Agricultural Marketing Service
Rural Housing Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Children and Families Administration
Indian Health Service
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
National Park Service
Federal Aviation Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Final rule.
This rule implements recommendations from the National Potato Promotion Board (Board) to change its membership and organization by revising the formula used to determine the number of producer and importer seats on the Board, reducing the maximum number of importer seats on the Board, and indefinitely suspending the Administrative Committee. In addition to these Board-recommended changes, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) makes several non-substantive changes to clarify the start of the term of office for Board members and modernize the Board's procedures. The Board administers the Potato Research and Promotion Plan (Plan) with oversight by the Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS).
Effective February 7, 2024.
Alexandra Caryl, Branch Chief, Mid-Atlantic Region Branch, Market Development Division, Specialty Crop Program, AMS, USDA, STOP 0244, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1406-S, Washington, DC 20250-0244; Telephone: (202) 720-8085; or Email:
This rule affecting the Plan (7 CFR part 1207) is authorized under the Potato Research and Promotion Act of 1971 (Act) (7 U.S.C. 2611-2627).
USDA is issuing this 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 reaffirms, supplements, and updates Executive Order 12866 and further directs agencies to solicit and consider input from a wide range of affected and interested parties through a variety of means. This action falls within a category of regulatory actions that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) exempted from Executive Order 12866 review.
This rule was 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 this 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 rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 311 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2620), a person subject to the Plan may file a petition with USDA stating that the Plan, any provision of the Plan, or any obligation imposed in connection with the Plan, is not in accordance with law and requesting a modification of the Plan or to be exempted therefrom. Such person is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. Thereafter, USDA will issue a ruling on the petition. The Act provides that the district courts of the U.S. for any district in which the petitioner resides or conducts business shall have jurisdiction to review a final ruling on the petition if the petitioner files a complaint for that purpose not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of USDA's final ruling.
Under the Plan, which became effective on March 9, 1972, the Board administers a nationally coordinated program of research, development, advertising, and promotion designed to strengthen potatoes' competitive position and expand domestic and foreign markets for potatoes and potato products. This program is financed by assessments on handlers and importers of potatoes and potato products.
This rule modifies the membership of the Board by revising the formula to determine the number of producer and importer seats on the Board. This action increases the current threshold from one member seat per five million hundredweight pounds of potatoes produced or imported to one seat per 10 million hundredweight for both producer and importer seats. This action further revises importer membership by reducing the maximum number of importer seats from five to two. Additionally, the action indefinitely suspends the Administrative Committee. Finally, this rule clarifies the start date of the term of office for Board members and modernizes certain Board procedures relating to the submission of votes and ballots.
The Board unanimously recommended the changes to its membership and the indefinite suspension of the Administrative Committee at a public meeting on March 9, 2022. Board members present for the vote represented domestic producers, importers, and the public, and the recommendations incorporated industry feedback collected by the Board over a three-year period.
Section 1207.320(b) and (c) of the Plan provides the formula used to determine the number of producer and importer seats on the Board. Under the current formula, one seat is created for every five million hundredweight of potatoes produced or imported.
The Board has encountered significant challenges in filling Board member seats. First, since the Board's inception, the potato industry has experienced both increased production and consolidation. Since the 1970s when the Board was created, production of potatoes in the U.S. as well as imports from Canada and other countries have increased substantially. At the same time, the number of commercial potato farmers and importers has decreased significantly. Accordingly, the number of seats on the Board has increased but there are fewer eligible producers and importers to fill them. Second, Board members are volunteers, nominated by peers to represent their State or importer sector. To be a member, domestic producers and importers use time otherwise spent with their businesses to travel to meetings and participate in committees and decision making. Board members are also expected to communicate the activities of the Board to their constituencies and recruit future Board members. While service as Board members is important, it is time-consuming.
As a result of these challenges, the Board in recent years has typically had approximately 125 total seats, of which only about 100 have been filled. Therefore, the Board has experienced roughly 25 vacancies each year. This rule increases the threshold from one member seat per five million hundredweight pounds of potatoes produced or imported to one seat per 10 million hundredweight for both producer and importer seats. With these changes, the Board expects the number of member seats to reduce to 80.
Section 308(b) of the Act (7 U.S.C. 2617(b)) and §§ 1207.320(c) and 1207.322(d) of the Plan currently allow for a maximum of five importer seats on the Board. Since importers started paying assessments in 1991, the Board has always included the maximum of five importer member seats. Like their domestic producer counterparts, however, potato importers have experienced industry consolidation. According to Customs and Border Protection data, in 2022 there were only 10 importers with annual receipts above the Small Business Administration's (SBA) threshold of $34 million. The Board has not filled all five positions in the last 10 years because of the small number of continuously active importers. Given members serve three-year terms and cannot serve more than two consecutive terms, along with the small number of importers, it is reasonable to decrease the maximum number of importers from five to two. Additionally, the Board conducted extensive outreach to affected stakeholders regarding this issue and received their support, as evidenced by the unanimous vote for this change.
The initial request for these changes came from domestic producers and importers. Since 2020, the Board has met with various State organizations across the country to discuss the changes. USDA and members of industry also participated in numerous public meetings conducted by the Board to discuss the chronic vacancies experienced by the Board as a result of its current size and structure. The solution developed by the Board reflects the input from these stakeholders.
Section 1207.507 of the Plan establishes an Administrative Committee composed of 38 producer members, one importer member, and the public member, as provided for in the Board's bylaws. The Administrative Committee is selected annually. The Administrative Committee acts for the Board in implementing marketing research, development, advertising, and/or promotion activities as directed by the Board and is charged with developing and submitting to USDA for approval specific programs or projects. The Administrative Committee also acts for the Board in authorizing contracts or agreements for the development and carrying out of such programs or projects and the payment of the costs thereof with funds collected pursuant to the Plan. Finally, the Administrative Committee acts for the Board in contracting with cooperating agencies for the collection of assessments pursuant to the Plan.
Due to the changes to the Board's membership made by this final rule, which reduces membership seats to approximately 80, the Administrative Committee is no longer needed. Previously, the Board used the Administrative Committee like a smaller Board that met twice a year, while the full Board only met once. It was easier and cheaper for the Administrative Committee to convene and conduct business because of its reduced size. While the Board, with the changes, will still be larger than the Administrative Committee, the reduced membership under the changes allows the full Board to meet in lieu of the Administrative Committee. Meeting more frequently addresses a major industry concern that only members of committees, which make up the Administrative Committee, have sufficient interaction with staff to fully understand the programs and activities the Board implements. Although meeting more frequently may require a greater time commitment from Board members, the Board believes the benefits of this change outweigh any additional burden on members. Furthermore, as explained in the next section, this final rule also amends the regulations to permit voting and balloting via electronic methods, which is expected to increase the efficiency of the Board's operations and make it easier for members to participate. By reducing the Board size to a more reasonable number of members, the Board hopes to include all members on committees to promote Board member interaction and involvement. Therefore, this rule indefinitely suspends the Administrative Committee.
Section 1207.321(a) states that the term of office of Board members starts on July 1, or such other date as may be specified in the regulations. In 1973, USDA added § 1207.504, which provided that the term of office would instead start on April 1. In 1984, § 1207.504 was amended to require the term of office to start on March 1. Since then, each member's term has started on March 1. This final rule changes the start date in § 1207.321(a) from July 1 to March 1 to match § 1207.504 and be consistent with the current practice of the Board.
In § 1207.325(c), the Plan provides that Board members may vote on non-controversial matters and matters of an emergency nature when there is not enough time to call an assembled meeting by mail, telegraph, or telephone. This final rule changes this language to remove the reference to telegraph as a means for voting and to allow for voting by mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or any other means of communication. In § 1207.503(a), (b), and (c), the Plan provides that producers and importers may nominate Board members at meetings or by mail ballots. This final rule changes this language to allow ballots to be submitted by mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or any other means of communication. These changes modernize the sections and increase accessibility to the voting and balloting processes by providing additional options.
Pursuant to the requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612), AMS considered the
The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established size standards that determine whether a business entity is a small business. The size standards are based on the entity's economic activity, or industry, and generally use the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS). The size standards are expressed in annual receipts in millions of dollars or in number of employees, and indicate the maximum allowed for an entity to be considered a small business.
The SBA defines small potato producers as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $4.25 million (Potato Farming, NAICS code 111211). Small agricultural service firms (handlers and importers) are defined as those having annual receipts equal to or less than $34 million (Postharvest Crop Activities, NAICS code 115114) (13 CFR 121.201). These were the numbers in effect when this regulatory flexibility analysis was prepared in October 2023.
According to the Board, in 2021 there were approximately 1,500 producers and 955 handlers of potatoes. Since data was not available on the number of producers that are small businesses according to the SBA standard, this analysis computes an estimate of the number of small farms using census data from the USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS). Producers that pay Board assessments have a minimum of five acres of potatoes. The 2017 Agricultural Census (the most recent census data available) reported 2,420 farms with five or more harvested acres of potatoes, which is reasonably close to the Board estimate of 1,500 producers that paid assessments in 2021.
NASS reported a 2022 U.S. potato crop value of $5,069,511,000 and 895,600 harvested acres (the most recent annual data available). The estimated average value per harvested acre is $5,660 (obtained by dividing the crop value of $5,069,511,000 by the number of acres, 895,600). Thus, on average, a farm would have to harvest 751 or fewer acres of potatoes to meet the SBA's definition of a small business (obtained by dividing the SBA threshold of $4.25 million by the estimated 2022 average value per acre, $5,660).
According to the 2017 Agricultural Census, out of the 2,420 potato farms with five or more harvested acres, 2,030 farms (84 percent) harvested 749 or fewer acres, very close to the 751 or fewer acres in the previous computation. Based on these computations, and assuming a normal distribution, a large majority of potato farms paying assessments to the Board are small businesses according to SBA criteria.
As noted above, the SBA threshold size for a small agricultural service business is $34 million in annual sales. The Board estimate of the number of potato handlers in 2021 was 955. Dividing the $5.07 billion NASS crop revenue estimate by 955 yields an annual estimate of potato sales per handler of approximately $5.3 million (farm level value), which is well below $34 million, the SBA threshold size for a small agricultural service business.
Potato handlers perform various procedures to get potatoes to market, including grading, sorting, packaging, and shipment. What handlers are paid can be estimated by obtaining an annual average shipping point price for potatoes from AMS Market News. AMS shipping point prices capture the prices received by shippers (handlers) after buying potatoes from growers, and then grading, sorting, packaging, and shipping. The 2022 average AMS shipping point price received for potatoes ($0.20 per pound) is 55 percent higher than the 2022 average annual NASS price of $0.129 per pound received by growers. Adding 55 percent to the $5.3 million potato sales per handler at the farm level yields an estimate of $8.2 million average annual sales at the handler level, which is also well below the SBA small business threshold size of $34 million or less in annual sales. Assuming a normal distribution, a majority of potato handlers are small agricultural service businesses, according to SBA criteria.
Based on a review of 2022 potato import data from U.S. Customs and Border Protection, there were approximately 140 importers. Of those 140 importers, 130 (93 percent) had potato imports valued at $34 million or less, the SBA size threshold for small agricultural service firms. Therefore, 130 potato importers are small businesses in terms of potato import value, using SBA business size criteria.
This rule amends §§ 1207.320, 1207.321, 1207.322, 1207.325, and 1207.503, and suspends § 1207.507. The changes modify the membership of the Board by revising the formula to determine the number of seats on the Board and reducing the maximum number of importer seats on the Board. The changes also indefinitely suspend the Administrative Committee, clarify the start date of the term of office of Board members, and modernize the Board's voting and balloting procedures.
This rule does not impose any new costs on producers, handlers, or importers. This rule also does not impose any additional reporting, recordkeeping, or information collection requirements on affected entities. The changes are administrative in nature and allow the Board to more effectively carry out the requirements of the Plan while reducing costs and increasing participation. With these changes, fewer individuals are required to attend meetings, reducing the time burden and costs associated with traveling and attending meetings. Further, modernizing the Board's procedures to authorize additional methods for casting votes and ballots is expected to help increase participation.
The Board considered several options when evaluating the best course of action. Adopting a set number of seats per region with several at-large seats was considered. The industry preferred to continue using an annual volume calculation instead of setting a finite number of seats. The Board also considered taking no action and continuing to experience significant membership vacancies. The Board decided against this option because vacancies have become pervasive. Therefore, these alternatives were rejected.
Regarding outreach efforts, all the Board's meetings, including the March 9, 2022, meeting during which the Board recommendations relevant to this action were discussed, are open to the public and interested persons are invited to participate and express their views. No concerns were raised in these meetings about the changes proposed in this document.
As with all Federal promotion programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sector agencies. USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with this rule.
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.
A proposed rule concerning this action was published in the
During the proposed rule's 30-day comment period, AMS received 13 comments and one ex parte communication, which may be viewed on the internet at
Of the comments supporting the changes, several noted the changes would increase participation at the meetings. More specifically, one comment believed having each person serving the function of what is now the Administrative Committee will allow members to better understand the Board's strategy and vision. Another comment pointed to increased accountability and access to make programmatic decisions that represent all potato growers. Some comments mentioned that the changes would increase the efficiency of the Board, fostering more robust debate and making the decision-making more transparent. Other comments acknowledged the difficulty in recruiting members seats and remarked having fewer of them would make them easier to fill.
One of the commenters who ultimately supported the amendments expressed two concerns. The commenter questioned whether a smaller Board could adequately represent the interests of the public. In addition, the commenter suggested that the reduced size of the Board could lead to less dissent, fewer creative solutions to challenges, and fewer members with technical expertise.
This final rule does not reduce the public's representation nor access to the Board. First, this final rule does not change the number of public members on the Board. Pursuant to the regulations, the Board includes one public member in addition to its producer and importer members. Significantly too, all Board meetings are open to the public and interested persons are invited to participate and express their views. Additionally, the reduction in Board member seats is not expected to negatively impact the quality of the Board's work. Instead, it is expected that the reduced size of the Board will foster greater participation and engagement among members.
One comment did not support the changes as proposed. First, the commenter expressed concern that the amendments would create an imbalance between producers and importers on the Board by increasing the number of importer seats and decreasing the number of producer seats. The commenter suggested that the number of importer seats should be proportional to their contribution to assessment revenue and that the number of producer seats should not be reduced. Second, the commenter stated that the amendments would reduce diversity and inclusion and cause some states to be overrepresented or underrepresented on the Board. The commenter suggested that producer seats should be allocated to States based on equitable criteria and that the Board should encourage more participation from underrepresented farmers, including women and minorities. Third, the commenter opposed the indefinite suspension of the Administrative Committee. Fourth, unrelated to the changes implemented in this final rule, the commentor raised water consumption and pollution issues associated with potato production.
Regarding changing the number of importer and producer seats, the rule amends the formula that is applied to both producer and importer membership and reduces, not increases, the maximum number of importers that can serve on the Board. Specifically, the rule reduces the maximum number of importer seats from five to two. Since the Board's inception, the global potato industry has experienced both increased production and consolidation. Accordingly, the number of member seats has increased but there are fewer eligible producers and importers to fill them. In response to these industry shifts, the Board considered the current number of members, the challenges in recruitment, and how a reduction might change representation on the Board. Recognizing assessments contributed by both importers and producers, the Board proposed to increase the current threshold from one member seat per five million hundredweight pounds of potatoes produced or imported to one seat per 10 million hundredweight for both producer and importer seats.
As for using equitable criteria to allocate producer seats, § 1207.320(b) of the Plan provides the formula to determine the membership of the Board. This formula applies to all States equally and allocates member seats to States based on the volume of potatoes they produce. The amended formula in this rule also applies to all States equally, decreasing the number of members from each State proportionately. Regarding encouraging more participation from underrepresented farmers, the Board goes to great lengths to recruit underrepresented producers and importers to serve. During the nomination process, the Board conducts extensive outreach, including traveling to speak at local industry meetings and relevant agriculture-related associations. Additionally, AMS policy is that diversity of the boards, councils and committees it oversees should reflect the diversity of their industries in terms of the experience of members, methods of production and distribution, marketing strategies and other distinguishing factors, including but not limited to individuals from historically underserved communities, that will bring different perspectives and ideas to the table.
Regarding the Administrative Committee, it is comprised of 40 members and can act for the Board in implementing programs, projects, and authorizing contracts. When considering changes to the Plan, the Board initially modeled the projected membership to resemble the Administrative Committee because of its success in getting members involved and providing interaction with program staff. The Board further discussed the Administrative Committee's role with the reduced membership and considered keeping or amending it. However, considering industry's feedback, the Board believed the Administrative Committee was no longer needed. With this change, the opportunities for members to discuss and debate important issues related to the budget, contracts, audits, and reports of the Board will not be reduced. On the contrary, it is expected that the reduced size of the Board will increase participation and debate among Board members.
