring costs.
The cost of employee time is monetized using wages obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2022 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.
In
From Table 2, under the assumption that firms and consumers discount future years at 3%, we estimate that the proposed rule may result in costs as high as $13.1 billion over 10 years. Assuming a discount rate of 7% for future years, we estimate that the proposed rule may result in costs as high as $12.1 billion over 10 years. To determine the break-even benefit, we begin with the total present value of total costs and calculate the annualized total costs across all industries.
Table 4 presents the results of this break-even analysis. According to the 2020 Census, there are 258,343,281 adults living in the United States. Thus, we divide the estimates of annualized costs by the number of U.S. adults to find the average consumer benefit per year for 10 years required to exceed quantified compliance costs. For example, if the proposed rule results in an average benefit to consumers that exceeds $6.65 per year over 10 years, then the proposed rule's benefits exceed its quantified economy-wide compliance costs under the high-end assumption and an assumed 7% discount rate.
Table 4 also provides the break-even benefit per consumer in terms of minutes saved as a result of the proposed rule. Given that the mean wage is $29.76 and consumers reportedly value time at 82% of their mean wage, an hour of saved search time is worth $24.40/hour.
There are a few
On the other hand, there may be many more firms not already in compliance with the proposed rule, in which case this assumption results in an underestimate of both costs and break-even benefits. Using the same break-even benefits approach with high-end cost assumptions but assuming that 50% of firms in the remainder of the economy are not already in compliance, the proposed rule would need to result in an annual benefit of $24.04, or 59.09 minutes saved, per consumer per year over 10 years in order to exceed quantified compliance costs.
This break-even analysis does not account for any unquantified costs. For instance, some potential unintended consequences are discussed in the restaurant industry section. The proposed rule applies to the entire economy, and we acknowledge that we cannot forecast all potential consequences and costs. On the other hand, there are additional unquantified benefits from the proposed rule beyond reducing search time such as the reduction in deadweight loss caused by consumers' incomplete price information. The proposed rule may also affect unintended consequences that are beneficial. If the benefits from reduced deadweight loss, reduced search time, and beneficial unintended consequences outweigh the costs from compliance and harmful unintended consequences, then the proposed rule results in positive net social benefits.
Finally, a break-even analysis cannot reveal whether the net benefits from the proposed rule will be positive in some industries and negative in others.
Although the proposed rule would apply to nearly all industries and sectors under the jurisdiction of the Commission, it is difficult to quantify benefits and costs economy-wide beyond the break-even analysis presented in Section VII.C.2.d.(2). However, there are some industries where drip pricing is commonplace and there may be better data available for estimation of the benefits and costs of the proposed rule.
This section describes the potential benefits and costs of the proposed rule on two specific industries that have been highlighted as being severely impacted by these undisclosed mandatory fees: the live-event ticketing industry and the short-term lodging industry. It also discusses the potential costs and benefits of the proposed rule in the restaurant industry, where new types of mandatory fees are emerging. The Commission provides quantitative estimates where possible for these industries and describe benefits and costs that we can only assess qualitatively.
This section provides analysis of the quantified benefits and costs of the proposed rule for the live-event ticketing industry. As discussed in Section VII.C.1, there are some benefits and costs that are unquantified, such as reductions in deadweight loss. Using
The live-event ticketing industry is often used as an example where consumers are surprised by mandatory fees at the end of the purchase process.
The live-event ticketing industry is unique relative to other industries because there is a large and robust secondary market. A given ticket to an event may be sold in the primary market, and then resold multiple times in the secondary market. It is difficult to fully quantify how many live-event ticket purchases are made in the US, how many involve mandatory fees, and what the typical size of the fee is. Anecdotally, it appears that most live-event ticket sellers include some kind of fee, although the size of the fee varies across sellers. In a non-generalizable sample, the GAO found live-event ticketing fees in primary and secondary ticket markets averaged 27% and 31%, respectively, of the ticket's price.
In response to the White House calling for disclosure of hidden fees, some ticket sellers have voluntarily pledged to show “all-in prices” when the consumer begins the purchase process.
The proposed rule would require disclosures of the Total Price inclusive of all mandatory charges that a consumer must pay in order to make full use of the good or service. Required disclosure of the relevant prices and prohibitions on misrepresentations save consumers time when shopping for a live-event ticket by requiring the provision of salient, material information early in the process and eliminating time spent pursuing ticket offers priced above the consumer's reservation price.
The Commission assumes that, as a result of the proposed rulemaking provisions prohibiting misrepresentations and requiring price transparency, the total time spent by a consumer conducting the transaction will decrease, because some consumers will reduce the number of ticket listings they view prior to making a ticket purchase. For example, Blake
The amount of time the average consumer spends viewing a listing for a live event is uncertain. However, many ticket sellers utilize a “countdown clock” where the selected tickets in the consumer's shopping cart expire and are returned to the marketplace. These countdown clocks range from 5 to 10 minutes per ticket transaction.
Next, we estimate the number of consumer purchases of live-event tickets. Live Nation (which okwns Ticketmaster) reported selling 281 million fee-bearing tickets in the primary and secondary markets using the Ticketmaster system in its 2022 10-K SEC filing.
To find the total number of tickets sold in the U.S., we extrapolate from the Ticketmaster ticket sales using the
However, Ticketmaster did not begin selling in the secondary market until after the merger with Live Nation. Based on publicly available information, we are uncertain of Ticketmaster's market share in the secondary market for tickets. If Ticketmaster does not have 80% of the ticket market (both primary and secondary), the number of tickets sold in the U.S. exceeds the low-end estimate of 206 million tickets. To generate a high-end estimate of the total number of tickets sold in the U.S., we use the reported revenue for the full online ticket sales industry provided by the private research firm IBISWorld and calculate Ticketmaster's revenue share of the industry.
Lastly, the reduction in search time of 0.7625 to 1.525 minutes is per consumer purchase, not per ticket purchase. We assume that the average consumer purchase is either 1.5 or 3 tickets.
When multiplied by the number of transactions per year, the reduction in minutes spent viewing ticket listings will generate a total time savings of 875 thousand to 10.4 million hours per year. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics, the average hourly wage of U.S. workers in 2022 was $29.76,
Due
Another unquantified potential benefit to the proposed rule is a decrease in abandoned transactions. For example, in some cases, once the additional information about full price is revealed, consumers may fully abandon the transaction (
This section describes the potential costs of the proposed rule provisions and provide quantitative estimates where possible. For live-event ticketing, the cost of employee time is again monetized using wages obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2022 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.