Concerning potato production's water consumption and pollution issues, § 1207.335(b) of the Plan provides that the Board can establish and carry on research and development projects and studies to the end that the marketing and utilization of potatoes may be encouraged, expanded, improved, or made more efficient. The Board uses this authority to support the industry's leading sustainability initiatives and funds several research projects. More
During the comment period, AMS received an ex parte communication responding to a posted comment. The commenter remarked the rule decreases the number of importer seats, not increases them. The commenter went on to mention the Board's diversity and inclusion efforts, stating the reduction of membership will not degrade diversity and inclusion efforts. Lastly, the commenter elaborated how the Board is increasing diversity by including all members on operating committees and commented that the Administrative Committee is no longer needed.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the information and recommendations submitted by the Board, comments submitted, and other available information, AMS determined this rule tends to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Accordingly, no changes will be made to the rule as proposed based on the comments received.
Advertising, Agricultural research, Potatoes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Agricultural Marketing Service amends 7 CFR part 1207 as follows:
7 U.S.C. 2611-2627; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
(b) Producer membership upon the Board shall be determined on the basis of the potato production reported in the latest Crop Production Annual Summary Report issued by the National Agricultural Statistics Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. If a State's potato production data is not provided by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, the Board may use an alternative data source that reliably reflects potato production in the United States. Unless the Secretary, upon recommendation of the Board, determines an alternate basis, for each 10 million hundredweight of such production, or major fraction thereof, produced within each State, such State shall be entitled to one member. However, each State shall initially be entitled to at least one member.
(c) The number of importer member positions on the Board shall be based on the hundredweights of potatoes, potato products equivalent to fresh potatoes, and seed potatoes imported into the United States but shall not exceed two importer members. Unless the Secretary, upon recommendation of the Board, determines an alternate basis, there shall be one importer member position for each 10 million hundredweight, or major fraction thereof, of potatoes, potato product equivalents, and seed potatoes imported into the United States.
(a) The term of office of Board members shall be 3 years, beginning March 1, or such other beginning date as may be approved pursuant to regulations.
(d) The importer members shall be nominated by importers of potatoes, potato products and/or seed potatoes. The number of importer members on the Board shall be announced by the Secretary and shall not exceed two members. The Board may call upon organizations of potato, potato products and/or seed potato importers to assist in nominating importers for membership on the Board. If such organizations fail to submit nominees or are determined by the Board to not adequately represent importers, then the Board may conduct meetings of importers to nominate eligible importers for Board member positions. In determining if importer organizations adequately represent importers, the Board shall consider:
(1) How many importers belong to the association;
(2) What percentage of the total number of importers is represented by the association;
(3) Is the association representative of the potato, potato product, and seed potato import industry;
(4) Does the association speak for potato, potato product, and seed potato importers; and
(5) Other relevant information as may be warranted.
(c) For routine and noncontroversial matters which do not require deliberation and the exchange of views, and for matters of an emergency nature when there is not enough time to call an assembled meeting, the Board may act upon a majority of concurring votes of its members cast by mail, telephone, electronic mail, facsimile, or any other means of communication. Any vote cast by telephone shall be confirmed promptly in writing.
(a) Pursuant to § 1207.322 of the plan, the Board shall assist producers in producing sections or States each year to nominate producer members for the Board. Such nominations may be conducted at meetings or with ballots submitted by mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or any other means of communication. One individual shall be nominated for each position to become vacant. A list of nominees shall be submitted to the Secretary for consideration by November 1 of each year.
(b) Pursuant to § 1207.322 of the plan, the Board shall assist importers each year to nominate importer members for the Board. Such nominations may be conducted at meetings or with ballots submitted by mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or any other means of communication.
(c) Nomination meetings or balloting by mail, electronic mail, facsimile, or any other means of communication shall be well publicized with notice given to producers, importers, and the Secretary at least 10 days prior to each meeting or distribution of ballots.
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.
Interim final rule and request for comment.
The Department of Energy (DOE or the Department) publishes this interim final rule to establish the procedure for the recapture of credits awarded under the Civil Nuclear Credit Program in accordance with the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.
This rule is effective on January 8, 2024. Written comments must be received by February 7, 2024.
Mr. Theodore Taylor, Civil Nuclear Credit Program Manager, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Energy, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585, (240) 477-0458,
DOE encourages submission of comments electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Section 40323 of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) (Pub. L. 117-58), codified at 42 U.S.C. 18753, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, directs the Department to establish the Civil Nuclear Credit Program (CNC Program) to prevent premature closures of nuclear power plants by providing financial support for existing nuclear reactors projected to cease operations due to economic factors.
The IIJA also directs the Department to promulgate a regulation to provide for the recapture of credits awarded to a nuclear reactor if either (a) the nuclear reactor terminates operations during the 4-year award period or (b) the nuclear reactor does not operate at an annual loss in the absence of an allocation of credits. The purpose of this interim final rule is to establish the procedure for the recapture of credits for the first 4-year award period, for which applications were due September 6, 2022. While the elements of the CNC Program are broadly described below, this interim final rule itself is limited to the narrow circumstance where a certified nuclear reactor has met the criteria for the recapture of credits. The rule provides a mechanism for the Department to enforce the obligation of the nuclear reactor to continue operation during the 4-year award period and to relinquish its rights to credits if the nuclear reactor is not operating at a loss in the absence of the credits. To minimize the likelihood for the need to recapture credits under the rule, the Department has included in the CNC Program an audit and annual payment adjustment mechanism at the end of each award year during the 4-year award period to evaluate the financial results of operation for that year and to adjust payment of credits based on that evaluation. The recapture regulation ensures that a reactor cannot retain the value of credits if, despite the annual adjustment, the nuclear reactor would not have operated at an annual loss in the absence of an allocation of credits over the 4-year award period or if the nuclear reactor terminates operations despite its contractual obligation to operate for the entire 4-year award period.
Section 40323 of the IIJA directs the Department to establish the CNC Program to provide financial support for existing nuclear reactors projected to cease operations due to economic factors in the form of credits to be awarded for a 4-year award period. The IIJA appropriates $6 billion for the CNC Program. The CNC Program will make meaningful progress towards a carbon pollution-free electricity sector by 2035, help “deliver an equitable, clean energy future, and put the United States on a path to achieve net-zero emissions, economy-wide, by no later than 2050 to the benefit of all Americans.”
Section 40323(g)(2) of the IIJA requires that the Secretary, “by regulation, provide for the recapture of the allocation of any credit to a certified
The IIJA directed the Secretary to establish the CNC Program.
On February 15, 2022, the Department published a
The RFI requested interested persons to provide feedback on the elements of the CNC Program, including recapture, and propounded specific questions on the conduct of periodic audits and the annual resetting of the value of credits to be paid out based on actual revenues.
Discussed underneath are comments received in response to the RFI related to the recapture of credits that is the subject of this interim final rule.
The Department received a number of comments on the recapture provision in response to the RFI. Some parties suggested that the scope of the recapture provision should be expanded to mandate recapture for circumstances in addition to nuclear reactor termination of operations and failure to operate at an annual loss in the absence of an allocation of credits. Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) recommended that the Department “include a provision to recapture credits if the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), at a later date, finds violations or safety performance problems that would have caused the reactor” to fail to meet the certification criteria related to safety.
The statute expressly requires recapture both for termination of operations and for failure to operate at an annual loss in the absence of an allocation of credits. The recapture regulation satisfies this requirement. The Department has not included an additional recapture trigger for violations or safety findings under the nuclear reactor's NRC license. While adherence by nuclear reactors to the highest safety standards is critically important, the NRC possesses adequate tools to enforce its safety requirements and address violations. If the nuclear reactor is subsequently required to expend incremental funds to remedy a safety condition or pay a fine, it will not be entitled to reflect those additional costs in the calculation of credits because each nuclear reactor's credit amount is capped at the value of credits awarded in the auction. The Department has included in the recapture regulation a notice provision and a process to request reconsideration of a recapture determination. The recapture regulation also allows an owner or operator of a nuclear reactor that is aggrieved by a decision on reconsideration to petition the Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals for review of that decision.
In response to the RFI, the Department received numerous comments on the use of an annual adjustment mechanism. Generation Atomic stated that the use of an annual adjustment mechanism is not appropriate because it is not included in the text of the IIJA, “or even hinted at,” and the only measure for adjustment of credit that has been authorized by Congress is the recapture mechanism at the end of the 4-year award period.
Monitoring Analytics, Inc. (Monitoring Analytics) supported use of an annual adjustment of the credit amount but argued that the adjustment should be calculated annually in advance, rather than after the conclusion of the award year. It recommended that a strike price based on known forward prices should be defined annually for the following year and that strike price would set the nuclear reactor's credit level for the following year.
Other commenters supported the use of an annual adjustment conducted at the conclusion of an award year as proposed in the RFI. For example, Constellation observed that “[t]he DOE proposal of a credit price adjustment based on relevant market price indices is a simple and transparent mechanism which ensures fair after-the-fact treatment of both suppliers and taxpayers.”
Comments diverged over whether the Department should adjust awarded credits based on an index established by the Department or an index selected by the nuclear reactor, or some other factor. As noted in the preceding paragraph, NRG Energy recommended that the annual adjustment be based on actual revenue and other results of operation of the nuclear reactor. EPSA opposed the use of an index, arguing that the IIJA requires that nuclear reactors awarded credits must “demonstrate on an annual basis that they did or did not operate at an annual loss in the absence of CNC credits.”
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) supported the use of an index at the option of a reactor but observed that “[t]here can be a significant disconnect between a real-time or day-ahead locational marginal pricing and the actual sales at a plant . . . . If DOE were to require the award to adjust in reaction to short-term market prices, there is a risk that the expectations formed from those prices may not actually be reflected in the realized
UCS supported the use of an annual adjustment, settlement and index mechanism, depending on design,
As explained in the Guidance, an owner or operator of a nuclear reactor that is awarded credits must file an annual report to receive payment of credits and the Department will audit the reported information.
Commenters recognized the importance of the recapture provision working in concert with the audit and annual adjustment mechanism and other related terms of the CNC Program. NEI cautioned that the goal of the recapture procedure to ensure the effective use of taxpayer money “must be balanced against the policy objective Congress sought to achieve” to support economically at-risk nuclear reactors.
NEI also stated that the Department should ensure consistency between the recapture regulations and the other established elements of the CNC Program.
The Department has concluded that the use of an effective annual settlement mechanism to determine the value of credits to be paid to the owner or operator in each award year will reduce the need for recapture at the conclusion of the 4-year award period. To do so, the recapture mechanism must be consistent with the annual adjustment mechanism because both mechanisms measure the nuclear reactor's operating results. The Department will evaluate the same revenue and cost elements in both the annual adjustment and in the recapture calculation, thereby ensuring that the nuclear reactor receives payment for credits consistent with the Award Agreement, and at the same time that taxpayers not fund payments in excess of those required to offset the nuclear reactor's annual loss.
Following the conclusion of the4-year award period, the Department will conduct the recapture analysis to
The Department expects that the annual adjustment mechanism and the contractual obligation of the nuclear reactor to continue operations for the entire 4-year award period will limit the need to recapture credits. Nevertheless, the recapture regulation is required to provide the Department with a remedy to recover credits if the nuclear would not have operated at an annual loss in the absence of an allocation of credits during the 4-year award period. The recapture regulation also addresses the situation where the nuclear reactor ceases operation during the 4-year award period. In that circumstance, the Department will rescind the award of any unpaid credits, including the credits for the award year in which the termination occurred and for any remaining award years in the award period. In addition, the Department will require the owner or operator to repay the value of credits paid with respect to a prior award year if the Department determines that the nuclear reactor terminated operations as a result of the owner or operator's failure to adhere to prudent industry practice in the operation of the nuclear reactor during the award period. Requiring forfeiture of credits previously paid for award years where the nuclear reactor performed as required would not be warranted where the nuclear reactor in a subsequent award year ceased to operate because of a mechanical failure, act of nature, or other event that occurred despite the owner or operator's adherence to prudent industry practice.
Section 612.1 of the interim final rule identifies the purpose of the regulations to set forth the procedure by which the Department may recapture credits awarded pursuant to the CNC Program. Section 612.2 provides that the regulations will apply to an owner or operator of a nuclear reactor that is awarded credits under the CNC Program. Section 612.3 contains defined terms used in the regulation.
Section 612.4(a) of the regulation identifies the two circumstances in which credits will be recaptured: (1) if the nuclear reactor terminates operation during the award period or (2) at the conclusion of the award period if the nuclear reactor would not have operated at an annual loss in the absence of the credits.
Section 612.4(b) addresses the first circumstance in which recapture will be pursued, namely termination by the nuclear reactor of operations during the award period. In that instance, the Secretary will rescind the award of any unpaid credits, including the credits for the award year in which the termination occurred and for any remaining award years in the award period. In addition, the Department will require the owner or operator to repay the value of credits paid with respect to a prior award year if the Department determines that the nuclear reactor terminated operations as a result of the owner or operator's failure to adhere to prudent industry practice in the operation of the nuclear reactor during the award period.
Section 612.4(c) addresses recapture in the circumstance in which the Secretary determines that the nuclear reactor, during the award period, would not have operated at an annual loss in the absence of the credits. To make this determination, the Secretary will calculate the recapture amount in the same manner as the annual adjustment of credits is calculated. Although this scenario is unlikely because the recapture analysis will use the same evaluation methodology as the annual adjustment calculation, it could occur if, for example, subsequent information became available that differs from the data relied on in the annual adjustment calculation.
Section 612.5 of the regulation identifies (1) the manner in which the Secretary will notify an owner or operator of its determination to recapture credits and payments for previously paid credits, if any, (2) how an owner or operator may request reconsideration of the recapture determination, and (3) the effective date of a recapture determination. This section also specifies that notices issued with respect to recapture will be public, except that data and supporting documentation constituting confidential business information will not be disclosed.
Section 612.6 provides that an owner or operator of a nuclear reactor that is aggrieved by the Secretary's decision to affirm, withdraw, or modify the notice of recapture as provided in paragraph (c) of § 612.5 may file a petition with the Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals in accordance with 10 CFR 1003.11 not later than thirty days after notification of the Secretary's decision.
This interim final rule is being issued without advance notice and public comment to allow for immediate implementation of the CNC Program in accordance with the process described in the Guidance. The requirements of advance notice and public comment do not apply “to the extent that there is involved . . . a matter related to agency . . . grants, benefits, or contracts.” 5 U.S.C. 553(a)(2). The CNC Program is a Federal grant or benefit program that awards credits to nuclear reactors that are selected to receive credits based on a demonstration that they are projected to cease operations due to economic factors.
In addition, the Administrative Procedure Act also provides an exception to ordinary notice and comment procedures “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefor in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B). This good cause justification also supports waiver of the 60-day delayed effective date for major rules under the Congressional Review Act at 5 U.S.C. 808(2). Although this interim final rule is effective immediately, comments are solicited from interested members of the public on all aspects of the interim final rule. The Department intends to issue a final rule following receipt and review of comments in response to the interim final rule.
Executive Order 12866, “Regulatory Planning and Review,” 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed by Executive Order 13563, “Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,” 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and amended by Executive Order 14094, “Modernizing Regulatory Review,” 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to submit “significant regulatory actions” to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a “significant regulatory action” within the scope of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under that Executive order by OIRA.
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999), imposes certain requirements on agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. Executive Order 13132 requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. DOE has examined this interim final rule and has determined that it does not preempt State law and does 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. Moreover, the recapture regulation is required by statute. No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.
The Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 551
The APA also provides an exception to ordinary notice and comment procedures “when the agency for good cause finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons therefore in the rules issued) that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B);
In this interim final rule, DOE establishes the procedure for the recapture of credits awarded under the Civil Nuclear Credit Program. DOE has determined that this rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
This interim final rule imposes no information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, “Civil Justice Reform,” 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard; and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Regarding the review required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that each executive agency make every reasonable effort to ensure that when it issues a regulation, the regulation: (1) clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and has determined that, to the extent permitted by law, this interim final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L. 104-4) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b).) UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed “significant intergovernmental mandate,” and requires an agency to plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. (62 FR 12820) (This policy is also available at
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment.
The Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this interim final rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with the applicable policies in those guidelines.
Executive Order 13211, “Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use” 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A “significant energy action” is defined as any action by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule and that: (1) is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will submit to Congress a report regarding the issuance of this interim final rule prior to the effective date set forth at the outset of this interim final rule. The report will state that it has been determined that this interim final rule is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this interim final rule.
Civil nuclear credit program, Nuclear energy, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Petition to the Department of Energy's Office of Hearings and Appeals, Recapture of civil nuclear credits.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 8, 2023, by Maria D. Robinson, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends chapter II, subchapter H, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 612 to read as follows:
42 U.S.C. 7254; 42 U.S.C. 18753.
This part implements section 40323(g)(2) of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Pub. L. 117-58), codified at 42 U.S.C. 18753(g)(2), to set forth the procedure to recapture credits awarded pursuant to the civil nuclear credit program.