The costs to sellers from the proposed rule include a review of whether the rule applies, and, if the firm is not currently compliant with the proposed rule, one-time costs to comply with the
In order to estimate costs for the entire ticket-selling industry, we calculate the cost per seller and multiply by the number of sellers in the industry. However, there is some uncertainty about the number of live-event ticket sellers that would be affected by the rule. The NAICS classification system does not define a classification solely for ticket sellers, but there are two NAICS codes that might include ticket sellers. The GAO report used the NAICS code 561599, which is “All Other Travel Arrangement and Reservation Services” and includes 1,545 firms such as Tickets.com and VividSeats.
We recognize this number is potentially over-inclusive, as many firms within NAICS code 561599 and 7113 do not directly sell tickets or charge mandatory fees, and thus would not be impacted by the proposed rule. The private research firm IBISWorld estimates that the number of firms in the online ticket selling industry is 3,528 in 2022.
Next, we estimate the number of hours a firm would spend complying with the proposed rule. As with assumptions regarding the number of firms, the following estimation utilizes a low-end and high-end value for the number of hours necessary for compliance. Because many ticket sellers operate in other countries that already have requirements similar to the proposed rule (Canada, Australia, EU), ticket sellers may have already incorporated the changes contemplated by the proposed rule to their operating practices. The websites may be already programmed, the lawyers already prepped about the rule, and the data scientists may have already determined the optimal pricing strategy; thus, sellers would have relatively low costs to transition to all-in pricing in the U.S.
In this low-end cost scenario, because live-event ticket sellers are already largely prepared to advertise total prices to consumers, the one-time, upfront cost of determining optimal prices and updating the purchase systems in terms of the number of required hours is negligible. We assume 5 hours of lawyer time to determine if the proposed rule applies, 40 hours of data scientist time to re-optimize the pricing strategy, and 40 hours of web developer time to edit and reprogram the website to display upfront prices. For the low-end cost scenario, we also assume there are no annual costs after the firm has incurred the one-time transition costs.
In the high-cost scenario, we assume that ticket sellers have not laid the groundwork for upfront pricing. We assume sellers require twice the number of hours to determine optimal prices, re-program the website to include the total price, and review and confirm compliance. Thus, the one-time costs include 10 hours of lawyer time, 80 hours of data scientist time, and 80 hours of web developer time. For the high-end cost estimate, we assume there are recurring annual costs of 10 hours of lawyer time per year to review and confirm compliance.
Table 6 presents the low-end and high-end estimates of costs for the live-event ticketing industry.
Next,
Using various assumptions, the quantified benefits and costs imply that the rule will have a positive net benefit, even without accounting for the benefit of reducing deadweight loss.
Our ability to precisely estimate benefits and costs is limited due to uncertainties in key parameters. The quantified benefits and costs for the live-event ticketing industry rely on a set of assumptions, based on the best available public information. When the data were unclear, we used sets of assumptions that would generate a range of low-end and high-end estimates. In Table 8 we summarize the key assumptions and how those assumptions may affect the resulting estimate of quantified benefits and costs.
The Commission is expressly soliciting comments regarding the uncertainties described in Table 8. Specifically, the Commission requests data that would allow for more refined estimation of the benefits of the proposed rule, including data on the total annual number of consumer live-event ticket purchases and the average search time saved for consumers as a result of the proposed rule. The Commission also requests data to refine the estimated cost of the proposed rule, including information on the number of live-event ticket sellers currently charging hidden mandatory fees, and the anticipated cost to firms from complying with the proposed rule.
Businesses in the short-term lodging industry often charge a variety of mandatory add-on fees. These fees are typically either disclosed up front in fine print separately from the base price (a practice known as partitioned pricing) or revealed just before payment, after the consumer has clicked through multiple pages of a listing (known as drip pricing).
Consumer behavior studies have shown that both partitioned pricing and drip pricing causes consumers to underestimate the total price of the product, even when all components of the price are disclosed up front.
AHLA states that 6% of U.S. hotels charge resort fees, which amounts to $2.93 billion dollars paid in resort fees annually by U.S. consumers.
This section includes an estimate of the benefits and costs associated with the reduced search costs as a result of the proposed rule. Since there is an additional, unquantified benefit of reduced deadweight loss, which is discussed conceptually in Section VII.C.2.a, the net benefit estimated in the following analysis is conservative. The Commission finds that the quantified benefits and costs imply that the rule will have a positive net benefit, even without accounting for the unquantified benefit of reducing deadweight loss.
As a result of the proposed rule, the Commission expects that the time
The Commission specifically focuses on the benefits that accrue to consumers who book rooms from within the United States on any US-facing website, which can include bookings at both domestic and foreign short-term lodgings. Short-term lodgings include both traditional hotels as well as rooms booked through home share websites like Airbnb and VRBO.
Although not all short-term lodgings charge resort fees, the lack of a unified standard of upfront pricing across listings makes comparing prices difficult and time consuming for consumers. Even within a single short-term lodging website, there is variation in whether listings have hidden fees. For example, Marriott's 32 hotel brands impose hidden fees for listings in some cities but not in others. Some listings, in very fine print under the listed price, note whether resort fees are included or excluded in the base price. Some listings do not say anything, requiring consumers to click through the listing to learn whether there are hidden fees at the end. Given that 6% of hotels impose drip pricing, and the average hotel shopper visits 17 travel websites before booking, consumers are likely to encounter at least one website that imposes drip pricing in their search for a hotel.
The Commission uses two different studies to calculate lower and upper-end estimates for the average number of minutes it takes to view one listing. On the lower end, we use statistics on Airbnb user search behavior collected by Fradkin (2017) to calculate that consumers spend 9.48 minutes to view one listing.
To estimate the reduction in average listings viewed due to drip pricing, we use results on the average reduction in listings viewed under upfront pricing from an experiment in the ticketing industry.
Multiplying this number by the minutes to view one listing results in 2.39 to 3.53 minutes saved per transaction. These estimates are likely conservative, given that they assume consumers only view one website before booking a room. One study suggests that consumers in fact visit an average of 17 websites before booking.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Employment Statistics,
Next, the Commission calculates the total savings per year for U.S. consumers who book at U.S. short-term lodgings, which includes both U.S. hotels and home shares. We find the total number of nights booked in the U.S.in 2022 by dividing the total revenue the U.S. short-term lodgings industry earned from rooms by the average daily rate (ADR).
Dividing the total number of nights booked by the average number of nights per booking gives 715 million total bookings.
To estimate the number of foreign short-term lodging bookings made by U.S. consumers, the Commission uses the fact that 96% of all trips taken by U.S. consumers are domestic.