This part applies to an owner/operator of a nuclear reactor that is awarded credits pursuant to the civil nuclear credit program.
(a) Credits allocated to an owner/operator shall be subject to recapture—
(1) If the nuclear reactor terminates operations during the award period, pursuant to paragraph (b) of this section; or
(2) At the conclusion of the award period, if the nuclear reactor would not have operated at an annual loss in the absence of the credits, pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) If the Department determines that a nuclear reactor has terminated operations during the award period, then the Department will recapture the award of credits for the award year in which the termination of operations occurred and for any remaining award years by rescinding the credits awarded but not paid, and the owner/operator shall have no further rights to any credits. In addition, the value of credits that the Department has previously paid to the owner/operator with respect to a prior award year shall be repaid to the Department by the owner/operator if the Department determines that the nuclear reactor terminated operations as a result of the owner/operator's failure to adhere to prudent industry practice in the operation of the nuclear reactor during the award period.
(c) Following the conclusion of the award period, the Department will determine whether, for the award period, the nuclear reactor would not have operated at an annual loss in the absence of the credits. The amount subject to recapture following the conclusion of the award period shall be determined in the same manner that the annual adjustment of credits is calculated under the terms of the award of such credits.
(a)
(1) An amount of credits not yet paid should be recaptured; and
(2) That any credits previously paid to the owner/operator should be recaptured, the Secretary will provide to an owner/operator a written notice of the amount of credits subject to the recapture determination and the value of credits that the Department has previously paid to an owner/operator and that are subject to recapture, if any, with an explanation of such amount.
(b)
(1) An explanation of why the owner/operator believes all or some of the credits (and the value of any credits previously paid) should not be subject to recapture; and
(2) Supporting information and calculations.
(c)
(d)
(i) The credits will be deemed to be recaptured as of the date of the notification provided by the Secretary pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section and the owner/operator will have no further right or claim to those credits; and
(ii) The owner/operator shall repay to the Department the value of credits that the Department has paid to the owner/operator and that are subject to recapture under § 612.4 within 30 calendar days of the date of notification provided by the Department pursuant to paragraph (a) of this section.
(2) If the owner/operator has requested reconsideration as provided in paragraph (b) of this section;
(i) The credits will be deemed to be recaptured as of the date of the notification provided by the Department pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section and the owner/operator will have no further right or claim to those credits; and
(ii) The owner/operator shall pay to the Department the value of credits that the Department has previously paid to the owner/operator and that are subject to recapture under § 612.4 within 30 calendar days of the date of notification provided by the Department pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section.
(e)
In order to exhaust its administrative remedies, an owner/operator who is aggrieved by the Secretary's decision to affirm, withdraw, or modify the notice of recapture as provided in § 612.5(c) may file a petition with the Department's Office of Hearings and Appeals in accordance with 10 CFR 1003.11 not later than thirty days after notification of the Department's decision.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
Notification of monetary penalties 2024.
This document announces changes to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency's (OCC) maximum civil money penalties as adjusted for inflation. The inflation adjustments are required to implement the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990, as amended by the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015.
The adjusted maximum amount of civil money penalties in this document are applicable to penalties assessed on or after January 8, 2024 for conduct occurring on or after November 2, 2015.
Lee Walzer, Counsel, Chief Counsel's Office, (202) 649-5490, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
This document announces changes to the maximum amount of each civil money penalty (CMP) within the OCC's jurisdiction to administer to account for inflation pursuant to the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act of 1990 (the 1990 Adjustment Act),
To the extent an agency codified a CMP amount in its regulations, the agency would need to update that amount by regulation. However, if an agency codified a formula for making the CMP adjustments, then subsequent adjustments can be made solely by notice.
On December 19, 2023, the OMB issued guidance to affected agencies on implementing the required annual adjustment, which included the relevant inflation multiplier.
The following charts provide the inflation-adjusted CMPs for use beginning on January 8, 2024, pursuant to 12 CFR 19.240(b) and 109.103(c)(2)
In Rule Document 2023-27889, appearing on pages 88255 to 88257 in the issue of Wednesday, December 21, 2023, make the following correction:
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
In this document, the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) builds on the 6 GHz band unlicensed rules by permitting very low power (VLP) devices in the U-NII-5 (5.925-6.425 MHz) and U-NII-7 (6.525-6.875 MHz) portions of the 6 GHz band. The Commission will limit VLP devices to low power levels and subject them to other technical and operational requirements that will permit these devices to operate across the United States while protecting incumbent licensed services that operate in the 6 GHz band from harmful interference. The Commission also takes action in a Memorandum Opinion and Order on Remand that addresses a remand from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concerning an issue raised by television broadcasters. The Commission finds that broadcasters' unsubstantiated claims of interference in the 2.4 GHz
This final rule is effective March 8, 2024. The
Nicholas Oros of the Office of Engineering and Technology, at
This is a summary of the Commission's
1. As discussed in greater detail below, the Commission adopts rules to permit very low power (VLP) devices to operate with up to −5 dBm/MHz effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) power spectral density (PSD) and 14 dBm EIRP across the U-NII-5 (5.925-6.425 MHz) and U-NII-7 (6.525-6.875 MHz) portions of the 6 GHz band. VLP devices will enable new innovative uses and will provide opportunities to enhance nascent applications, such as augmented reality/virtual reality, in-car connectivity, wearable on-body devices, healthcare monitoring, short-range mobile hotspots, high accuracy location and navigation, and automation. The rules the Commission is adopting are designed to support innovation to bring exciting new applications to market while protecting the important licensed services that operate in the 6 GHz band from harmful interference. At this time, the Commission is limiting VLP devices to the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands because the technical record has mainly focused on the potential for interference to fixed microwave links which are the predominate uses of these portions of the 6 GHz band. The Commission plans on proposing to expand VLP device operation to the U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 portions of the band which support mobile operations.
2. In making this decision to enable this new class of VLP unlicensed devices to operate in the 6 GHz band while protecting licensed incumbent operations from harmful interference, the Commission notes that this policy represents a careful balancing between enabling new services and protecting existing services. In response to comments reflecting incumbents' concerns regarding the potential for harmful interference as well as analysis in the record, the Commission is taking reasonable actions to minimize such potential. The Commission emphasizes the core principle from its
3. In considering the maximum power level for VLP devices, the Commission's goal is to balance competing factors. The Commission aims to permit as much power as possible for these devices so that the maximum benefit can be derived from their operation while minimizing the potential risk of harmful interference to licensed incumbent operations. As described below, the record is replete with many analyses and tests that come to widely different conclusions. These analyses and tests provide a basis for the Commission's understanding of the potential for VLP devices to cause harmful interference under a variety of conditions. As described in detail, the Commission believes based on the technical record that it can permit at this time VLP devices to operate at up to −5 dBm/MHz power spectral density (PSD) and 14 dBm EIRP without presenting a significant risk of harmful interference to the licensed microwave incumbents that share the 6 GHz band.
4. In considering the technical record, the Commission finds that two computer simulations based on Monte Carlo analysis submitted by Apple, Broadcom, et al. and by Apple provide sufficient support for permitting VLP operation at up to −5 dBm/MHz EIRP power spectral density (PSD) and 14 dBm EIRP across the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 portions of the 6 GHz band. Relying on computer simulations is in harmony with the Commission's
5. A well-designed computer simulation can simultaneously model many probabilistic factors that determine whether harmful interference may occur. These factors include VLP device location variability in relation to the microwave receiver, height of the VLP device, whether the VLP device is operating co-channel, the VLP power level, and the radio propagation environment. In examining the potential for harmful interference to occur to microwave links from VLP devices, the characteristics of the microwave links must also be considered. Microwave links use highly directional antennas typically located on tall towers or building rooftops to transmit over distances up to 30 kilometers. Because of the heights of these antennas and their directional nature, VLP devices only present a harmful interference risk if they are located within the main beam of the antenna and are close enough to the microwave receiver that a strong signal can be received. One important factor to consider when modeling interference to 6 GHz microwave receivers is atmospheric multipath fading. Atmospheric multipath fading is caused when stable air masses, such as warm and humid air, lead to stratification of the atmosphere. Atmospheric multipath fades can be very deep—30 dB or more. However, deep fades are rare while more mild fades occur more frequently. For a typical link, fades greater than 30 dB occur, on average, 15 seconds a month while fades greater than 10 dB occur, on average, 37 minutes a month. Because of this fading phenomenon, 6 GHz microwave links are designed with large “fade margins” that are typically 25-40 dB. This fade margin provides transmitted power beyond what is needed to maintain the link when no fading is occurring. Thus, the typical microwave link can operate with 5-nines availability (99.999%) despite the presence of fading. Because the links are designed with these large fade margins, even when a VLP device is located directly within the main beam of a microwave antenna at a close enough distance where it might be possible for it to cause harmful interference, the microwave link's operation will not be degraded unless a deep enough fade occurs so that the combination of received signal from the VLP device and fade depth is greater than the link's fade margin. Thus, VLP operation during the more frequent mild fades that occur which only consume a small portion of the fade margin will present only an insignificant harmful interference risk. An examination of the interference potential of VLP devices to microwave links must consider not only the position and transmit power of the VLP devices and the technical characteristics of the microwave links, but also include the effects of fading.
6. A computer simulation submitted by Apple, Broadcom, et al. modeled the effect of VLP devices on two hundred forty-seven (247) fixed microwave links in the San Francisco area. Data from the Commission's licensing database was used to model each microwave link. For each iteration during this simulation, 1,146 VLP devices were randomly placed in the San Fransisco area where the distribution of devices was determined by the population data—
7. In addition to providing statistics on the I/N ratio, the simulation also evaluated the likelihood that the microwave link's fade margin will be exceeded by the combination of the interference power received from the VLP devices and the atmospheric multipath fading. For each of the 247 microwave links in the San Francisco area, the simulation calculated the fade margin by calculating the actual carrier-to-noise (C/N) ratio for the microwave link based on the link's technical parameters and subtracting the C/N ratio needed for the link to operate at the highest data rate listed in the Commission's database for that link. The simulation then determined the probability distribution for the atmospheric multipath fading for each link using the ITU-R P.530-17 model. The simulation then calculated a distribution of the noise floor increase for each link based on the I/N statistics and convolved that with the multipath fading distribution. For VLP devices operating at powers up to 1 dBm/MHz EIRP, the results indicate that the probability of the fade margin being exceeded by the combination of the interference power received from VLP devices plus the multipath fading is not materially different than the probability of the link margin being exceeded solely from multipath fading. According to the simulation results, of the 247 links assessed in the study, the presence of VLP devices transmitting at 1 dBm/MHz EIRP at the “worst-case” location for a microwave link would change the probability that the worst-case link will be degraded by 0.3%.
8. The computer simulation submitted by Apple has many similarities to the San Francisco simulation. Apple's simulation modeled VLP to microwave receiver interactions in the Houston, Texas area by modeling a single microwave link while varying the VLP parameters for each simulation run based on the characteristics of microwave links that area. Two hundred twenty-four (224) VLP devices operating at 14 dBm EIRP within bandwidths varying from 20 megahertz to 320 megahertz were randomly placed within 23.49 kilometers of the microwave link on each of 10 million iterations.
9. The Houston simulation found that for VLP devices operating at −5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD, the −6 dB I/N level was exceeded approximately 0.06% of the time and 0 dB I/N was exceeded approximately 0.01% of the time. For VLP devices operating at 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD, the −6 dB I/N level was exceeded approximately 0.085% of the time and 0 dB I/N was exceeded approximately 0.02% of the time. Similar to the San Francisco simulation, the Houston simulation also examined the likelihood that the microwave link's fade margin will be exceeded by the combination of the interference power received from the VLP devices and the atmospheric multipath fading. These results, which were derived for various microwave transmitter heights, show that the presence of VLP devices have no noticeable impact on microwave link reliability compared to atmospheric multipath fading alone. The simulation for the Houston area also indicated that the chance of exceeding −6 dB I/N increased from 0.07% to 0.135% when both VLP and LPI devices were included as compared to just having LPI present. Finally, this simulation also
10. AT&T argues that the approximate 0.1% chance that the Houston simulation indicates for the I/N to exceed −6 dB for a VLP device operating at 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD implies that 1,300 device deployments in the Houston area would impair the fade margin of a microwave link by more than 1 dB (
11. These simulations examined the statistical relationship that the combination of the interference power received from VLP devices and atmospheric multipath fading could have on microwave receivers. Both the San Francisco analysis and the Houston analysis considered the summation of microwave receiver noise floor from VLP device transmissions and the occurrence of atmospheric multipath fading. Because atmospheric multipath fading and the signal levels received from the VLP devices are independent phenomenon, in accordance with a well-known statistical theorem the probability distribution of the combination of these two processes is the convolution of the probability distribution of each of the individual processes. The computer simulations used this mathematical convolution process to examine the combination of these two processes and illustrate that the presence of VLP devices does not result in a significant increase in the likelihood that the fade margin of the links will be exceeded by the combination of both atmospheric multipath fading and signals received from the VLP devices. Because the functioning of a microwave link is only interrupted when the combination of multipath fading and received VLP signals exceeds the fade margin, these results show that the presence of VLP devices will not significantly increase the potential for harmful interference to a microwave link over effects due to atmospheric fading alone.
12. AT&T claims the data on fade margin exceedance from the combination of atmospheric multipath fading and VLP devices that the San Francisco Monte Carlo simulation presents is suspect. The Commission believes that Apple, Broadcom, et al. have sufficiently explained how they calculate this data. As they explain, for each link, the available C/N ratio was calculated based on the link's transmitted power, propagation distance, receiver antenna gain, receiver feeder loss, and receiver noise figure and the required C/N ratio was calculated based on the highest order modulation for the link as indicated in the Commission's licensing data. The fade margin is simply the difference between these two C/N ratios. The probability that the fade margin for a link will be exceeded by an atmospheric multipath fade was obtained from ITU-R P.530-17. As to whether some of the link availabilities are excessively low or high, as AT&T claims, the Commission does not find the range of link availabilities indicated by the San Francisco simulation to be unrealistic. As Apple, Broadcom, and Meta indicate, there are many factors that impact the calculated availability of the microwave links. AT&T also suggests that it would be useful for the San Francisco simulation to have listed the links that appear to be more susceptible to VLP interference to help understand what they have in common. Because none of the links appear to have an increased potential for the fade margin being exceeded by the combination of multipath fading and VLP devices operating at the −5 dBm/MHz power level, the information is not necessary to reach a conclusion regarding the potential for harmful interference occurring.
13. For the Commission to have confidence in the results of computer simulations, the assumptions and models that are used must be appropriate. The Commission finds that for both the San Francisco and Houston simulations, the assumptions are not only appropriate, but also represent reasonably conservative estimates of the potential impact on microwave receivers and that using more realistic input assumptions would produce results showing even less potential impact. Nevertheless, the Monte Carlo analyses results are important as they represent an upper bound on what could be expected under real-world conditions with the actual impact likely to be much lower. To reiterate this point, the Commission discusses these assumptions.
14. Each of the simulations randomly distributed a number of VLP devices over the study area for each iteration. The Commission finds that the number of devices placed within the study area for each simulation iteration appears to be based on realistic assumptions. Both simulations assume that all simulated VLP devices will operate outdoors because indoor VLP devices are assumed to not present an interference risk to microwave links. The Commission agrees; such an assumption is consistent with its finding in the
15. Apple placed 224 VLP devices during each iteration for its Houston area analysis. This number was based on a set of assumptions about VLP device use appear to be reasonable. The analysis places all 224 VLP devices around a single microwave receiver resulting in a similar device density per microwave receiver for I/N computation as the 247 microwave receivers simulated in the San Francisco simulation; noting that the reported I/N for each analysis iteration is an aggregate of the individual I/Ns calculated for each device in that iteration. Even with a similar device density, the Commission finds that the fact that the Houston results show a 20 times increase in the potential for a VLP device to exceed −6 dB I/N is not cause for concern regarding an increase in the potential for actual harmful interference. The I/N probabilities calculated from the Houston analysis results from a worst-case analysis designed to ensure that any possible microwave receiver configuration is accounted for while the San Francisco analysis was predicated on the actual microwave receiver layout and characteristics from the Universal Licensing System (ULS) for that market and thus reflects a more real world analysis. Moreover, the Houston analysis assumed that every VLP device was operating co-channel with the microwave receiver. This situation is unlikely to occur under actual operating conditions. Second, the propagation models estimate clutter losses based on the mean for various statistical categories and are likely to underestimate these losses, especially in cities where tall buildings and urban canyons are likely to block signals from microwave receivers. Third, from a purely mathematical standpoint, it stands to reason that the more devices that are randomly placed around a microwave receiver, the greater the likelihood that the signal level received at the microwave receiver may exceed the interference protection criterion. However, as the Commission believes that the number of VLP devices used in each simulation run for Houston was higher than what would be reasonably expected under actual operating conditions, the Commission believes that the results similarly overestimate the actual number of devices that would exceed −6 dB I/N. And even if the results from the San Francisco and the Houston analyses represent lower and upper bounds, these percentages are sufficiently low as to pose an insignificant risk of harmful interference to microwave links. And fourth, as noted in the
16. AT&T points out that for many VLP device use cases there will be at least two and maybe more VLP transmitters exchanging data at the same location. The Commission agrees with AT&T that many VLP device use cases, such as body worn devices and mobile hotspots, involve communication between multiple VLP devices. However, only one of these devices will be transmitting at a time. Furthermore, such usage will usually involve devices located in close proximity, in many cases on the same person's body, sharing the same channel through intermittent transmissions. Thus, these multiple devices can appropriately be considered a single device within the simulation. Moreover, if multiple proximate devices communicate over different channels, then only one of the simulated devices would be co-channel with a given microwave receiver, negating it from consideration within the simulation. Therefore, the Commission does not agree with AT&T that it is necessary for multiple proximate VLP devices communicating with each other to be specifically modeled by the simulations as such use is implicitly accounted for.
17. One of the key parameters in computer simulations is the propagation model used to calculate the signal level received by the microwave receivers from the VLP devices. The Houston simulation uses the exact propagation models that the Commission specified for the automated frequency coordination (AFC) systems that manage access to 6 GHz band spectrum by standard power access points, while the San Francisco simulation departs slightly from this framework. As the Commission concluded that these models are appropriate in preventing harmful interference from standard power devices in this band, the Commission agrees that these models are appropriate for a computer simulation for VLP devices. The San Francisco simulation departs from the Commission's AFC rules. As the difference in the propagation models used in the San Francisco simulation and the Commission's AFC rules produces a more conservative result—
18. Another input modeled within the simulations was attenuation to account for “body loss” due to scattering and absorption from a VLP device operating on or near a body or other object (
19. Because VLP devices are anticipated to be worn across a wide range of positions on the body or placed on a wide range of surfaces, the Commission believes that use of a gaussian distribution with a 4 dB mean as used by the computer simulations captures the wide range of use cases described by VLP proponents and is appropriate for analytical purposes. Gaussian distributions are commonly used to represent random processes that vary over a range such as far-field body loss. Considering that the body loss measurements submitted by Apple, Broadcom, et al. and Meta have a mean higher than 4 dB and some measured attenuations were much greater than the then 8 dB maximum of the truncated distributions used in the simulations, use of these distribution appears to be a conservative assumption. The Commission does not find merit in AT&T's criticism of the body loss distribution used by the simulations as not being justified or being “abnormally” truncated to plus/minus one standard deviation. While AT&T implies the distribution must be “justified,” it does not provide any information on what such a justification may entail or how body loss should otherwise be modeled. Use of a truncated distribution is reasonable as this prevents the distribution from unrealistically including a body loss less than 0 dB or incorporating very high body loss values (more than one standard deviation from the mean) which could be viewed as outliers and not realistic while maintaining the 4 dB mean.
20. Both computer simulations assumed that 90% of VLP devices would operate at a 1.5 meter height above ground level. As the simulations are only modeling outdoor VLP devices, the VLP devices that are at greater heights will represent use on building balconies and rooftops. The Commission agrees with Apple, Broadcom, et al. that, assuming that 10% are at heights greater than 1.5 meters appears to be a conservative assumption. For those 10% of VLP devices that are assumed to be above 1.5 meters, both simulations base the height of the device on data for building heights in the cities they are modeling. The Commission concludes that this is a reasonable approach to modeling the VLP device heights.
21. Both simulations used the ITU-R F.1245 antenna pattern to model microwave receiver antennas. This ITU recommendation provides an average antenna pattern to be used in interference assessments. AT&T criticizes the simulations for not using actual antenna patterns for the antennas specified in the Commission's licensing database and suggests that if the actual antenna patterns are not used that “a better choice would have been to base the antenna pattern on F.699 and the FCC antenna mask in Part 101.115 as has been agreed within the WinnForum” for the AFC specification.
22. Given that the actual antenna model is not specified for many of the microwave link licensing records in the Commission's ULS database and the added complexity of obtaining and integrating into the simulation antenna patterns for microwave links where the antenna pattern is known, the Commission appreciates why the simulations did not use actual antenna patterns. In addition, as the Houston simulation did not model specific microwave links, using a particular actual antenna pattern would have been completely arbitrary. The Commission does not believe the Monte Carlo simulations using a different antenna pattern than the WinnForum AFC specification detracts from the simulation's accuracy for two reasons. First, because ITU-R F.699 is based on the peak envelope for the side lobes it will overestimate the level of interference from signals received in the side lobes because most actual antennas will have lower side lobe gain. ITU-R F.1245, which is based on the average side lobe levels for microwave antennas, appears to be a more appropriate choice given that the purpose of a Monte Carlo simulation is to determine the typical level of interference experienced by microwave receivers and that the simulations are summing the signals received at the microwave antenna at different arrival angles from multiple VLP devices. Second, the WinnForum AFC specification appears to use a mask based on § 101.115 of the Commission's rules for the side lobes because this permits use of different levels of attenuation for different categories of microwave antennas for angles of arrival outside the main beam of the antenna. Because the goal of the AFC systems is to protect specific fixed microwave receivers from harmful interference from standard power unlicensed devices, trying to more closely match the characteristics of particular classes of antennas is important for this purpose. In a Monte Carlo simulation the goal is to obtain overall statistics on the likelihood of occurrence of harmful interference to all the microwave links rather than determining exclusion zones around specific microwave receivers. Hence, trying to match the characteristics of individual antennas is of less importance. For this purpose, the Commission believes that use of the ITU-R F.1245 pattern, which represents an “average” antenna pattern, is a reasonable alternative to using the actual antenna patterns or to following the approach used in the WinnForum AFC specification.
23. AT&T also criticizes the Houston simulation for not using the actual microwave link data available in the Commission's ULS licensing database and instead using different antenna heights and either a 44 dBi antenna gain or antenna gains selected from a distribution whose source was unspecified. While the San Francisco simulation used the data from the ULS for each individual link, the Houston simulation took a different, yet also valid, approach in which it simulated both the range of microwave receiver characteristics (antenna gain, antenna height, etc.) and VLP parameters over 10 million iterations to determine the probability of exceeding −6 dB I/N for any potential VLP to microwave receiver configuration. Contrary to AT&T's assertion, the parameters the Houston simulation used are based on distributions taken from the Commission's ULS licensing database for the Houston market and are based on real-world data representative of the Houston area. By choosing a microwave antenna height at the 10-percentile and a microwave antenna gain at the 90-percentile for the Houston market, the Houston simulation represents a conservative estimate of the potential for harmful interference to occur to microwave links from VLP devices in
24. The San Francisco simulation used an antenna pattern for all VLP devices that is based on a model of consumer Wi-Fi devices developed by the CEPT SE45 working group. The Houston simulation used an antenna pattern for client devices from the ECC 302 report, which examined the interference potential of unlicensed 6 GHz devices. AT&T states that it has “previously shown that assumptions made in simulations by [proponents of VLP devices] rely on inaccurate antenna patterns and illogical assumptions regarding [device] positioning.” In making this broad statement, AT&T refers to its previous discussion of a Monte Carlo simulation for LPI devices conducted by CableLabs. The Commission does not believe AT&T's concerns have validity for the two simulations under consideration here. The Commission finds each of these studies provide independent grounds for its conclusions.
25. Transmit power control is another important parameter that VLP devices will use and was appropriately included in the analyses. For transmit power control the San Francisco simulation used a gaussian distribution with a mean and standard deviation of 3 dB that is truncated at 0 and 6 dB. The Houston simulation used a gaussian distribution with 7 discrete steps from 0 to 6 dB for transmit power control. The Commission believes that transmit power control is likely to be implemented for most VLP devices, such as body worn devices, to save battery power. Consequently, modeling the transmit power control as a random variable in the computer simulations is appropriate. Given the ITU resolution and ECC regulation requiring an average power reduction of 3 dB from transmit power control for U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C devices and that the Commission previously required that U-NII-2A and U-NII-2C devices have the capability for at least 6 dB transmit power control, the Commission believes that the distributions used in the San Francisco and Houston simulations are reasonable approximations for the amount of transmit power control VLP devices are likely to employ for VLP devices.
26. The Houston simulation used a noise figure of 5 dB and a feeder loss of 1.3 dB for the microwave receivers. AT&T claims that the 5 dB noise figure is “larger than typical” and suggests that using 4 dB for U-NII-5 and 4.5 dB for U-NII-7 microwave receivers, as in WinnForum's functional requirements document for AFC systems, would be a better choice. AT&T also claims that a 1.3 dB feeder loss may not be appropriate for all cases as many microwave radios are mounted directly to the antenna and have no feeder loss. Apple, Broadcom, and Meta have indicated that the simulation used 2 dB for waveguide feeder loss and 5 dB for the noise figure. While the Commission agrees with AT&T that the noise figure numbers from the WinnForum AFC specification would have been a better choice than the 5 dB that both simulations used, this up to 1 decibel difference is not significant enough to make an appreciable difference in the simulation results. For feeder loss, when no feeder loss is available in the Commission's ULS database and the type of microwave radio is known, WinnForum's AFC specification document indicates that a value of 3 dB be used for radios that are identified as indoor units while no feeder loss should be used for outdoor units. Hence, according to WinnForum's AFC specification, a 1.3 dB or 2 dB feeder loss would be too large for an outdoor radio and too small for indoor radio. As these simulations are designed to model the potential for harmful interference to occur to microwave links in general rather than explore the interference risk of a particular microwave receiver, the Commission believes that employing such an “in-between” value for feeder loss is a reasonable approach for a Monte Carlo simulation.
27. In sum, the Commission's review of Apple, Broadcom, et al.'s San Francisco Monte Carlo simulation examining the potential for VLP device interaction with microwave links and the similar Apple simulation for Houston provide a solid basis for concluding that VLP devices can coexist with incumbent services in the 6 GHz band with an insignificant potential for causing harmful interference. In fact, as noted, the Commission believes that the assumptions and thus, the results, err on the side of caution, are conservative, and overestimate the potential for any given VLP device to exceed −6 dB I/N. The worst-case operating scenario occurs when the VLP device is in the main beam of a microwave receiver, at close distance, operating co-channel to the microwave receiver, and not significantly attenuated by terrain, body loss, or blocked by buildings, which is an event that the simulations show will be a rare occurrence.
28. The computer simulations show virtually no impact on the microwave links even for VLP devices operating at 1 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD—the Houston and San Francisco simulations indicate that a −6 dB I/N event occurs only at either 0.06% or 0.003% of the time, respectively. The San Francisco results show an identical outcome for VLP devices transmitting at −5 dBm/MHz PSD and for the Houston simulations, a slight decrease in occurrences that −6 dB I/N may be exceeded. Thus, as a conservative initial approach for permitting VLP devices to operate in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 portions of the 6 GHz band, the Commission will limit them to a maximum of −5 dBm/MHz PSD EIRP and 14 dBm EIRP at this time. The Commission believes the conservative nature of the analyses resulting in extremely low probabilities for exceeding −6 dB I/N justify this approach which balances the need to provide enough power for VLP devices to ensure manufacturers can provide useful devices with the requirement to protect licensed incumbent operations from harmful interference. This approach recognizes, as pointed out by licensed incumbents, that there are locations where VLP devices operating at these power levels could result in a signal with I/N ratios that may exceed −6 dB I/N. However, Apple, Broadcom, et al. and Broadcom argue that the risk of exceeding that interference protection criterion is low at even higher power levels. Therefore, the Commission believes that it is appropriate to be conservative at this time and permit the VLP devices to operate at no more than −5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD. The Commission also limits total EIRP to no more than 14 dBm consistent with Apple, Broadcom, et al. and other VLP proponents' comments. While there may be some worst-case locations where harmful interference is possible, the Commission finds the overall risk insignificant. In addition, because (i) the Commission is concluding that VLP devices can operate at −5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD with an insignificant potential of causing harmful interference to incumbent operations, and (ii) VLP devices are inherently mobile, communications between two VLP devices present no more harmful interference risk than a VLP device communicating with an access point. Thus, the Commission will permit VLP devices operating at this PSD level to directly communicate with each other. The Commission is examining additional steps that it could take to provide additional power or operating
29. Southern Company cautions that to the extent the Commission is relying on computer simulations to inform its decisions for the 6 GHz band, it should require the underlying algorithms used by the simulation to be disclosed to all stakeholders consistent with the Commission's
30. While Apple, Broadcom, et al. and Apple have not made their simulation code or the resulting raw data produced by the simulations publicly available, the Commission believes that they have provided sufficient information for knowledgeable engineers to understand the algorithms and models used in the simulations. Both Apple, Broadcom, et al. for the San Francisco simulation and Apple for the Houston simulation provided filings detailing the significant simulation assumptions. Apple has indicated that its simulation was prepared using the widely available and well understood Spectrum Engineering Advanced Monte Carlo Analysis Tool (SEAMCAT) simulation tool, while Apple, Broadcom, et al. indicated that its simulation was implemented using the C++ programming language using well-established Monte Carlo simulation techniques. Through these filings to the record, the Commission believes that Apple, Broadcom, et al. and Apple have provided enough technical details that engineers experienced in radio propagation modeling and coexistence analysis would be able to conduct identical simulations and obtain consistent results. Furthermore, the Commission observes that it is noteworthy that no opponents of VLP deployment have conducted their own simulations to confirm or refute the results. The Commission has no statutory obligation to conduct or commission [its] own empirical or statistical studies. The Commission therefore concludes that the results presented in the filings are adequate to inform its decision. The Commission's decision to authorize VLP devices will encourage innovative methods of using the 6 GHz band and the Commission is exercising its technical judgment in relying on the simulations from Apple, Broadcom, et al. and Apple in reaching this decision. The Commission notes that parties opposing its low-power indoor (LPI) rules raised a similar concern in a challenge to the previously adopted 6 GHz unlicensed rules in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit regarding a computer simulation conducted by CableLabs on which the Commission relied. The court rejected that challenge noting that “requiring agencies to obtain and publicize the data underlying all studies on which they rely would be impractical and unnecessary.” In accordance with this established precedent, the Commission finds that Apple, Broadcom, et al. and Apple provided ample information on the record such that any interested party could undertake similar analyses and that opponents' challenge on this point is meritless.
31.
32. As the Commission stated in the
33. As suggested by Apple, Broadcom, Google, and Meta, the Commission is prohibiting VLP devices from operating as part of a fixed outdoor infrastructure. The Commission notes that no commenters have opposed us adopting this prohibition. This measure is being adopted as an additional means of protecting incumbent operations to ensure that all VLP devices are subject to body and/or clutter loss, to add additional assurance that the simulation assumption that most outdoor devices will operate at 1.5 m above ground level is correct, and to force all devices to be itinerant consistent with the VLP devices simulated in the Monte Carlo analyses. Thus, VLP devices will be prohibited from attaching to outdoor infrastructure, such as poles or buildings, that would make any instances of potential interference more than fleeting. In addition, device mobility results in devices, even if remaining in a general location, constantly changing their orientation due to even subtle body movements.
34. The Commission is adopting a requirement that VLP devices employ a transmit power control mechanism that has the capability to operate at least 6 dB below the −5 dBm/MHz EIRP PSD level permitted for VLP devices. Both computer simulations, which the Commission have concluded is the best evidence that the potential for VLP devices to cause harmful interference is insignificant, assume that VLP devices would operate with a transmit power control mechanism with a range up to 6 dB and a mean power reduction of 3 dB. To ensure that actual VLP devices operate consistent with the simulations on which its relying, the Commission adopts this provision to provide confidence that such devices do indeed operate using transmit power control. The Commission is not placing any specific requirements in its rules as to how the VLP device transmit power control algorithm will function, but proof of such functionality must be provided with a device's application for equipment certification. The Commission does not expect that placing this transmit power control requirement will present an undue burden on device manufacturers as such functionality is routinely included in battery-powered device design to conserve battery power. In this connection, Broadcom states that transmit power control is enabled in 100% of its portable products. In addition, Apple, Broadcom, Google, and Meta jointly suggested that the Commission adopt a VLP device transmit power control requirement that would require such devices to reduce their PSD by 3 dB on average. No commenters have opposed us mandating that VLP devices employ a transmit power control mechanism. While AT&T advocates that any limitation on VLP device use that was assumed in the computer simulations, such as average power due to transmit power control, should be subject to a specific rule, the Commission notes that it's adopting a rule requiring VLP devices to have transmit power control capability to reduce power by at least 6 dB. While the exact power distribution that VLP devices will use is unknown at this time, the Commission believes this requirement is reasonable given the diversity in propagation environments in which VLP will operate.