Together, U.S. and foreign bookings amount to about 683.9 million bookings per year. This corresponds to between 27.2 and 40.2 million hours saved by U.S. consumers per year, and between $663.7 million and $980.9 million total savings per year. Table 9 presents the expected benefits of time savings over the next 10 years in present value.
Due to the incomplete price information problem described in Section VII.C.1.a, the proposed rule requiring short-term lodgings to show the total price of rooms will likely result in a reduction of deadweight loss. When consumers are not able to observe total prices in the beginning of the booking process, sellers are likely able to charge higher prices than could be supported under the proposed rule. In addition, the requirement to disclose the refundability of any fees not included in the total price may also result in fewer mistake purchases stemming from incomplete information. Both the total price provision and the refundability disclosure provision may provide consumers with more complete pricing information necessary when making decisions about purchasing hotel rooms, thus reducing deadweight loss. At this time, we do not quantify the reduction in deadweight loss, but acknowledge that it is a positive benefit to the proposed rule.
In some cases, once the additional information about full price is revealed, consumers may fully abandon the transaction (
This section describes the potential costs of the proposed rule provisions to the short-term lodging industry and provide quantitative estimates where possible. The costs to hotels from the proposed rule include a review of whether the rule applies, and, if the firm is not currently compliant with the proposed rule, one-time costs to comply with the rule and recurring annual costs to review and ensure on-going compliance. The cost of employee time is monetized using wages obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics National Industry-Specific Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.
Table 10 outlines the estimated costs of the proposed rule. Panel A shows the costs for U.S. hotels and home share hosts, Panel B shows costs for foreign hotels and home share hosts who post listings on U.S.-facing websites,
There are 47,817 U.S. hotels associated with the “Traveler Accommodation” NAICS code. Of these firms, 6% impose resort fees, bringing the number of U.S. firms affected to 2,869 firms. We assume that this is inclusive of hotels that do not disclose the refundability of any optional add-on charges for additional goods and services. We remove one firm from the low-end estimate to account for the possibility that Marriott fully complies with its settlement with Pennsylvania and removes drip pricing absent the rule.
Next, we estimate the number of hours a U.S. hotel would spend complying with the proposed rule. We assume all hotels that do not impose drip pricing and already disclose refundability of optional charges will spend one hour of lawyer time determining if the proposed rule applies to them. Hotels that are not presently compliant with the rule will incur additional costs to comply with the proposed rule. In the low-end estimate, we assume that because many hotels have websites facing other countries that already have similar requirements to the proposed rule (
In addition to hotels, the proposed rule would also affect individuals who participate in the home share market by listing their property for short term rentals on websites like Airbnb and VRBO. We estimate the total number of home share hosts in the U.S. by starting with the number of Airbnb hosts in the U.S. who post home share listings (not including larger bed and breakfast or hostel establishments) and extrapolating to the full U.S. market using Airbnb's market share in the U.S.
In the high-cost scenario, we assume that hotels have not laid the groundwork for upfront pricing. We assume hotels require twice the number of hours to determine optimal prices, re-program the website to include the total price, and review and confirm compliance. Thus, the one-time costs for hotels include 10 hours of lawyer time, 80 hours of data scientist time, and 80 hours of web developer time. We assume home share hosts spend 3 hours repricing each listing, resulting in 3.5 hours per host.
In addition to the one-time costs, we also assume hotels incur annual costs of between 0 to 10 hours of lawyer time per year to review and confirm compliance with the proposed rule.
Note that all ranges of lawyer, data scientist, web developer, and home share host time serve as proxies for any costs associated with reviewing and ensuring compliance, adjusting pricing strategies, ensuring consumers are presented with total price, and re-evaluating home share listings respectively in response to the proposed rule.
It is difficult to estimate costs for foreign hotels and home share hosts using the same method in Panel A
We use the percentage of Airbnb's U.S. revenue (46%)
The total cost for all affected hotels and home share hosts over 10 years in present value is estimated to be between $136.5 and $413.8 million using a 7% discount rate and $136.5-$441.1 million using a 3% discount rate. This amounts to approximately between $406 to $1,232 annually per firm using a 7% discount rate and between $335 to $1,081 using a 3% discount rate.
Table 11
The quantified benefits and costs imply that the proposed rule will have a positive net benefit, even without accounting for the unquantified benefit of reducing deadweight loss.
The Commission's ability to precisely estimate benefits and costs is limited due to uncertainties in key parameters. The quantified benefits and costs for the short-term lodging industry rely on a set of assumptions based on the best available public information. When the data were unclear, we used sets of assumptions that would generate a range of low-end and high-end estimates. Table 12 summarizes the key assumptions and how they may affect the resulting estimate of quantified benefits and costs. When possible, we attempted to underestimate benefits and overestimate costs in order to estimate conservative net benefits.
The Commission is expressly soliciting comments regarding the uncertainties described in Table 12. Specifically, the Commission requests data that would allow for more refined estimation of benefits of the proposed rule, including statistics on domestic versus foreign bookings by U.S. consumers, data on the reduction of average listings viewed as a result of the proposed rule, and data on the average search time saved for consumers as a result of the proposed rule. The Commission also requests data to refine the estimated cost of the proposed rule, including whether the 6% resort fee statistic from the AHLA applies to firms or establishments, the anticipated cost to firms and home share hosts from complying with the proposed rule, and data on the number of home share hosts in the US.
This section considers the impact of the proposed rule on restaurants and drinking establishments, collectively referred to as “restaurants,” and discuss the potential benefits and costs of the proposed rule within this industry. While we focus here on the restaurant industry, many of the benefit and cost considerations presented here likely apply in similar fashion to other service industries in which either tipping is common or service fees are being employed. Examples of businesses in these industries include nail salons and massage studios. We lack data to quantify several of these benefits and costs, but we estimate compliance costs and determine a break-even level of benefit.
The restaurant industry has seen a recent spike in the use of hidden fees. In its 2023 State of the Industry Report, the National Restaurant Association notes that 15% of restaurants (13% of limited-service restaurants and 17% of full-service restaurants) are adding fees to bills.
Fees in the restaurant industry take several forms. First, it has been a long-standing practice for most, if not all, full-service restaurants to charge mandatory service fees for large parties (typically a minimum of 6 or 8 consumers). We assume in our cost calculations that all full-service restaurants employ large-party mandatory charges.
Second, some restaurants have added mandatory service fees for parties of any size. These fees equal a percentage of the bill, typically 18%, 20%, or 22%, in line with customary percentages consumers use to calculate gratuities. Third, some restaurants are charging 5-10% fees they describe as supporting higher wages or enhanced benefits for workers. In State or local jurisdictions that are eliminating the distinction between tipped and standard minimum wages by raising the tipped minimum wage to equal the corresponding standard minimum wage, some restaurants are including specific fees as part of the transition.