35. Consistent with the requirements for most other unlicensed transmitters, the Commission requires 6 GHz VLP transmitters to be approved under the Commission's certification procedure. This procedure requires that the equipment be tested by an accredited laboratory and approved by a designated Telecommunication Certification Body (TCB) to ensure that the equipment complies with all requirements that the Commission is adopting,
36. For reasons discussed throughout the Report and Order, the Commission is confident that the risk of harmful interference to licensed incumbent services is insignificant, based on the VLP technical rules adopted herein and on the compliance measures in place under the its equipment authorization rules. The Commission also emphasizes that 6 GHz VLP devices, like other part 15 devices, are not permitted to cause harmful interference and that any such interference is actionable for enforcement purposes. Section 15.5(b) of the Commission's rules provides that “[o]peration of an intentional, unintentional, or incidental radiator is subject to the condition[ ] that no harmful interference is caused.” In the unlikely event that harmful interference does occur due to VLP operations, § 15.5(c) of the Commission's rules provides that “[t]he operator of a radio frequency device shall be required to cease operating the device upon notification by a Commission representative that the device is causing harmful interference,” even if the device in use was properly certified and configured, and that “[o]peration shall not resume until the condition causing the harmful interference has been corrected.” Although UTC asks the Commission to “propose processes and procedures for the identification, reporting and resolution of interference from unlicensed operations as part of [future rulemaking],” the Commission already have processes and procedures in place under which the Enforcement Bureau investigates complaints of harmful interference and takes appropriate enforcement action, as necessary. These processes and procedures have been effective in identifying and resolving harmful interference to licensed operations in other situations and are available for use in the 6 GHz band as well.
37. Parties that believe particular 6 GHz VLP devices are not compliant with the Commission's rules or are causing harmful interference to licensed incumbent services can contact the Enforcement Bureau, which will address any rule violations, such as impermissible operations or marketing of non-compliant devices, as appropriate.
38. AT&T contends that 6 GHz unlicensed devices have been modeled under the erroneous presumption that each type of device—standard power, LPI, and VLP—can interfere with microwave links up to a threshold of −6 dB I/N, but as there is only one −6 dB I/N margin, the modeling must account for consumption of that margin by all three types of devices. AT&T points out that no computer simulation models the combined impact of all these different types of unlicensed devices. AT&T points to the CEPT computer simulation that addressed 6 GHz devices that did not include standard power devices, simulated LPI devices at a lower power level than the Commission's rules permit, and only assumed 1% of devices located outdoors as illustrating the error in the VLP proponents reasoning.
39. As the Commission stated above, typical microwave link architecture results in 6 GHz band unlicensed devices only presenting a potential interference risk if they are in the microwave antenna's main beam at a close enough distance that a signal of sufficient strength will be received. The AFC systems that control standard power access points' spectrum access will prevent those devices from operating at locations where they present a risk of causing harmful interference. Therefore, the Commission does not believe that it is necessary for unlicensed proponents to provide a study that jointly considers the potential for harmful interference from the cumulative effect of standard power devices and other types of unlicensed 6 GHz devices. Regarding VLP and LPI devices, the Commission again points out that Apple's Monte Carlo analysis
40. While supporting comments advocating for a 14 dBm EIRP power level, a subset of VLP device advocates point out that allowing even higher power would enable VLP devices to communicate with higher order modulation, which would enable higher throughputs and lower latencies and request that the Commission authorize up to 21 dBm EIRP. They claim that the 14 dBm EIRP power level would be insufficient for untethered augmented reality/virtual reality, remote surgery, data center wireless flyways, educational applications requiring transmitting high resolution materials, and other demanding applications. They point to the computer simulation conducted by RKF to claim that operation at this power level would not cause harmful interference to licensed stations.
41. As these commenters also support the more modest 14 dBm EIRP power level and the applications cited are more speculative than those generally cited as other use cases for VLP devices, the Commission declines to permit additional power for VLP devices at this time. The Commission also observes that devices delivering many of the cited applications, such as remote surgery, necessitate indoor operation and can be conducted under the LPI device rules that already permit more power than the Commission is permitting for VLP devices. Much of the Commission's decision is based on the computer simulations that are based on a maximum 14 dBm EIRP power level. Due to the undeveloped record on operations with up to aa 21 dBm EIRP, the Commission declines to permit VLP devices to operate at greater than 14 dBm EIRP. The Commission does not plan on seeking comment, however, on whether we can, under certain circumstances, increase the VLP power level without increasing the harmful interference risk to incumbent operations.
42. The Ultra Wide Band (UWB) Alliance expresses concern that VLP devices will radiate power uniformly in all directions even though they likely only need the maximum power in a specific direction and that this will result in unnecessary interference to other receivers, including other VLP devices. To address this issue, it suggests that VLP devices meet one of two alternate power limits: (1) a −32 dBm power spectral density with a peak power of 0 dBm; or (2) a −8 dBm power spectral density that is reduced by 2 dB for every dB that the antenna gain is less than 12 dBi as well as a peak power of 14 dBm that is reduced by 2 dB for every dB that the antenna gain is less than 7 dB. The UWB Alliance also suggests that dynamic transmit power control be required for VLP devices as the power needed for on-body locations can vary from nearly free space to over 70 dB. Other commenters such as Nokia, the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), and AT&T suggest that we only permit VLP if we limit such devices to much lower power than what the Commission proposed.
43. While several commenters request that the Commission only permits VLP devices to operate at lower power, for the reasons already articulated we decline to do so. First, the Commission concludes based on the computer simulations that VLP device operation at −5 dBm/MHz PSD will only pose an insignificant risk of harmful interference to incumbent operations. Additionally, the Commission appreciates the UWB Alliance's concern for improving spectrum efficiency and reducing the potential for interference by proposing rules that would incentivize the use of directional antennas. However, the Commission agrees with Apple, Broadcom, et al. that directional antennas are likely infeasible for small form factor portable devices, particularly when the device's orientation is constantly changing. The Commission does not believe that it would be appropriate to adopt rules that would likely make it impractical to manufacture devices for many of the proposed VLP use cases, such as small portable body-worn devices. As for the UWB Alliance's suggestion to require dynamic transmit power control, as explained above, the Commission is adopting such a requirement on VLP devices. Second, the Commission does not believe that tying the power level for VLP devices to the power levels for low-power indoor devices, as NAB and AT&T suggests, is appropriate, given the fundamental differences between these device classes. VLP devices will inherently be mobile rather than stationary like LPI access points, have smaller form factors, less efficient antennas due to the small form factors, and operate at low power levels to conserve battery. Finally, as the Commission specified in the
44. Many microwave incumbents advocate that VLP devices should be required to use an AFC system to control spectrum access based on their potential to cause harmful interference to microwave receivers. As the Commission concludes that the risk of harmful interference from VLP devices operating at −5 dBm/MHz is insignificant, the use of AFC systems to control spectrum access by VLP devices is unnecessary. Thus, the Commission sees no reason to impose such a requirement on VLP devices. While there is dispute on the record as to how much it would cost to impose AFC control on VLP devices, there clearly is some cost to imposing such a requirement without a requisite benefit. Furthermore, there will likely be some VLP devices, such as laptop computers that do not have geolocation capabilities and requiring such devices to operate under AFC control would limit the utility of the VLP rules. In addition, neither the standard power or LPI rules support the highly mobile applications envisioned for VLP devices as LPI devices are limited to indoor locations utilizing access points that are supplied power by a wired connection while standard power access points may not be mobile. The Commission does note that consistent with 6 GHz low-power indoor unlicensed devices as well as all client devices, the Commission will require VLP devices to include a contention-based protocol which will act to avoid channels on which incumbent systems are actively transmitting.
45. As discussed in more detail below, a number of commenters submitted link budget analyses that they claim show that harmful interference will result from VLP device operation. The Commission disagrees with CTIA—
46. As already noted, the Commission believes that Monte Carlo analysis is the most appropriate method for evaluating the potential for VLP devices to exceed −6 dB I/N. Although the link budget analyses provided by commenters conclude that in some instances the I/N caused by a VLP device could exceed that interference protection criterion, these analyses suffer from one of the same fundamental flaws as the AT&T link budget analysis that the Commission rejected in the
47. Several utilities filed field test measurement reports directed at quantifying LPI device interference potential on actual microwave receivers. While the focus of those studies is on LPI devices that are located indoors, some of the results do have implications for understanding the potential for VLP devices to cause harmful interference. CTIA and Southern Company jointly conducted field measurements using a signal generator to emulate both LPI and VLP devices which they claim show the emulated VLP device reduced the microwave link fade margin between 5.2 dB and 10.9 dB. For its test, Evergy used a commercially purchased LPI access point. When the result is adjusted for the power difference between LPI and VLP devices, the test indicates the I/N could be 14.5 dB for a VLP device located next to a window in a school classroom. Other electric utilities also conducted field test measurements: First Energy reports I/N ratios as high as 9.1 dB and Southern Company reports I/N ratios at high as 25.7 dB.
48. Apple, Broadcom, et al. criticize these field tests for using an indirect methodology to measure the reduction in link fade margin and estimating the I/N ratio. Apple, Broadcom, et al. claim the field test methodology is unreliable and produces inconsistent results. They also claim that the test chose worst-case locations and set the LPI access point parameters to reflect only extreme worst-case scenarios with unrealistic data rates. In addition, NCTA—The internet & Television Association (NCTA) suggests that the field test should use a metric based on the microwave link's signal to interference-plus-noise ratio S/(I+N) rather than using an I/N ratio or a reduction in fade margin as an interference metric as the S/(I+N) ratio would take into account the characteristics of the microwave link.
49. The Commission believes Apple, Broadcom, et al. and NCTA express valid points about the field test results, especially regarding the testing methodology. However, as the Commission's focus here is on the potential for VLP devices to cause harmful interference and the field tests were mainly directed to LPI devices, the Commission refrains from opining on how representative the tests are of LPI device use. As for their connection to assessing VLP interference potential, the Commission observes that they too rely on worst-case scenarios that overstate the potential for harmful interference and therefore suffer from the same flaw as the link budget analyses and as the AT&T study that was rejected in the
50. AT&T claims that the VLP device proponents make a flawed argument in claiming that “a chain of improbable coincidences” is necessary for interference to occur to microwave links and “citing indoor use, device positioning, channel overlap, body loss, RLAN antenna gain, transmit power control, fade margin and itinerant use.” The Commission agrees with AT&T to the extent that it intimates that merely mentioning each of these factors, claiming each is unlikely, and thus deducing that harmful interference is unlikely to occur is of little utility. Consequently, while these assertions may have some merit, the Commission did not rely on them in reaching our conclusions here. Instead, the Commission's conclusions rely heavily on the San Francisco and Houston Monte Carlo simulations, which considered the respective likelihood for different factors that could impact interference potential to quantify the overall risk of harmful interference occurring to 6 GHz microwave links. Based on these analyses, the Commission concludes that the risk is insignificant.
51. The entire 6 GHz band is allocated for the FSS in the Earth-to-space direction. Additionally, portions of the U-NII-7 and U-NII-8 bands are allocated for FSS space-to-Earth (downlink) operations. However, there are no licensed downlink earth stations in the U-NII-7 band. Sirius XM and Globalstar were the only FSS operators to file comments in response to the
52. In
53. Incumbent operations in the U-NII-7 band include several radio astronomy observatories, located in remote areas, that observe methanol spectral lines between 6.65-6.6752 GHz. To protect these radio observatories, the National Academy of Sciences' Committee on Radio Frequencies (CORF) requests that we implement exclusion zones for this band, as listed in Allocation Table footnote US385, if VLP devices are able to determine their locations. If the devices are not able to determine their locations, CORF claims that the radio observatories must be protected by notching out the VLP device's transmissions within this band.
54. When the Commission adopted the rules for 6 GHz LPI devices, it did not implement exclusion zones or require the LPI devices to notch out the 6.65-6.6752 GHz band. Because VLP devices will operate at an even lower power than LPI devices, the Commission does not expect them to create an interference problem for the radio observatories. The Commission recognizes the importance of these observations to the scientific community but, as VLP devices will not operate under the control of an AFC system and will not be required to have a geolocation capability, the Commission is not able to adopt exclusion zones around these radio observatories. The radio observatories that receive in the 6 GHz band are in remote locations, and it is unlikely that unlicensed VLP devices will be operating nearby. Furthermore, these observatories can restrict such devices from being used at their facilities. Consequently, the Commission concludes that radio astronomy operations will not be subject to harmful interference from unlicensed VLP devices. Given this conclusion, the Commission cannot justify requiring VLP devices to notch out this band as requested as this would increase device complexity and result in less efficient spectrum use.
55. In the
56. Accordingly, the Commission is requiring emissions from VLP devices in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands to comply with the transmission emission mask adopted in the
57. The Commission is adopting emissions limits at the edge of the U-NII-5 and U-NII-8 bands for VLP devices that are identical to the emissions limits that the Commission adopted in the
58. The Commission notes here that it adopted rules that require Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) licensees to cease use of the 5.850-5.895 GHz band and operate only in the 5.895-5.925 GHz band. In the
59. Several parties support the −27 dBm/MHz EIRP emission limit, while other parties make alternative proposals. A group of VLP proponents jointly propose a compromise out-of-band emission limit that would apply at the bottom of the U-NII-5 band. Specifically, they propose that VLP devices comply with a −37 dBm/MHz out-of-band emission limit at 5925 MHz measured by root mean square (RMS) to ensure coexistence when 6 GHz devices are operating in the lowermost channels and that VLP devices prioritize operations in channels above 6105 megahertz.
60. The Commission is not convinced at this time that a more stringent out-of-band emission limit nor operational restrictions suggested by C-V2X proponents are necessary to protect in-vehicle C-V2X devices from harmful interference. The Commission already determined that standard power and LPI 6 GHz devices must comply with this same −27 dBm/MHz out-of-band emission limit and that emissions at or under that limit will protect adjacent band users from harmful interference. C-V2X devices must be designed to successfully operate in an interference-limited environment as they are subjected to co-channel and adjacent channel signals between each other that are higher than the −27 dBm/MHz out-of-band emission limit the Commission is adopting here for 6 GHz unlicensed VLP devices. C-V2X devices have to coexist with other C-V2X devices that operate in close proximity to each other,
61. The Commission declines to adopt the −37 dBm/MHz out-of-band emissions limit suggested by some parties. However, the Commission plans on seeking additional information on the potential impact that VLP devices operating in motor vehicles could have on C-V2X performance and whether any modification of the out-of-band emission limit or other technical or operational requirements are appropriate. Likewise, the Commission finds the −60 dBm/MHz out-of-band emission limit suggested by the Alliance for Automotive Innovation (AAI) for application at the U-NII-5 band edge to be too restrictive. In addition, the Commission finds AAI's suggestion to require VLP devices to operate with a 1-2% duty cycle that is averaged over a range of tens of milliseconds is not reasonable. While duty cycle is an important parameter for system operation, the Commission typically does not make rules requiring adherence to specific duty cycle requirements as they may artificially restrict design choices and limit the applications that can be used by the American public. Similarly, the Commission declines to adopt a requirement advocated by Panasonic that VLP devices include sensing technology as it does not believe that such a complex solution is necessary to achieve the protection requirements needed for all users in the band. Moreover, any new sensing technology often requires long development cycles along with extended testing to ensure proper operation, which would only delay the benefits that VLP devices can provide.
62. As discussed above, the Commission remains convinced that the −27 dBm/MHz out-of-band emission level at the lower edge of U-NII-5 will protect C-V2X operations below 5925 MHz and adopt that level for VLP devices. This will create a consistent out-of-band limit for all 6 GHz unlicensed devices throughout the 6 GHz band.
63. The Commission is mindful of the concerns from the auto industry regarding the potential for harmful interference to automotive safety systems operating below the U-NII-5 band. For example, the proponents of the compromise proposal propose that VLP devices prioritize unlicensed operation in channels above 6105 MHz (
64. To ensure that safety of life services below the U-NII-5 band are protected from harmful interference, the Commission adopts the suggestion from the compromise proposal to require VLP devices to prioritize spectrum above 6105 MHz. The Commission disagrees with NAB that this is inconsistent with its previous decision not to exclude VLP devices from a portion of the 6 GHz band to protect electronic news gathering (ENG) operations as this requirement does not prohibit operation below 6105 MHz; it merely requires that devices seek to operate in the spectrum above that frequency first before operating below it. Although under this approach, there may be fewer VLP devices operating on the spectrum below 6105 MHz, many devices will still operate on that spectrum and the Commission does not expect abnormal concentrations of VLP devices in U-NII-6 and U-NII-8 where ENG operates as devices would still naturally spread across the available spectrum.