The expectations that consumers have regarding fees will depend upon the type of fees. For example, consumers likely expect mandatory service charges for large parties given that they are a common industry practice. On the other hand, recently introduced fees may be a surprise to consumers. Consumers' expectations will depend on how such fees are disclosed. In addition, restaurants rely on local demand and so repeat customers may come to learn about the fees that restaurants charge—such as whether they have substituted mandatory service charges for tips—over time. In line with observations in the drip pricing literature, consumers are more likely to choose restaurants based on their expectations on cost, which may not incorporate the added costs of fees.
In the absence of a rule, restaurants have discretion as to how they disclose these fees to consumers. Some restaurants may make prominent statements that they have moved to mandatory service charges or instruct consumers not to provide tips. Others may disclose such fees on their menus, which some consumers may not read and so only learn of the fees after receiving the bill at the end of the meal. At this point, consumers have no choice but to accept the fees. Restaurants may characterize some fees as optional and, thus, avoidable in principle, but these fees are mandatory in effect because consumers may not have a way to practicably avoid them if they do not learn of them until receiving the bill. For example, a consumer can avoid a credit card usage fee by paying with cash. If, however, the consumer does not know about this fee in advance and does not have sufficient cash on hand, it is unlikely that the consumer can obtain cash on the spot to cover the bill. As with mandatory fees, the consumer has no reasonable choice but to accept and pay the unexpected credit card usage fee.
Mandatory service charges, the largest fees being added to bills, are commensurate with customary levels of tipping, but they are not necessarily used as a substitute for tipping; in fact, tips and mandatory service fees are distinct under tax and labor laws.
The variation across restaurants in types of fees and use of those fees is likely to affect how consumers tip. It is reasonable to assume that most consumers will not tip when explicitly informed that a tip is not necessary. In the absence of such instruction, fees will still likely have a crowding out effect on consumer tipping.
As applied to restaurants, the proposed rule would require the prices of menu items to be inclusive of any mandatory fees. Restaurants that have implemented mandatory service fees intended as substitutes for tipping could satisfy the proposed rule in one of two ways. First, restaurants could maintain menu prices and eliminate mandatory service fees with the expectation that consumers will resume tipping as is customary. This would represent a return to the traditional tipping model, the typical pricing structure of most restaurants. Alternatively, restaurants could increase menu prices to incorporate the mandatory service charge and continue to operate on a no-tipping-expected model.
Given the long-standing usage of large party fees, we assume restaurants currently imposing these fees would respond to the proposed rule by printing separate small party and large party menus, the latter of which would incorporate the large party fees into menu prices. Finally, since non-service-related fees, such as credit card usage fees, are generally not as well established, we assume restaurants would eliminate these fees and adjust menu prices in response to the proposed rule.
The primary benefit in the restaurant industry from the proposed rule would be the reduction or elimination of deadweight loss in the current, inefficient market equilibrium. An additional, unquantifiable benefit would be the reduction or elimination of psychological costs to consumers caused by the frustration of surprise fees. Furthermore, much confusion and frustration exists among consumers regarding the use of newer restaurant fees. For example, many consumers are confused by “service” charges or fees where those fees do not go to service workers. The proposed rule's prohibition on misrepresenting the nature and purpose of such fees would provide the additional unquantified benefit of lessening consumer confusion around such service charges. This benefit serves both consumers as well as service workers as it increases transparency.
Due to the incomplete price information problem described in Section VII.C.1, the proposed rule requiring restaurants to show the total price of menu items will likely result in a reduction of deadweight loss. Consumers, initially unaware of restaurant fees, are likely spending more on menu items than they would if they knew the full prices. This market inefficiency may be exacerbated in the restaurant industry since consumers often learn of fees when receiving bills and, thus, are unable to adjust their choices in response to the fees.
This section describes the potential costs of the proposed rule's provisions and provide quantitative estimates where possible. We obtain the number of firms and establishments in the restaurant industry from the 2020 SUSB Annual Dataset. For restaurants, the cost of worker time is monetized using wages obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics May 2022 National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates.
The costs to firms from the proposed rule include a review of how the proposed rule applies to the firm, one-time costs to comply with the proposed rule, and annual costs to review and ensure on-going compliance. Our preliminary analysis presents two cost scenarios corresponding to different assumptions on how many hours are required to comply with the proposed rule and how many firms would be impacted by the proposed rule. We present these as a low-end cost scenario and a high-end cost scenario. Table 13 summarizes compliance costs under both of these scenarios.
As in the general discussion of compliance costs in Section VII.C.2.c, we assume that restaurants already in compliance with the proposed rule would incur one hour of lawyer time to confirm this compliance. Similarly, we assume that restaurants not currently in compliance would incur five to ten hours of legal advice to understand the impact of the proposed rule and five to ten hours of legal advice to come into compliance with the proposed rule. Pricing in the restaurant industry is less complex than in the previously discussed industries. We assume that restaurant owners themselves spend five to ten hours reoptimizing prices, and we use the wage of food service managers as a proxy for the cost of this time. These costs would be incurred at the firm level; that is, a firm operating multiple identically branded restaurants would incur these costs once.
Restaurants not currently in compliance with the proposed rule would need to update and possibly redesign menus or menu boards. To estimate menu-related costs, a cost specific to this industry, we use the assumptions and prices of the FDA's Regulatory Impact Analysis for its 2014 Menu Labeling Rule
After the relevant firms redesign their menus, menu replacement would need to occur at each establishment. Following the Menu Labeling RIA, we assume between 0% and 50% of full-service restaurants and bars would have to replace printed menus, at an average cost of $2.60 per menu, at their establishments in response to the proposed rule. Since printed menus are regularly replaced, many establishments would already be in the process of reprinting menus that could be coordinated with any changes needed to be made at the time the rule goes into effect; the proposed rule would not impact printing costs for these establishments.
As in the general discussion of compliance costs, we assume that restaurant firms not currently in compliance would incur zero to ten hours of attorney time to ensure continued compliance in future years. Table 13 provides the total quantified costs (one-time upfront costs plus annual costs) for both the low-end and high-end cost scenarios, and these costs are calculated as present values using discount rates of 7% and 3%. Annualized per firm costs are also provided; for parsimony, these annualized costs are presented for two consolidated categories of restaurant types: (1) full-service restaurants and bars and (2) limited-service restaurants and cafeterias, buffets, snack/coffee shops, etc.
We
In addition, this shift would generate differing welfare impacts across the waitstaff labor market. For example, moving away from the traditional tipping model and toward standardized wages, would mitigate discrimination that occurs through tipping. The literature has found that Black employees tend to receive lower tips than White employees, and that the black-white gap in tipping cannot be explained by differences in service quality.
As discussed in Section VII.C.1, we lack data to quantify the benefits of the proposed rule within the restaurant
Our ability to precisely estimate benefits and costs is limited due to uncertainties in key parameters. The quantified benefits and costs for the restaurant industry rely on a set of assumptions, based on the best available public information. When the data were unclear, we used sets of assumptions that would generate a range of low-end and high-end estimates. Table 14 summarizes the key assumptions and how those assumptions may affect the resulting estimate of quantified benefits and costs.
The Commission is expressly soliciting comments regarding the uncertainties described in Table 14. Specifically, the Commission requests data that would allow for more refined estimation of benefits of the proposed rule. The Commission also requests data to refine the estimated cost of the proposed rule, including information on the number of restaurants currently charging hidden or misleading mandatory fees, and the anticipated cost to firms from complying with the proposed rule.
As an alternative to the proposed rule, the Commission has considered not pursuing rulemaking and to rely on its existing tools through enforcement actions and consumer education instead. Relative to a no-action baseline, by definition, there would be no incremental benefits or costs. The prevalence of drip pricing and hidden mandatory fees would continue to persist.
Another potential alternative as discussed in Section VII.B. is whether the rule should be limited to businesses in the live-event ticketing and/or short-term lodging industries. For these specific industries where we are able to quantify both benefits and costs, we have the following evaluation of costs and benefits of such an alternative. In the live-event ticketing industry, the estimated present value of net benefits due to the proposed rule over a 10-year period with a 7% discount rate is between $20,464,879 and $1,762,524,107. Using a 3% rate, the present value of net benefits in the live-event ticketing industry is estimated to be between $41,746,333 and $2,143,665,007. The present value of net benefits from the proposed rule's requirements over a 10-year period using a 7% discount rate in the short-term lodging industry is estimated to be between $4,247,948,290-$6,752,614,872. Using a 3% rate, the present value of net benefits in the short-term lodging industry is estimated to be between $5,220,642,791 and $8,230,386,045.
The Commission does not have the data to prepare a quantitative analysis of the other alternatives discussed in Section VII.B. The final regulatory analysis may include additional quantification of alternative proposals if the Commission receives data and relevant information in response to the questions for public comment in Section X.
The preceding regulatory analysis has attempted to catalog and, where possible, quantify the potential costs for the economy as a whole, as well as the incremental benefits and costs of the proposed rule for specific industries. At the economy level, we estimate that, for most firms in the economy, the per firm cost will be a one-time cost of $78.74. For firms and industries that currently rely on hidden mandatory fees and require more time to comply, we estimate the annualized per firm cost might be as high as $2,010.
Because the Commission is unable to quantify economy-wide benefits to the proposed rule, at the economy level we provide a break-even analysis using quantified compliance costs. The break-even analysis implies there are positive net benefits to the proposed rule if the benefit per consumer is at least $6.65 per consumer per year over a 10-year period. Note that this analysis does not account for costs from unintended consequences of the proposed rule or the potential benefits from reducing deadweight loss by providing consumers with full information.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (“PRA”), 44 U.S.C. 3501
Section 464.2(a) of the proposed rule defines it as an unfair and deceptive practice for businesses to offer, display, or advertise amounts consumers may pay without clearly and conspicuously disclosing the Total Price, as defined in the proposed rule. § 464.2(b) specifies that, as a preventative measure, businesses that offer, display, or advertise an amount a consumer may pay must display the Total Price more prominently than any other pricing information. While these provisions may alter when and how, in the course of transactions, businesses disclose Total Price, the disclosure itself provides consumers with information readily available to businesses and is something businesses must do in the course of their regular business activities. Thus, the Commission concludes that the Total Price disclosure does not constitute a collection of information for PRA purposes and estimates that any additional attendant costs are
Section 464.3(a) of the proposed rule prohibits businesses from misrepresenting the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay, including the refundability of such fees and the identity of any good or service for which fees are charged. This Section does not require any additional disclosures or information collection, and only requires businesses to refrain from making misrepresentations. The Commission concludes that any additional costs that might be associated with the prohibitions in § 464.3(a) against making misrepresentations are
Section 464.3(b) of the proposed rule requires businesses to disclose clearly and conspicuously before consumers consent to pay the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay that is excluded from the Total Price, including the refundability of such fees and the identity of any good or service for which fees are charged. The information required by § 464.3(b) is necessary as a preventative measure to address the unfair and deceptive conduct of misrepresenting the nature and purpose of fees. Disclosing the amount of fees and the identity of goods or services for which the fees are charged provides consumers with information readily available to businesses and is something businesses do in the course of their regular business activities. The Commission concludes that disclosing the amount of fees and the identity of goods or services does not constitute a collection of information for PRA purposes, and that any costs associated with making these disclosures are
The estimated hours of one-time burden for the required disclosures is 245,454 hours. This estimate is explained in this section.
The proposed rule applies to all firms in the economy and may result in all firms conducting a compliance review, which we proxy with one hour of attorney time. FTC staff estimates there are 818,178 entities that will incur additional costs beyond the initial one-hour compliance review to comply fully with the proposed rule, including firms in the live-event ticketing industry, the hospitality industry, and restaurants. This estimate is based on the total number of firms in the United States according to data from the U.S. Census North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). This estimate relies on the assumption that 10% of all firms in the U.S. (outside of the three specific industries) will incur additional compliance costs.
Of the 818,178 total entities incurring additional costs, only some firms will incur costs directly related to the disclosure requirement. The remaining firms may incur compliance costs due to other provisions of the rule. For example, some firms may only need to re-optimize price and adjust price displays (because they previously charged hidden mandatory fees), but these firms do not need to add disclosures. Lastly, many firms that charge fees for optional goods and services may already disclose whether those optional fees are refundable. Accordingly, we assume that 20% of the 818,178 total firms that incur additional compliance costs would be required to add disclosures regarding the refundability of fees not included in Total Price, resulting in an estimated 163,636 number of respondents.
The proposed rule would require firms to disclose the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay that is excluded from the Total Price, including the refundability of such fees and the identity of any good or service for which fees are charged. We anticipate that the substantial majority of sellers routinely provide these disclosures in the ordinary course of business as a matter of good business practice. For these sellers, the time and financial resources associated with making these disclosures do not constitute a “burden” under the PRA because they are a usual and customary part of regular business practice. 5 CFR 1320.3(b)(2). Moreover, some State laws require the same or similar disclosures as the proposed rule mandates. In addition, some firms may be covered by disclosure requirements of other rules.