65.
66. Consistent with the Commission's decision in the
67.
68.
69. The Commission does not agree with AT&T's rationale that if 90% of VLP use is assumed to be indoors, there is no utility in enabling outdoor VLP device operation. VLP proponents describe portable battery-powered consumer products as a primary use case for these devices, and apportioning significant battery resources to the overhead necessary to operate pursuant to an AFC could reduce utility of these devices to the point that they would be infeasible. In addition, as discussed above, the Commission disagrees with AT&T's assertion that there is no cost to implement an AFC capability in VLP devices. Adding AFC capability to these small battery-powered portable device would likely increase their complexity and, correspondingly, their cost. The Commission also agrees with Apple, Broadcom, and Meta that VLP devices will be suitable for applications that require direct communications between client devices and to support mobility that may require devices to transition between indoor and outdoor use. Therefore, the Commission finds AT&T's contention to be without merit.
70.
71. As discussed above, the Commission adopts rules to permit VLP devices to operate in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 portions of the 6 GHz band while protecting the licensed services that operate in the band from harmful interference. Enabling new unlicensed use types in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 bands will yield important economic benefits and will allow more extensive use of technologies, such as Wi-Fi and Bluetooth, by American consumers. Consumers are using more and more data, on average, and this is expected to continue to grow significantly. One report estimated that in 2021, the economic benefits associated with Wi-Fi in the United States was valued at almost $979 billion and that by 2025, 40% of Wi-Fi traffic will rely on 6 GHz. Another report estimated that making the 6 GHz band accessible to VLP devices would produce over $39 billion in economic value over five years. Even if the rules that the Commission adopts herein lead to expected benefits of 5% of $39 billion, or approximately $2 billion—a figure the Commission finds to be below the likely benefits of these rules—the expected benefits will be well in excess of the costs that we estimate.
72. Because there are presently no VLP devices in operation, the rules that the Commission promulgate does not have cost implications for the existing unlicensed device ecosystem. And because the harmful interference risk to incumbent operators is insignificant and the Commission is not imposing any specific requirements on any incumbent operator, there is also no cost implication on them. Thus, by promulgating these rules to enable VLP devices to operate in the U-NII-5 and U-NII-7 portions of the 6 GHz band, significant economic benefits will be bestowed on the American public.
73.
74.
75.
76. In a series of letters filed before the 6 GHz rules were adopted, NAB told the Commission that a contention-based protocol requirement for unlicensed devices in the 2.4 GHz band had not protected broadcasters and that this experience should lead the Commission to conclude that a contention-based protocol likewise would not protect broadcasters from harmful interference in the 6 GHz band. NAB claimed that “the penetration of Wi-Fi has so polluted the shared portion of the 2.4 GHz band as to render it unusable for” ENG operations. But NAB offered no specific evidence to support this broad claim. Instead, NAB cited comments filed in this proceeding by the Engineers for the Integrity of Broadcast Auxiliary Services Spectrum (EIBASS) in February 2019.
77. Although EIBASS asserted in its February 2019 comments that “part 15 devices have a long history of causing chronic interference to TV BAS [Broadcast Auxiliary Service] operations” on certain channels in the 2.4 GHz band, it offered only two very specific pieces of evidence regarding this claim: an unsubstantiated account of an incident that allegedly occurred in a single market more than a decade ago and a spectrum analyzer screenshot from a specific location purporting to show that Wi-Fi caused an increase in the 2.4 GHz band noise floor. EIBASS described a presentation made by the BAS frequency coordinator for Phoenix, Arizona, during a conference of broadcast engineers in April 2004. According to EIBASS, the Phoenix coordinator stated during the April 2004 presentation that “about every six months or so,” one of the four ENG receive-only sites in the Phoenix area “becomes unusable” for certain channels in the 2.4 GHz band “because of the proliferation of 2.4 GHz WiFi devices at the site.”
78. Even if the Commission were persuaded that broadcasters in the Phoenix area had experienced interference in the 2.4 GHz band nearly two decades ago, as EIBASS claimed, this isolated incident would not convince us that the Commission needs to take additional measures that would affect the entirety of the U.S. to protect broadcasters from harmful interference in the 6 GHz band. Even assuming that harmful interference did in fact occur, the Commission has no way of verifying that Wi-Fi devices caused the problem. If the alleged interference did, in fact, occur, the Commission notes that many unlicensed part 15 non-Wi-Fi devices also operate in the 2.4 GHz band, and
79. The other evidence that EIBASS provided was a spectrum analyzer screenshot that was captured at an ENG receive-only site in Phoenix in 2013. While this screenshot shows that some type of signal could have been present in the 2.4 GHz band at that time, it does not provide evidence of what devices may be causing any noise floor increase nor that a contention-based protocol would have failed to protect BAS receivers in the band. Moreover, as this screenshot is merely an indication of the spectrum at a single point in time, it offers no indication as to the behavior of a device employing a contention-based protocol when in the vicinity of a BAS transmitter in the band. Given the limited information this screenshot conveys, it provides no grounds to support NAB's assertion that a contention-based protocol had failed to prevent interference in the 2.4 GHz band.
80. Furthermore, even if the devices that EIBASS alleged were causing interference in Phoenix used a contention-based protocol, the Commission cannot determine from the sparse evidence in the record whether those devices were operating in compliance with the Commission's part 15 rules. Notably, the contention based protocol used by Wi-Fi devices is part of the IEEE 802.11 standard and not required by the Commission's rules nor do the Commission's rules limit such devices to indoor locations. Because of the lack of a Commission-mandated requirement for a contention-based protocol or indoor operation on 2.4 GHz devices, and no insight into whether devices in the Phoenix area at the time of the alleged interference were actually using such a protocol or operating indoors, it is impossible to draw any conclusions from those operations and the operations anticipated in the 6 GHz band. Thus, the alleged Phoenix incidents shed no light on the relevant question raised by NAB: that is, whether the purported experience regarding potential harmful interference to BAS devices in the 2.4 GHz band has any relevance to the potential for such interference from LPI devices in the 6 GHz band. Additionally, as an added safeguard and as several commenters note, the 6 GHz rules impose much lower power limits on unlicensed LPI devices than the 2.4 GHz rules do.
81. In contrast to NAB's unsubstantiated claims of harmful interference in the 2.4 GHz band, the record persuades us that “the risk of harmful interference to indoor electronic news gathering receivers from indoor unlicensed devices” in the 6 GHz band “is insignificant.” A study by Apple, Broadcom, et al. “simulated the receive power level from electronic news gathering transmitters at 20 unlicensed access points operating within the U.S. House of Representatives chamber. The results of this simulation demonstrate[d] that, even at the lowest electronic news gathering transmit power level, all unlicensed access points would detect the electronic news gathering signal at greater than −62 dBm and therefore not transmit co-channel.” This study “confirm[ed]” that contention-based protocols “could be used to mitigate interference to indoor electronic news gathering receivers” in the 6 GHz band.
82. Because the record contains no substantial evidence of harmful interference to broadcast operations in the 2.4 GHz band, the Commission finds no basis for NAB's assertion that a contention-based protocol failed to protect broadcasters from interference in that band, much less under the parameters established for operation in the 6 GHz band. As the Commission noted in the
83. Following the remand, the Society of Broadcast Engineers (SBE) and EIBASS attempted to supplement the record by presenting new evidence of harmful interference in the 2.4 GHz band. Such evidence falls outside the scope of this remand proceeding. The narrow question presented by the court's remand is whether the Commission adequately considered NAB's concerns about interference in the 2.4 GHz band when it adopted the 6 GHz rules. In this context, the relevant record is “the record before the agency at the time of its decision.”
84. In any event, even assuming that the new evidence proffered by SBE and EIBASS were properly before us, this evidence does not persuade us that Wi-Fi devices have caused harmful interference to broadcast operations in the 2.4 GHz band, much less at the far lower power at which Wi-Fi operations are required to operate in the 6 GHz band. SBE asserts that it conducted an “informal survey” in which local frequency coordinators reported “harmful interference from Wi-Fi systems [in the 2.4 GHz band] . . . in at least 13 markets.” But as Apple, Broadcom, et al. point out, SBE's “informal survey” was “backed in most cases by no supporting evidence or incident descriptions.” The only evidence offered by SBE to support its “informal survey” is a spectrum plot that purports to show interference in Milwaukee. The Commission agrees with Apple, Broadcom, et al. that this spectrum plot does not constitute “meaningful technical evidence” because it contains “no supporting detail” concerning how the measurement of interference in Milwaukee was made. In particular, the Commission notes that SBE offers “no explanation why” it attributes the alleged interference in Milwaukee “to Wi-Fi, rather than to the many other technologies operating in the 2.4 GHz band that do not use a contention-based protocol.” The same is true of EIBASS's comparison of the noise floors for mobile broadcast operations at 2 GHz and 2.5 GHz. Although EIBASS claims that part 15 Wi-Fi devices are responsible for the higher noise floor at 2.5 GHz, the higher noise floor could also be attributable to “the many other technologies operating in the 2.4 GHz band that do not use a contention-based protocol.”
85. The post-remand submissions by SBE and EIBASS also fail to cite any complaints filed with our Enforcement
86. In sum, despite NAB's claims that interference issues in the 2.4 GHz band are pervasive and longstanding, the record contains no credible evidence of such interference. The specific incident of alleged interference cited in the record occurred about two decades ago in Phoenix, and it was never reported to the Commission's Enforcement Bureau. EIBASS's sketchy description of the details of that incident does not provide us with enough information to draw any firm conclusions about how—or even whether—interference occurred. The spectrum analyzer screenshot showing an increase in the noise floor in Phoenix more than a decade ago also lacks the details needed to reach a conclusion about whether harmful interference was occurring. Given the absence of any concrete evidence that broadcasters have experienced harmful interference in the 2.4 GHz band or in the 6 GHz band, where LPI devices have been operating since December 2020, and in light of the substantial record evidence demonstrating that there is no significant risk of harmful interference given the constraints under which Wi-Fi devices are required to operate in the 6 GHz band, the Commission rejects NAB's contention that broadcasters' experience with interference in the 2.4 GHz band justifies the reservation of a portion of the 6 GHz band for mobile broadcast operations.
87.
1. Accordingly,
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Communications equipment, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 15 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 302a, 303, 304, 307, 336, 544a, and 549.
The revisions and additions read as follows.
(a) * * *
(9) For very low power devices operating in the 5.925-6.425 GHz and 6.525-6.875 GHz bands, the maximum power spectral density must not exceed −5 dBm e.i.r.p in any 1-megahertz band and the maximum e.i.r.p must not exceed 14 dBm.
(b)
(c)
(d) * * *
(1) Operational restrictions include:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(6) All U-NII transmitters, except for standard power access points, operating in the 5.925-7.125 GHz band must employ a contention-based protocol.
(8) Very low power devices may not employ a fixed outdoor infrastructure. Such devices may not be mounted on outdoor structures, such as buildings or poles.
(9) Very low power devices must prioritize operations on frequencies above 6.105 GHz prior to operating on frequencies between 5.925 GHz and 6.105 GHz.
(10) Very low power devices operating in the 5.925-6.425 and 6.525-6.875 GHz bands shall employ a transmit power control (TPC) mechanism. A very low power device is required to have the capability to operate at least 6 dB below the maximum EIRP power spectral density (PSD) value of −5 dBm/MHz.
(l) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The AFC system must use −6 dB I/N as the interference protection criteria in determining the size of the adjacent channel exclusion zone, where I (interference) is the signal from the standard power access point or fixed client device's out of channel emissions at the fixed microwave service receiver and N (noise) is background noise level at the fixed microwave service receiver. The adjacent channel exclusion zone must be calculated based on the emissions requirements of paragraph (b)(7) of this section.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; quota transfer.
NMFS announces that the State of North Carolina is transferring a portion of its 2023 commercial summer flounder quota to the State of Connecticut. This adjustment to the 2023 fishing year quota is necessary to comply with the Summer Flounder, Scup, and Black Sea Bass Fishery Management Plan (FMP) quota transfer provisions. This announcement informs the public of the revised 2023 commercial quotas for North Carolina and Connecticut.
Effective January 5, 2024.
Laura Deighan, Fishery Management Specialist, (978) 281-9184.
Regulations governing the summer flounder fishery are found in 50 CFR 648.100 through 648.111. These regulations require annual specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the coastal states from Maine through North Carolina. The process to set the annual commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state is described in § 648.102 and final 2023 allocations were published on January 3, 2023 (88 FR 11).
The final rule implementing Amendment 5 to the Summer Flounder FMP, as published in the
North Carolina is transferring 30,000 pounds (lb; 13,608 kilograms (kg)) to Connecticut through a mutual agreement between the states. This transfer was requested to ensure Connecticut would not exceed its 2023 quota. The revised summer flounder quotas for 2023 are North Carolina, 3,001,074 lb (1,361,264 kg), and Connecticut, 953,031 lb (432,288 kg).
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR 648.102(c)(2)(i) through (iv), which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempted from review under Executive Order 12866.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Rural Housing Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Proposed rule.
The Rural Housing Service (RHS or Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), proposes to amend its regulation to implement changes related to the smoke alarm requirements for properties that receive funding from the MFH Section 515 Rural Rental Housing and the Section 514/516 Farm Labor Housing Direct Loan and Grant programs. These proposed changes are intended to align the Agency's smoke alarm requirements with the new qualifying smoke alarm standards set forth in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (Act). The Act requires each unit of federally assisted housing to contain hardwired or 10-year non-rechargeable, sealed, tamper-resistant, battery-powered smoke alarm devices.
Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before March 8, 2024.
Comments may be submitted electronically by the Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
Barbara Chism, Multi-Family Housing Asset Management Division, Rural Housing Service, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0782, Telephone: (202) 690-1436; Email:
The RHS, offers a variety of programs to build or improve housing and essential community facilities in rural areas. RHS offers loans, grants, and loan guarantees for single- and multi-family housing, childcare centers, fire and police stations, hospitals, libraries, nursing homes, schools, first responder vehicles and equipment, and housing for farm laborers. RHS also provides technical assistance loans and grants in partnership with non-profit organizations, Indian tribes, State and Federal government agencies, and local communities.
Title V of the Housing Act of 1949 authorized the USDA to make housing loans to farmers to enable them to provide habitable dwellings for themselves or their tenants, lessees, sharecroppers, and laborers. The USDA then expanded opportunities in rural areas, making housing loans and grants to rural residents through the Single-Family Housing (SFH) and Multi-Family Housing (MFH) Programs.
The RHS administers the MFH Section 515 Rural Rental Housing direct loan program under 7 CFR part 3560, subpart B. The Section 515 program employs a public-private partnership by providing subsidized loans at an interest rate of one percent to developers to construct or renovate affordable rental complexes in rural areas. This one percent loan keeps the debt service on the property sufficiently low to support below-market rents affordable to low-income tenants. Many of these projects also utilize other Federal, State, and local funding sources and rental subsidies such as HUD's Section 8 and low-income housing tax credit proceeds.
The RHS also operates the MFH Farm Labor Housing direct loan and grant programs under sections 514 and 516 set forth in 7 CFR part 3560, subparts L and M. The MFH Farm Labor Housing programs provide low interest loans and grants to provide housing for farmworkers. These eligible farmworkers may either live and work at the borrower's farm, including seasonal and migrant workers (“on-farm”) or they may live away from the farm (“off-farm”).
Under the current regulation, borrowers are required to install and maintain smoke alarms in all dwelling units, common use areas, and other spaces in all residential buildings included as security for an Agency loan. Borrowers must also ensure that smoke alarms are properly located to protect tenant safety and the value of the Agency's asset. Failure to maintain adequate smoke alarms may lead to injury of persons, damage to property, or a non-monetary loan default.
On December 29, 2022, the President signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2023 (Pub. L. 117-328) (Act), which incorporated The Public and Federally Assisted Housing Fire Safety Act of 2022. This Act requires each unit and common use areas of federally assisted housing to contain hardwired or 10-year non-rechargeable, sealed, tamper-resistant battery-powered smoke alarm devices, as well as other items. The Act modifies the Housing Act of 1949 to implement these new smoke detector requirements for Section 515 Rural Rental Housing programs and Section 514/516 Farm Labor Housing Direct Loan Programs.
Housing repair and replacement costs in the affordable housing industry have been increasing at a steady rate due to economic changes in the open market for labor and materials. Our stakeholders will benefit from the proposed change through improved safety and prevention of potential damage resulting from smoke and fire, as well as lessen the potential for harm to visitors and residents.
This action is intended to: (1) align the smoke alarm requirements with more stringent requirements for federally assisted housing industry standards; (2) increase the safety of tenants and visitors at our properties; (3) reduce the risk of losing available affordable housing units in our rural communities due to uninhabitability caused by smoke and fire damage as a result of outdated smoke alarm devices; and (4) provide the Agency with additional protection from the loss of its security value.
The proposed changes are as follows:
1. Add a new paragraph (e) to § 3560.60 that cross-references § 3560.103(a)(3)(xx), which contains the new qualifying smoke alarm requirements.
2. Revise § 3560.103(a)(3)(xx) the language for smoke alarms to include the new requirements for qualifying smoke alarms.
The changes in this proposed rule are authorized under division AA, title VI, section 601 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023. The Rural Rental Housing program is authorized under sections 514(k), 515(m,), 516(c) of title V of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended; 42 U.S.C. 1480
These loans are subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which requires intergovernmental consultation with state and local officials. RHS conducts intergovernmental consultations for each loan in accordance with 2 CFR part 415, subpart C.
This proposed rule has been determined to be non-significant and, therefore, was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under Executive Order 12866.
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988. In accordance with this rulemaking: (1) Unless otherwise specifically provided, all state and local laws that conflict with this rulemaking will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rulemaking except as specifically prescribed in the rule; and (3) administrative proceedings of the National Appeals Division of the Department of Agriculture (7 CFR part 11) must be exhausted before suing in court that challenges action taken under this rulemaking.
The policies contained in this proposed rule do not have any substantial direct effect on States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. This proposed rule does not impose substantial direct compliance costs on state and local governments; therefore, consultation with States is not required.
This Executive order imposes requirements on RHS in the development of regulatory policies that have tribal implications or preempt tribal laws. RHS has determined that the proposed rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribe(s) or on either the relationship or the distribution of powers and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. Thus, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of Executive Order 13175. If tribal leaders are interested in consulting with RHS on this rulemaking, they are encouraged to contact USDA's Office of Tribal Relations or RD's Tribal Coordinator at:
The program affected by this regulation is listed in the Assistance Listing Catalog (formerly Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance) under number 10.415—Rural Rental Housing Loans, 10.427—Rural Rental Assistance Payments, 10.405—Farm Labor Housing Loans and Grants.
Rural Development has reviewed this proposed rule in accordance with USDA Regulation 4300-004, Civil Rights Impact Analysis, to identify any major civil rights impacts the proposed rule might have on program participants on the basis of age, race, color, national origin, sex, or disability. After review and analysis of the proposed rule and available data, it has been determined that implementation of the rulemaking will not adversely or disproportionately impact very low, low- and moderate-income populations, minority populations, women, Indian tribes, or persons with disability by virtue of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, disability, or marital or familial status. No major civil rights impact is likely to result from this proposed rule.
RHS is committed to complying with the E-Government Act by promoting the use of the internet and other information technologies to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to government information, services, and other purposes.
This document has been reviewed in accordance with 7 CFR part 1970, subpart A, “Environmental Policies.” RHS determined that this action does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environment. In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Public Law 91-190, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is not required.
The information collection requirements contained in this regulation have been approved by OMB and have been assigned OMB control number 0575-0189. This proposed rule contains no new reporting and recordkeeping requirements that would require approval under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
This proposed rule has been reviewed with regard to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612). The undersigned has determined and certified by signature on this document that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities since this rulemaking action does not involve a new or expanded program nor does it require any more action on the part of a small business than required of a large entity.
Title II of the UMRA, Public Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on state, local, and tribal governments and on the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, Federal agencies generally must prepare a written statement, including cost-benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with “Federal mandates” that may result in expenditures to state, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires a Federal agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule.
This proposed rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory provisions of title II of the UMRA) for state, local, and tribal governments or for the private sector. Therefore, this proposed rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027,
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Accounting, Administrative practice and procedure, Aged, Conflicts of interest, Government property management, Grant programs—housing and community development, Insurance, Loan programs—agriculture, Loan programs—housing and community development, Low and moderate-income housing, Migrant labor, Mortgages, Nonprofit organizations, Public housing, Rent-subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, Rural Housing Service proposes to amend 7 CFR part 3560 as follows:
42 U.S.C. 1480.
(e)
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(xx)
(A) Dwelling units built before December 29, 2022, and not substantially rehabilitated after December 29, 2022, smoke alarms must:
(
(
(
(B) Dwelling units built or substantially rehabilitated after December 29, 2022; smoke alarms must be hardwired.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Draft guide; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft Regulatory Guide (DG), DG-1421, “Installation Design and Installation of Vented Lead-Acid Storage Batteries for Production and Utilization Facilities.” This DG is proposed Revision 3 of Regulatory Guide 1.128, “Installation Design and Installation of Vented Lead-Acid Storage Batteries for Nuclear Power Plants,” and provides methods acceptable to the NRC to meet regulatory requirements for the installation design and installation of vented lead-acid storage batteries in production and utilization facilities. It endorses, with clarifications, the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) Standard (Std.) 484-2019, “IEEE Recommended Practice for Installation Design and Installation of Vented Lead-Acid Batteries for Stationary Applications.”
Submit comments by February 7, 2024. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Michael Eudy, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, telephone: 301-415-3104; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0019 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a DG in the NRC's “Regulatory Guide” series. This series was developed to describe methods that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing specific parts of the agency's regulations, to explain techniques that the staff uses in evaluating specific issues or postulated events, and to describe information that the staff needs in its review of applications for permits and licenses.
The DG, entitled “Installation Design and Installation of Vented Lead-Acid Storage Batteries for Production and Utilization Facilities,” is temporarily identified by its task number, DG-1421 (ADAMS Accession No. ML23277A276).
This revision of the guide (Revision 3) endorses, with clarifications, IEEE Std. 484-2019 and applies to production and utilization facilities licensed under part 50 and part 52 of title 10 of the
The staff is also issuing for public comment a draft regulatory analysis (ADAMS Accession No. ML23277A279). The staff developed a regulatory analysis to assess the value of issuing or revising a regulatory guide as well as alternative courses of action.
As noted in the
Issuance of DG-1421, if finalized, would not constitute backfitting as defined in 10 CFR 50.109, “Backfitting,” and as described in NRC Management Directive (MD) 8.4, “Management of Backfitting, Forward Fitting, Issue Finality, and Information Requests”; affect the issue finality of an approval issued under 10 CFR part 52, “Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants”; or constitute forward fitting as that term is defined and described in MD 8.4, because, as explained in this DG, licensees would not be required to comply with the positions set forth in this DG.
A member of the public may, at any time, submit suggestions to the NRC for improvement of existing RGs or for the development of new RGs. Suggestions can be submitted on the NRC's public website at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In proposed rule document 2023-27758, appearing on pages 88315-88336 in the issue of Thursday, December 21, 2023, make the following correction:
On page 88326, in the table titled “Table 7: Alternative 1: Dissolved Oxygen Criteria Expressed as Concentration (mg/L)”, the table is corrected to appear as set forth below:
Indian Health Service, Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking.
The Indian Health Service (IHS) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS or “the Department”) is issuing this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) proposing the removal of regulations appearing in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). These outdated regulations do not align with the current statutory text.
Comments due on or before March 8, 2024.
You may submit comments to this proposed rule, identified by RIN 0917-AA24 by any of the following methods:
•
•
All comments received by the methods and due date specified above will be posted without change to content to
Joshuah Marshall, Senior Advisor to the Director, Indian Health Service, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857, email:
On January 27, 1982, IHS published regulations imposing restrictions on use of Federal funding for certain abortions, currently codified at 42 CFR 136.51-.57.
Since the IHS promulgated these regulations in 1982, Congress has repeatedly revised annual restrictions related to the use of Federal funds for certain abortions. In fiscal year 1994, for instance, Congress revised the Hyde Amendment to include additional exceptions to the general prohibition on the use of Federal funds for abortions, including in instances in which a pregnancy is the result of an act of rape or incest.
The current IHS regulation does not align with the current text of the Hyde Amendment or with 25 U.S.C. 1676. The IHS has complied with, and will continue to comply with, the statutory exceptions and has clarified its compliance with the statutory limitations through policy directives,
Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, and Executive Order 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094, defines a “significant regulatory action” as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $200 million or more (adjusted every 3 years by the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) for changes in gross domestic product); or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, territorial, or Tribal Governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise legal or policy issues for which centralized review would meaningfully further the President's priorities or the principles set forth in the Executive Order, as specifically authorized in a timely manner by the Administrator of OIRA in each case. OIRA has determined that this proposed rule is a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 Section 3(f).
This action will not have a significant economic impact on Indian health programs. Therefore, the regulatory flexibility analysis provided for under the Regulatory Flexibility Act is not required.
Executive Order 13132, “Federalism,” establishes certain requirements that an agency must meet when it promulgates a rule that imposes substantial direct requirement costs on State and local governments or has federalism implications. This proposed rule would simply remove the existing, outdated regulations. HHS has determined that
This rule does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes under Executive Order 13175, because it only removes outdated regulations that do not align with the current statutory text of the Hyde Amendment or with 25 U.S.C. 1676.
HHS had determined that this proposed rule would not have a significant impact on the environment.
This action does not affect any information collections.
Employment, Government procurement, Health care, Health facilities, Indians, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Health and Human Services proposes to amend 42 CFR part 136 by removing Subpart F as follows:
25 U.S.C. 13; sec. 3, 68 Stat. 674 (42 U.S.C., 2001, 2003); Sec. 1, 42 Stat. 208 (25 U.S.C. 13); 42 U.S.C. 2001, unless otherwise noted.
Notice is hereby given of the withdrawal of the application submitted by the Greater Maricopa Foreign Trade Zone, Inc., grantee of FTZ 277, requesting authority to expand its zone under the alternative site framework to include a new magnet site in El Mirage, Arizona. The application was docketed on June 26, 2023 (88 FR 42290, June 30, 2023). The withdrawal was requested by the grantee on January 2, 2024, following notification pursuant to 15 CFR 400.33(e)(1) of the examiner's preliminary recommendation not to approve the application.
Notice of relinquishment of the Export Trade Certificate of Review for Central America Poultry Export Quota, Inc. (“CA-PEQ”), Application No. 05-2A001.
The Secretary of Commerce, through the Office of Trade and Economic Analysis (“OTEA”) of the International Trade Administration, has received notice of the relinquishing of an Export Trade Certificate of Review (“Certificate”).
Joseph Flynn, Director, OTEA, International Trade Administration, (202) 482-5131 (this is not a toll-free number) or email at
Title III of the Export Trading Company Act of 1982 (15 U.S.C. 4011-21) authorizes the Secretary of Commerce to issue Export Trade Certificates of Review. An Export Trade Certificate of Review protects the holder and the members identified in the Certificate from State and Federal government antitrust actions and from private treble damage antitrust actions for the export conduct specified in the Certificate and carried out in compliance with its terms and conditions. The regulations implementing Title III are found at 15 CFR part 325. Pursuant to 15 CFR 325.15, a Certificate holder may relinquish a Certificate at any time through written notice to the Secretary. The Certificate will cease to be effective on the day the Secretary receives the notice.
On December 5, 2023, CA-PEQ relinquished its Certificate (Application No. 05-2A001) pursuant to 15 CFR 325.15. This publication serves as public notice that the Certificate was relinquished and ceased to be effective on December 5, 2023.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that producers/exporters of circular welded carbon-quality steel pipe (CWP) from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) subject to this administrative review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR), December 1, 2021, through November 30, 2022. We invite interested parties to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable January 8, 2024.
Rebecca Janz or Sofia Pedrelli, 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) 482-2972 or (202) 482-4301, respectively.
On December 19, 2016, Commerce published in the
The products covered by the
Commerce is conducting this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1)(B) and (2) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). Export price and constructed export price are calculated in accordance with section 772 of the Act. NV is calculated in accordance with section 773 of the Act.
For a full description of the methodology underlying these preliminary results,
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the establishment of a rate to be applied to companies not selected for examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in a market economy investigation, for guidance when calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. 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 established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
Commerce preliminarily determines that the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period December 1, 2021, through November 30, 2022:
We intend to disclose the calculations performed to parties within five days after public announcement of the preliminary results.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their brief that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this administrative review, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. Hearing requests should contain: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. Oral presentations at the hearing will be limited to issues raised in the briefs. An electronically filed hearing request must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5 p.m. eastern time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce intends to hold the hearing at a time and date to be determined. Parties should confirm by telephone the date, time, and location of the hearing two days before the scheduled date.
Upon completion of the final results of this administrative review, Commerce shall determine, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise covered by this review.
If a respondent's weighted-average dumping margin is not zero or
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by each individually examined respondent for which the producer did not know that the merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate (5.95 percent) if there is no rate for the intermediate company(ies) involved in the transaction.
For the companies identified above that were not selected for individual examination, we will instruct CBP to liquidate entries at the rate established after the completion of the final results of this review.
The final results of this administrative review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
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
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies listed above will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
Unless the deadline is otherwise extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this administrative review, including the results of its analysis of issues raised by interested parties in the written comments, within 120 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results in the
This notice also serves as a preliminary reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. 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.
We are issuing and publishing these results in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that the producers/exporters subject to this administrative review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR), July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022. Additionally, Commerce determines that four companies for which we initiated a review had no shipments during the POR.
Applicable January 8, 2024.
Rebecca Janz, 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) 482-2972.
On April 6, 2023, Commerce published in the
This review covers 61 producers and/or exporters of the subject merchandise. Commerce selected two companies, Lien Kuo Metal Industries Co., Ltd. (Lien Kuo) and S More Steel Materials Co., Ltd. (S More) for individual examination.
The merchandise subject to the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs filed by parties in this administrative review are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum and are listed 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
In the
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding the
For the rate assigned to companies not selected for individual examination in an administrative review, generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an 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 established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any
For the final results of this administrative review, we continue to base the weighted-average dumping margins for Lien Kuo and S More the mandatory respondents in this review, entirely on facts otherwise available with adverse inferences (AFA). However, while we preliminarily found that it was not appropriate to assign this rate to the non-selected companies under review, for these final results of review, we find that the mandatory respondents' AFA rate is reasonably reflective of non-selected companies' potential dumping margins during the POR. Therefore, we are assigning a margin of 21.10 percent to the companies not individually examined (
As a result of this review, we determine that the following weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period July 1, 2021, through June 30, 2022:
Normally, Commerce discloses to interested parties the calculations performed in connection with the final results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of the notice of the final results in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), Commerce will determine, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. For the companies that were not selected for individual examination, we will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties at the assessment rate assigned to the companies, based on the methodology described in the “Rate for Non-Selected Companies” section, above. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for future deposits of estimated duties, where applicable.
As indicated above, for Yieh Mau, Yieh Phui, Yuen Chang, and YUSCO, we will instruct CBP to liquidate any existing entries of merchandise produced by these companies, but exported by other parties, at the rate for the intermediate reseller, if available, or at the all-others rate.
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
Upon publication of this notice 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 review period. 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 serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition 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 return/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 subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing this notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice of information collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 8, 2024.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to Maureen O'Reilly, Management Analyst, NIST to
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Xinyun (Cindy) Gong, IT Specialist, DOC/NIST/TPO 100 Bureau Dr., Gaithersburg, MD 20899, Mailstop 2200, 301-975-4313,
NIST Associates (NA) will include guest researchers, research associates, contractors, and other non-NIST employees that require access to NIST campuses or NIST resources. The NIST Associates Information System (NAIS) information collection instrument(s) are completed by the incoming NAs. The NAs will be requested to provide personal identifying data including home address, date and place of birth, gender, passport number, Issuing Country, Passport Expiration date, employer name and address, and basic security information, and provide CV/Resume and Passport ID page along with other pertinent data information. The data provided by the collection instruments will be inputted into NAIS, which automatically populates the appropriate forms, and is routed through the approval process. NIST's Office of Security receives security forms through the NAIS process and is able to allow preliminary access to NAs to the NIST campuses or resources. The data collected will also be the basis for further security investigations as necessary.
The information is collected in paper format.
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)
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of open meeting.
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) announces that the National Artificial Intelligence Advisory Committee Law Enforcement Subcommittee (NAIAC-LE or Subcommittee) will hold an open meeting in-person and via web conference on January 19, 2024, from 1 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. eastern time. The primary purpose of this meeting is for the Subcommittee Members to report the working group's findings, identify actionable recommendations and discuss updates on goals and deliverables. The final agenda will be posted to the NAIAC website:
The meeting will be held on Friday, January 19, 2024, from 1 p.m.-2:30 p.m. eastern time.