Accordingly, to reflect these various considerations, we estimate the disclosure burden required by the proposed rule will be, on average, 90 minutes (or 1.5 hours) for each entity estimated to not be currently compliant with the disclosure requirement of the proposed rule. Of this 90-minute total, we estimate that 30 minutes will be time spent by attorneys reviewing the disclosure and 60 minutes will be time spent to update the website or physical price display. The total estimated one-time burden is 245,454 hours (163,636 firms × 1.5 hours).
The estimated one-time labor cost for disclosures is $13,305,243. This total is the sum of the total cost of attorney time calculated by applying the hourly wage for attorney time of $78.40 to the estimate of 30 minutes of attorney time and applying the hourly wage for web developer time of $42.11 to the estimate of 60 minutes (1 hour) of web developer time ($81.31 per entity × 163,636 entities).
The capital and start-up costs associated with the proposed rule's disclosure are
Under Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act, the Commission invites comments on: (1) whether the disclosure requirements are necessary, including whether the resulting information will be practically useful; (2) the accuracy of our burden estimates, including whether the methodology and assumptions used are valid; (3) how to improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the disclosure requirements; and (4) how to minimize the burden of providing the required information to consumers.
Comments on the proposed disclosure requirement subject to Paperwork Reduction Act review by OMB should additionally be submitted to
The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, requires the Commission to prepare and make available for public comment an “initial regulatory flexibility analysis” (“IRFA”) in connection with any NPRM. 5 U.S.C. 603. An IRFA requires many of the same components as Section 22 of the FTC Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act, including (1) a description of the reasons that agency action is being considered, (2) a statement of the objectives of, and legal basis for, the proposed rule, and (3) a description of any significant alternatives to the proposed rule which accomplish the stated objectives and minimize any significant economic impact of the proposed rule on small entities. Where the Commission has already addressed these components, it incorporates that analysis into its IRFA.
The Commission invites comment on the burden on any small entities that would be covered and has prepared the following analysis.
Most firms in the U.S. economy would be subject to this proposed rule, but only firms that do not currently disclose total price will need to adjust their pricing strategy. According to the Statistics of U.S. Businesses, there were 6,119,657 firms in the United States with fewer than 500 employees, representing 99.7% of all U.S. firms.
The proposed rule contains no reporting or recordkeeping requirements. To comply with the proposed rule, small entities are required to disclose total price prominently and not misrepresent the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay. Almost all firms, including small entities, are subject to the requirements of the proposed rule. For firms that already comply with the proposed rule, the one-time cost per firm is assumed to be one hour of lawyer time at $78.74.
For small businesses that are not currently in compliance, firms will need to re-optimize prices, adjust marketing campaigns, and adapt the purchase process to include full total cost. These firms may also incur recurring annual costs of additional lawyer time to assess and confirm annual compliance. The annualized costs of the one-time cost and the annual costs for the next 10 years is estimated to be as much as $2,010 per firm averaged over all industries. Industry-specific per firm costs, however, may be smaller or larger than this estimate.
The FTC has not identified any other Federal statutes, rules, or policies currently in effect that may directly duplicate or conflict with the proposed rule. The Commission has identified a number of other rules or laws that contain provisions that potentially overlap with certain provisions of the proposed rule.
The Commission has also identified several rules and laws that prohibit misrepresentations potentially related to charges and fees in connection with specific industries or transactions. Specifically, several rules and statutes prohibit misrepresentations that overlap with the proposed rule's prohibition against misrepresenting the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay, including: the Business Opportunity Rule,
Members of the public are invited to comment on any issues or concerns they believe are relevant or appropriate to the Commission's consideration of the proposed rule. The Commission requests that factual data on which the comments are based be submitted with the comments. In addition to the issues raised in this preamble, the Commission solicits public comment on the specific questions identified in this section. These questions are designed to assist the public and should not be construed as a limitation on the issues on which public comment may be submitted.
(1) Should the Commission finalize the proposed rule as a final rule? Why or why not? How, if at all, should the Commission change the proposed rule in promulgating a final rule?
(2) Please provide comment, including relevant data, statistics, consumer complaint information, or any other evidence, on each different provision of the proposed rule. Regarding each provision, please include answers to the following questions:
(a) What is the provision's impact (including any benefits and costs), if any, on consumers, governments, and businesses, both those existing and those yet to be started?
(b) What alternative provision(s) should the Commission consider?
(3) Would the proposed rule, if promulgated, benefit consumers and competition? Provide all available data and evidence that supports your answer, such as empirical data, statistics, consumer-perception studies, and consumer complaints.
(4) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the benefits to consumers and competition from the proposed rule, if promulgated? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(5) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the average search time saved for consumers as a result of the proposed rule? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(6) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the compliance costs that may apply to businesses from the proposed rule, if promulgated? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(a) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the number of firms that will be affected by the proposed rule?
(b) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the number of lawyer hours a firm in each industry would need to review compliance with the rule? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(c) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the number of data scientist hours a firm in each industry would need to comply with the proposed rule? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(d) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the number of web developer hours a firm in each industry would need to comply with the proposed rule? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(e) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect other possible costs that have not already been considered that may apply to businesses, consumers, or workers from the proposed rule, if promulgated? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(f) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the number of firms in each industry that use third-party services to display pricing information that would reduce the costs of compliance? What are the relevant sources of data that reflect how much such services would cost in order to comply with the proposed rule? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(7) Would the proposed rule, if promulgated, have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? If so, how could it be modified to avoid a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?
(8) How would the proposed rule, if promulgated, intersect with existing industry practices, norms, rules, laws, or regulations? Are there any existing laws or regulations that would affect or interfere with the implementation of the proposed rule?
(9) Is the proposed rule adequate to address the two practices identified as prevalent, misrepresenting the total costs of goods and services by omitting mandatory fees from advertised prices and misrepresenting the nature and purpose of fees? Are there additional provisions necessary to prevent these practices in specific industries?
(10) Are the proposed definitions clear? Should any changes be made to any definitions? Are additional definitions needed?
(11) Should the scope of any of the proposed definitions be expanded or narrowed, and if so, how and why?
(12) Should the proposed definition for “Business” exclude certain businesses, and if so, why?
(13) The proposed definition for “Business” contains an exclusion for “motor vehicle dealers that must comply with 16 CFR 463, requiring motor vehicle dealers to disclose the full cash price for which a dealer will sell or finance the motor vehicle to any consumer, and prohibiting motor vehicle dealers from making misrepresentations.” Is this definition clear and understandable? Is this definition ambiguous in any way? How, if at all, should this definition be improved? This exception would only apply if the proposed Motor Vehicle Dealers Rule is finalized and in effect and not subsequently narrowed, altered, or otherwise not in effect. Is having such an exclusion appropriate?
(14) Should a new definition of “Covered Business” be added to narrow the Businesses covered by specific requirements of the rule, in particular the preventative requirements in § 464.2(b)? If so, how should “Covered Businesses” be defined?
(a) Should the definition of “Covered Business” be limited to businesses in the live-event ticketing and/or short-term lodging industries?
i. If so, how should Businesses in the live-event ticketing industry be defined? If they are defined as “any Business that makes live-event tickets available, directly or indirectly, to the general public,” is that definition clear and understandable? Is it ambiguous in any way? How, if at all, should that definition be improved?
ii. If so, how should Businesses in the short-term lodging industry be defined? If they are defined as “any Business that makes temporary sleeping accommodations available, directly or indirectly, to the general public,” is that definition clear and understandable? Is it ambiguous in any way? How, if at all, should that definition be improved?
(b) Should the definition of “Covered Business” exclude small businesses? If so, how should “small businesses” be defined?
i. If “Covered Business” is defined to “include all of the following: (1) any Business that does not satisfy both the Small Business Administration's definition of a small business concern (13 CFR 121.105) and the Small Business Administration's Table of Size Standards (13 CFR 121.201); (2) any Business, regardless of size, that offers goods or services in the live-event ticketing industry; and (3) any Business, regardless of size, that offers goods or services in the short-term accommodations industry,” is that definition clear and understandable? Is it ambiguous in any way? How, if at all, should that definition be improved? Are there industries other than live-event ticketing and short-term accommodations that should be subject to all the proposed requirements of the rule, regardless of size?
ii. What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the costs and benefits that the proposed rule would have on Covered Businesses if this definition is added to the proposed rule?
(c) Should a definition of “Covered Business” exclude businesses to the extent that they offer or advertise credit, lease, or savings products, or to the extent that they extend credit or leases or provide savings products to consumers? In the alternative, should the definition exclude certain of these businesses or products from only certain provisions? If so, specifically, which businesses and products, which provisions of the proposed rule, and why and how, or why not?
(d) Should a definition for “Covered Business” be limited to businesses that offer goods or services online and in mobile applications? Why or why not?
i. If so, how should such businesses be defined?
ii. What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the costs and benefits that the proposed rule would have on Covered Businesses if they are defined in this way?
iii. What are the relevant sources of data that reflect differences in costs for online versus brick-and-mortar stores? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(15) Should a definition for “Covered Business” exclude limited-service and full-service restaurants that satisfy both the Small Business Administration's definition of a small business concern (13 CFR 121.105) and the Small Business Administration's Table of Size Standards (13 CFR 121.201)?
(16) Should the proposed definition for “Total Price” contain an exception for “mandatory charges by restaurants for service performed for the customer in lieu of tips, as defined by the Department of Labor (29 CFR 531.52)”?
(17) Does the proposed definition for “Total Price” provide sufficient clarity for industries that calculate charges based on increments of time? Why or why not?
(18) The proposed definition of Total Price allows Shipping Charges to be excluded. Shipping Charges are defined as “the fees or charges that reasonably reflect the amount a Business incurs to
(a) Does the proposed definition of “Shipping Charges” effectively allow Businesses to pass along reasonable costs of shipping to consumers without permitting artificial inflation of such costs?
(b) How would this provision impact the assessment and calculation of shipping costs across industries, and in particular industries?
(c) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the manner in which firms calculate shipping costs? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(19) Does the proposed definition of Total Price provide sufficient clarity for industries that “all fees or charges a consumer must pay for a good or service and any mandatory Ancillary Good or Service” includes (1) all fees or charges that are not reasonably avoidable and (2) all fees or charges for goods or services that a reasonable consumer would expect to be included with the purchase?
(20) Section 464.2(a) of the proposed rule states, “[i]t is an unfair and deceptive practice and a violation of this part for any Business to offer, display, or advertise an amount a consumer may pay without Clearly and Conspicuously disclosing the Total Price.” Is this prohibition clear and understandable? Is this prohibition ambiguous in any way? How, if at all, should this prohibition be improved?
(21) Section 464.2(b) of the proposed rule states, “[i]n any offer, display, or advertisement that contains an amount a consumer may pay, a Business must display the Total Price more prominently than any other Pricing Information.” Is this prohibition clear and understandable? Is this prohibition ambiguous in any way? How, if at all, should this prohibition be improved?
(22) Should the proposed rule address the itemization of fees and charges that make up the “Total Price?” If so, how should the proposed rule address itemization and why?
(23) By requiring mandatory fees to be included in the Total Price, does the requirement in 464.2(a) effectively eliminate fees that provide little or no value to the consumer in exchange for the charge? Why or why not? Are there any such fees that would not be eliminated by the proposed rule?
(24) Should the proposed rule explicitly prohibit fees that provide little or no value to the consumer in exchange for the charge? Why or why not? Should such a rule apply to optional fees? Why or why not? What should the Commission consider in determining if a fee provides little or no value to the consumer?
(25) Should the proposed rule prohibit fees that are excessive? Why or why not? How would such a rule define excessive fees?
(26) Section 464.3(a) of the proposed rule states, “[i]t is an unfair and deceptive practice and a violation of this part for any Business to misrepresent the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay, including the refundability of such fees and the identity of any good or service for which fees are charged.” Is this prohibition clear and understandable? Is this prohibition ambiguous in any way? How, if at all, should this prohibition be improved?
(a) Does § 464.3(a)'s provision prohibiting misrepresentations regarding “the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay” provide sufficient clarity that it includes any amount included in the Total Price if that amount is also itemized separately from the Total Price?
(b) Does § 464.3(a)'s provision prohibiting misrepresentations regarding “the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay” provide sufficient clarity that it includes any amount excluded from the Total Price such as Shipping Charges, Government Charges, optional charges, voluntary gratuities, and invitations to tip?
(27) Section 464.3(b) of the proposed rule states, “[a] Business must disclose Clearly and Conspicuously before the consumer consents to pay the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay that is excluded from the Total Price, including the refundability of such fees and the identity of any good or service for which fees are charged.” Is this prohibition clear and understandable? Is this prohibition ambiguous in any way? How, if at all, should this prohibition be improved?
(a) Section 464.3(b) of the proposed rule requires certain disclosures “before the consumer consents to pay.” Should the proposed rule instead require Businesses to disclose Clearly and Conspicuously the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay that is excluded from the Total Price “before the consumer consents to pay and before obtaining a consumer's billing information”?
(b) Section 464.3(b) of the proposed rule requires disclosures regarding “the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay that is excluded from the Total Price.” Does this provision provide sufficient clarity that it includes Shipping Charges, Government Charges, optional charges, voluntary gratuities, and invitations to tip?
(28) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the frequency of, and reasons for, abandoned transactions in the live-event ticket market? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(29) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the total annual number of live-event ticket purchases? What are the relevant sources of information that separate total annual ticket purchases into primary and secondary ticket sales? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(30) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the number of live-event ticket sellers currently charging hidden mandatory fees? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(31) The comments identified additional problematic practices regarding live events, including unfair dynamic pricing, transferability restrictions, lack of transparency regarding ticket holdbacks, lack of transparency regarding speculative tickets, and the use of bots. How prevalent are these acts and practices and should the proposed rule be modified to address any of these practices? Provide all available data and evidence that supports your answer, such as empirical data, statistics, consumer-perception studies, and consumer complaints.
(32) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the frequency of, and reasons for, abandoned transactions in the short-term lodging industry? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(33) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the number of hotel firms that impose resort fees or other similar mandatory fees? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(34) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the number of individual home share hosts in the US? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(35) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the number of restaurants currently charging mandatory fees?
(36) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the number of restaurants that charge each type of fee (such as credit card surcharge fees, kitchen fees, economic impact or inflation fees, mandatory service fees in lieu of tips, or mandatory service fees that do not replace tips) being used by restaurants?
(37) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the number of restaurants that have moved away from the traditional tipping model? Provide all available data, statistics, and evidence.
(a) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the number of such restaurants that do not request tips?
(b) What are the relevant sources of data that reflect the number of such restaurants that impose on customers, regardless of the size of the party, mandatory charges for service performed for the customer in lieu of tips?
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before January 8, 2024. Write “Unfair or Deceptive Fees, R207011” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your State—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including, to the extent practicable, on the website
Because of the agency's heightened security screening, postal mail addressed to the Commission will be subject to delay. We strongly encourage you to submit your comments online through the
If you file your comment on paper, write “Unfair or Deceptive Fees NPRM, R207011” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144 (Annex J), Washington, DC 20580. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the public record, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not contain sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other State identification number or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including, in particular, competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). In particular, the written request for confidential treatment that accompanies the comment must include the factual and legal basis for the request and must identify the specific portions of the comment to be withheld from the public record.
Visit the FTC website to read this document and the news release describing it, and visit
Under Commission Rule 1.18(c)(1), 16 CFR 1.18(c)(1), the Commission has determined that communications with respect to the merits of this proceeding from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner advisor will be subject to the following treatment: written communications and summaries or transcripts of all oral communications must be placed on the rulemaking record. Unless the outside party making an oral communication is a member of Congress, communications received after the close of the public-comment period are permitted only if advance notice is published in the Weekly Calendar and Notice of “Sunshine” Meetings.
Consumer protection, Trade practices, Advertising.
15 U.S.C. 41-58.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(1) In any communication that is solely visual or solely audible, the disclosure must be made through the same means through which the
(2) A visual disclosure, by its size, contrast, location, the length of time it appears, and other characteristics, must stand out from any accompanying text or other visual elements so that it is easily noticed, read, and understood.
(3) An audible disclosure, including by telephone or streaming video, must be delivered in a volume, speed, and cadence sufficient for ordinary consumers to easily hear and understand it.
(4) In any communication using an interactive electronic medium, such as the internet or software, the disclosure must be unavoidable.
(5) The disclosure must use diction and syntax understandable to ordinary consumers and must appear in each language in which the representation that requires the disclosure appears.
(6) The disclosure must comply with these requirements in each medium through which it is received, including all electronic devices and face-to-face communications.
(7) The disclosure must not be contradicted or mitigated by, or inconsistent with, anything else in the communication.
(8) When the representation or sales practice targets a specific audience, such as children, older adults, or the terminally ill, “ordinary consumers” includes reasonable members of that group.
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(a) It is an unfair and deceptive practice and a violation of this part for any Business to offer, display, or advertise an amount a consumer may pay without Clearly and Conspicuously disclosing the Total Price.
(b) In any offer, display, or advertisement that contains an amount a consumer may pay, a Business must display the Total Price more prominently than any other Pricing Information.
(a) It is an unfair and deceptive practice and a violation of this part for any Business to misrepresent the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay, including the refundability of such fees and the identity of any good or service for which fees are charged.
(b) A Business must disclose Clearly and Conspicuously before the consumer consents to pay the nature and purpose of any amount a consumer may pay that is excluded from the Total Price, including the refundability of such fees and the identity of any good or service for which fees are charged.
(a)
(b)
We use the Airbnb user search statistics reported in Fradkin (2017) to obtain a low-end estimate of minutes to view one listing after clicking on it. The paper provides data on a random sample of users who searched for short-term rentals on Airbnb in a large U.S. city. It reports search behavior separately for all searchers and for searchers who contacted the host, either to inquire about a listing or to book it. We use those numbers to calculate search behavior for the group of searchers who did not send a contact. The relevant statistics for these three groups are summarized in Table A.1.
“Average unique listings seen” includes all listings users see on a search result page, including listings users do not click on. “Average time spent browsing” includes entering search parameters, scrolling through results, and viewing listings after clicking on them. “Average number of contacts” is the average number of times searchers contacted a host for a listing. Since contacting the host requires users to click on the listing, we use this to proxy for number of clicked-on listings.
From the third column, we calculate:
Because the average time spent browsing for the group in column (2) is inclusive of the amount of time spent sending contacts, not just viewing listings that were not contacted, we use the preceding value calculated from the group in column (3) to estimate the following that applies to searchers in column 2:
Finally, we calculate time to view one listing:
We use the hotel search cost model developed by Chen and Yao (2016) to calculate an upper-end estimate of minutes to view one listing. The paper uses data from consumer search behavior when booking hotels in four major international cities on an anonymous major U.S. online travel website.
A search is defined as a listing click-through, and the search cost for a listing is specified as:
Using this we can find that the mean search cost per listing when 30 days in advance (the sample average) is exp(3.07−(.05*30)) = $4.81 per listing. The inflation adjusted value is $5.86.
From this we find that total search cost is then $5.86 per listing * 2.3 searches on average = $13.48. This total cost can be conceptualized as the number of minutes of viewing listings multiplied by the consumer's value of time. Using $24.40 per hour as the value of time, we find that the time spent viewing listings is ($13.48/$24.40 per hour) * 60 minutes per hour = 33.15 minutes.
We can calculate the minutes to view one listing as 33.15 minutes/2.3 searches = 14.41 minutes per listing.
By direction of the Commission.