The meeting will be held in-person and via web conference from the Miami Police Department, 400 NW 2nd Avenue, Miami, Florida 33128. For instructions on how to attend and/or participate in the meeting, please see the
Alicia Chambers, Committee Liaison Officer and Designated Federal Officer, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 8900, Gaithersburg, MD 20899,
Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 1001
The NAIAC-LE is authorized by section 5104 of the National Artificial Intelligence Initiative Act of 2020 (Pub. L. 116-283), in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (FACA), 5 U.S.C. 1001
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 collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before March 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 the OAR Weather Program Office, Attn: Jessie Carman, 1315 East West Hwy., Bldg. SSMC3, Silver Spring, MD 20910-3282, (202) 936-6085,
This is a request for extension of a currently approved information collection.
The National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration's Office of Atmospheric Research (OAR)/Weather Program Office is conducting this information collection pursuant to section 6(b) of Public Law 92-205. This law requires that all non-federal weather modification activities (
Respondents have a choice of either electronic or paper forms. Methods of submittal include email of electronic forms, mail and facsimile transmission of paper forms.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application for permit amendment.
Notice is hereby given that the NMFS Alaska Fisheries Science Center, Marine Mammal Laboratory, 7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115 (Responsible Party: John Bengtson, Ph.D.), has applied for an amendment to Scientific Research Permit No. 25563.
Written comments must be received on or before February 7, 2024.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Amy Hapeman or Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., (301) 427-8401.
The subject amendment to Permit No. 25563 is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361
Permit No. 25563, issued on November 8, 2021 (86 FR 70828, December 13, 2021), authorizes the permit holder to monitor cetacean population trends, abundance, distribution, and health in the North Pacific Ocean, the Bering, Beaufort, and Chukchi Seas, and the Gulf of Maine. Researchers may conduct aerial and vessel surveys to study 20 species of cetaceans including endangered or threatened blue (
The permit holder is requesting the permit be amended to include authorization for blue, fin, gray, and humpback whales (adult and juvenile life stages) to receive up to three tags (suction-cup, dart/barb tag, and deep implant) at the same time. Deployment of three tags at a time will allow researchers to better understand whale movements and habitat use and to validate new sensors. The number of takes authorized for each species would not change. The amendment would be valid for the duration of the permit, which is set to expire October 31, 2026.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) promulgates regulations governing the North Pacific halibut fishery under the Convention between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention). The IPHC's regulations are subject to approval by the Secretary of State with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce. The Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (Halibut Act; 16 U.S.C. 773c(a)-(b)), provides the Secretary of Commerce with general responsibility for carrying out the Convention and the Halibut Act, including the authority to adopt regulations necessary to carry out the purposes and objectives of the Convention. The Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773c(c), also provides the North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) with authority to develop regulations, including limited access regulations, that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, IPHC regulations.
Regulations the Council recommends may be implemented by NMFS only after approval by the Secretary of Commerce. The Council has exercised this authority in the development of subsistence halibut fishery management measures. NMFS has responsibility for managing the subsistence halibut fishery according to regulations approved by the Secretary. Regulations governing the subsistence halibut fishery are at 50 CFR 300.2, 300.4, and subpart E, and in the annual management measures published in the
This information collection is necessary for NMFS to manage the Alaska Subsistence Halibut Program. Subsistence halibut means halibut caught by a rural resident or a member of an Alaska Native tribe for direct personal or family consumption as food, sharing for personal or family consumption as food, or customary trade. The Alaska Subsistence Halibut Program is intended to allow eligible persons to practice the long-term customary and traditional harvest of Pacific halibut for food in a non-commercial manner. This program provides NMFS the opportunity to enhance estimates of subsistence removals for stock assessment purposes.
Before fishing under subsistence halibut regulations, a Subsistence Halibut Registration Certificate (SHARC) must be obtained. This information collection contains the forms used by participants in the subsistence halibut fishery to apply for SHARCs, apply for special use permits, and submit harvest information for special use permits. This information collection contains two collections for which no forms are used: the appeals process for denied permits and marking subsistence setline fishing gear.
Information collected by the permit applications includes applicant information and depending on the
The permit coordinators submit the harvest logs for Community Harvest Permits, Ceremonial Permits, and Educational Permits. Harvest logs collect identification information and harvest information for the subsistence fishermen fishing under that permit.
An appeals process is provided for an applicant who receives an adverse initial administrative determination related to their permit application.
Subsistence setline gear buoys must be marked with identification information that consists of the participant's name and address and an “S” to indicate subsistence halibut gear. This information is used by NMFS to link fishing gear to the vessel owner or operator and facilitate enforcement of regulations.
The time and cost burden to mark buoys has been increased based on recent comment received for other fisheries off Alaska (OMB Control Number 0648-0353, Alaska Region Gear Identification Requirements). The time estimate to mark a buoy has been increased from 15 minutes to 30 minutes and the cost has been increased from $15 to $100 per respondent.
Minor editorial changes to the forms were made to increase clarity and consistency with other NMFS Alaska Regional Office forms.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council's (Pacific Council) Ad Hoc Marine Planning Committee (MPC) will hold an online public meeting.
The online meeting will be held Tuesday, January 23, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m., Pacific standard time or until business for the day has been completed.
This meeting will be held online. Specific meeting information, including a proposed agenda and directions on how to attend the meeting and system requirements, will be provided in the meeting announcement on the Pacific Council's website (see
Kerry Griffin, Staff Officer, Pacific Council; telephone: (503) 820-2409.
The purpose of this online meeting is for the MPC to consider current offshore wind (OSW) energy issues and to provide information and advice to the Pacific Council for consideration at its March 2024 meeting. Meeting topics may include the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management's Notice of Intent (NOI) to Prepare a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the five California OSW leases. The NOI was issued December 20, 2023, with a 60-day comment period. The MPC may also discuss the status of the Draft Wind Energy Areas off the Oregon Coast. Other OSW or aquaculture topics may be considered, as appropriate.
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 (
Per 45 CFR chapter XXI section 2102.3, the next meeting of the U.S. Commission of Fine Arts is scheduled for January 18, 2024, at 9 a.m. and will be held via online videoconference. Items of discussion may include buildings, infrastructure, parks, memorials, and public art.
Draft agendas, the link to register for the online public meeting, and additional information regarding the Commission are available on our website:
Office of Environmental Management, Department of Energy.
Notice of open meeting.
This notice announces an in-person/virtual hybrid meeting of the Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board (EM SSAB), Oak Ridge. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that public notice of this meeting be announced in the
Wednesday, February 14, 2024; 6 p.m.-8 p.m. EST.
This hybrid meeting will be in-person at the Department of Energy (DOE) Information Center (address below) and virtually via Zoom. To attend virtually or to register for in-person attendance, please send an email to:
Melyssa P. Noe, Deputy Designated Federal Officer, U.S. Department of Energy, Oak Ridge Office of Environmental Management (OREM), P.O. Box 2001, EM-942, Oak Ridge, TN 37831; Phone (865) 241-3315; or email:
Grid Deployment Office, Department of Energy.
Notice of availability.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) gives notice of availability of the final Guidance setting forth the nonbinding process that DOE plans to generally follow to designate National Interest Electric Transmission Corridors (NIETC) pursuant to the Federal Power Act. The Federal Power Act requires DOE to issue a report not less frequently than once every three years, which may designate as a NIETC any geographic area that is experiencing or is expected to experience electric energy transmission capacity constraints or congestion that adversely affects consumers. NIETC designation focuses public and policymaker attention on the areas of greatest transmission need and unlocks valuable Federal financing and permitting tools to advance transmission development.
Interested parties may submit information and recommendations based on the list of information requested for Phase 1 in the Guidance by 5:00 p.m. ET on February 2, 2024.
Gretchen Kershaw, U.S. Department of Energy, Grid Deployment Office, at (202) 586-2006; or
DOE's Grid Deployment Office (GDO) is announcing the availability of the
The NIETC Guidance describes DOE's intended implementation of this statutory authority and initiates the process for designating one or more NIETCs following issuance of the Needs Study released in October 2023. The NIETC Guidance expands on DOE's May 15, 2023, Notice of Intent and Request for Information, which set forth key elements of a process through which interested parties could propose NIETC designation and requested comment on the process generally and in response to other specific questions (88 FR 30956). The NIETC Guidance includes revisions made in response to comments and input DOE received.
The NIETC Guidance sets forth a four-phase process, which begins with DOE's evaluation of the results of the most recent final Needs Study to begin identifying potential geographic areas for NIETC designation and concurrent opening of a 45-day Phase 1 information submission window. During this window, interested parties may submit information and recommendations on the narrow geographic boundaries of potential NIETCs, the present or expected transmission capacity constraints or congestion within those geographic boundaries, and the relevant discretionary factors in FPA section 216(a)(4). Phase 2 of the NIETC designation process begins with DOE's public issuance of a preliminary list of potential NIETC designations. This opens a 45-day comment period and Phase 2 information submission window for submission of additional information on geographic boundaries and permitting. DOE plans to prioritize which potential NIETCs move to Phase 3 based on the available information on geographic boundaries and permitting and preliminary review of comments. During Phase 3, DOE continues to independently assess the basis for NIETC designation, initiates any needed environmental reviews, and conducts robust public engagement, culminating in the release of one or more draft designation reports and draft environmental documents, as needed, for public comment. Phase 4 is the conclusion of the NIETC designation process, with issuance of one or more final designation reports and final environmental documents, as needed.
NIETC designation focuses public and policymaker attention on the areas of greatest transmission need and unlocks valuable federal financing and permitting tools to advance transmission development. These include DOE authorities under the IIJA, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as well as the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's permitting authority under FPA section 216(b). Members of the public can visit GDO's website to access the NIETC Guidance at:
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on January 2, 2024, by Maria D. Robinson, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. The administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
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 on December 21, 2023, Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C. (Southern), Post Office Box 2563, Birmingham, Alabama 35202-2563, filed in the above referenced docket, a prior notice request pursuant to sections 157.205, 157.208 and 157.210 of the Commission's regulations under the Natural Gas Act (NGA), and Southern's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-406-000, for authorization of its Bessemer Calera Expansion Project. Specifically, Southern proposes to: (1) replace 2.48 miles of its 8-inch-diameter Bessemer Calera Loop Line with 12-inch-diameter pipeline; (2) install a 1.63-mile, 4-inch-diameter loop line of its Longview Saginaw Line; (3) modify its Roebuck Meter Station to make it bidirectional; (4) replace and upgrade six meter stations to increase station capacity; and (5) install various appurtenances. All of the above facilities are located in Jefferson, Shelby, and Perry Counties, Alabama. The project will provide up to 33,180 dekatherms per day of incremental firm transportation capacity from Southern's Roebuck Meter Station to existing delivery points along Southern's Bessemer Calera Lateral and Loop Lines as well as the Longview Saginaw Line. The estimated cost for the project is $25,000,000, 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 Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory, Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C., Two North Nevada Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado 80903, by telephone at (719) 667-7515, or by 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 p.m. eastern time on March 4, 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 Procedure
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 March 4, 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 CP24-32-000 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 CP24-32-000.
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: Francisco Tarin, Director, Regulatory, Southern Natural Gas Company, L.L.C., Two North Nevada Avenue, Colorado Springs, Colorado
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
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas 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.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
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
In Notice Document 2023-28130, appearing on pages 88383 to 88386 in the issue of Wednesday, December 21, 2023, make the following correction:
On page 88386, in the third column, in the
On October 18, 2023, Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America LLC (Natural) filed an application in Docket No. CP24-8-000 requesting a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity pursuant to section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act to construct and operate certain natural gas pipeline facilities. The proposed project is known as the Texas-Louisiana Expansion Project (Project) and would add an incremental 300,000 dekatherms per day (Dth/day) of firm gas capacity in Segment 25 of Natural's Louisiana Line 10. When combined with the unsubscribed capacity Natural has reserved for the Project, this would allow Natural to provide up to 467,000 Dth/day of firm transportation service to the Project shippers. Natural states the Project would not result in the termination or reduction in firm service to any of its existing customers.
On October 31, 2023, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) issued its
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.
The Project would consist of the following facilities and activities:
• Uprate the horsepower (hp) of existing compressor controls to increase the horsepower of existing compressor Units 7 and 8 by 1,600 hp each, for a total of 3,200 hp;
• Re-wheel existing compressor Units 7, 8 and 9; and
• Install one new electric motor driven (EMD) compressor unit with a rating of 18,340 hp.
• Re-wheel existing EMD compressor Units 9 and 10.
In addition, Natural has identified in its application certain appurtenant facilities that it intends to construct/install under section 2.55(a) of the Commission's regulations.
On November 30, 2023, the Commission issued a
No agencies requested to be 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 (
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of public meeting.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Office of Research and Development (ORD), gives notice of the upcoming 2024 public meetings of the Human Studies Review Board (HSRB). The HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations on issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of third-party human subjects' research that are submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), to be used for regulatory purposes. EPA is announcing this meeting with less than 15 calendar days public notice.
Four three-day virtual public meetings will be held on:
Meetings will be held each day from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. eastern time. For each meeting, separate subsequent follow-up one-day meetings are planned for the HSRB to finalize reports from the primary three-day meetings listed above. These meetings will be held from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. eastern time on the following dates: February 14, 2024; May 15, 2024; August 21, 2024; and November 6, 2024.
These meetings are open to the public and will be conducted entirely virtually and by telephone. For detailed access information and meeting materials please visit the HSRB website:
Any member of the public who wishes to receive further information should contact the HSRB Designated Federal Official (DFO), Tom Tracy, via phone/voicemail at: 919-541-4334; or via email at:
The HSRB is a Federal advisory committee operating in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act 5 U.S.C. app. 2 section 9. The HSRB provides advice, information, and recommendations on issues related to scientific and ethical aspects of third-party human subjects research that are submitted to the Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP), in the Office of Chemical Safety and Pollution Prevention (OCSPP), to be used for regulatory purposes.
The HSRB encourages the public's input. You may participate in these meetings by following the instructions in this section.
1.
2.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Reissuance of NPDES General Permit.
The Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10, is reissuing the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Federal Aquaculture Facilities and Aquaculture Facilities Located in Indian Country in Washington (WAG130000).
The reissuance date of the general permit is January 8, 2024. The
Copies of the general permit, 2022 fact sheet, 2023 fact sheet addendum, and response to comments document are available online:
Requests may be made to Audrey Washington at (206) 553-0523. Requests may also be electronically mailed to:
On September 7, 2022, EPA Region 10 proposed to reissue the general permit (87 FR 54688). In response to requests from the regulated community, EPA Region 10 extended the end of the public comment period from November 7 to December 22, 2022 (87 FR 66178). On July 18, 2023, EPA Region 10 initiated a second public comment period focused exclusively on four changes made to the General Permit (88 FR 45901). Eligible facilities include Concentrated Aquatic Animal Production (CAAP) facilities, non-CAAP facilities, aquaculture research facilities, and dam fish passage facilities. Currently, there are 32 facilities covered under the existing administratively continued general permit. Existing aquaculture facilities may request authorization to discharge under the general permit by submitting a Notice of Intent (NOI) no more than ninety (90) days following the effective date of the general permit. New facilities that begin operations after the effective date of the general permit must submit a NOI at least 180 days prior to initiation of operations. Upon receipt, EPA will review the NOI to ensure that all permit requirements are met. If determined appropriate by EPA, a discharger will be granted coverage under the general permit upon the date that EPA provides written notification.
Please see the general permit and fact sheet.
This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
In accordance with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an Environmental Assessment (EA) and associated Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for a proposed facility at Cassimer Bar was available for review and comment along with this general permit.
Compliance with Endangered Species Act, Essential Fish Habitat, Paperwork Reduction Act, and other requirements are discussed in the 2022 fact sheet to the general permit.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), Environmental Justice Thriving Communities Grantmaking (TCGM) (TCGM) Program: Post-Award Reporting and Public Outreach Information Collections (EPA ICR Number 2795.01, OMB Control Number 2035-NEW) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a request for approval of a new collection. This notice allows for 60 days for public comments.
Comments must be submitted on or before March 8, 2024.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OEJECR-2023-0531, to EPA online using
Aarti Iyer, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; email address:
This is a request for approval of a new collection. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This notice allows 60 days for public comments. Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA, EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate forms of information technology. EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, EPA will issue another
Thursday, January 11, 2024, at 10:00 a.m.
Hybrid Meeting: 1050 First Street, NE Washington, DC (12th Floor) and Virtual.
For those attending the meeting in person, current COVID-19 safety protocols for visitors, which are based on the CDC COVID-19 hospital admission level in Washington, DC, will be updated on the Commission's contact page by the Monday before the meeting. See the contact page at
This meeting will be open to the public, subject to the above-referenced guidance regarding the COVID-19 hospital admission level and corresponding health and safety procedures. To access the meeting virtually, go to the Commission's website
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Individuals who plan to attend in person and who require special assistance, such as sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should contact Laura E. Sinram, Secretary and Clerk, at (202) 694-1040 or
Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (ASC).
Request for public comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the ASC invites public comments on our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection request entitled “ASC Progress Report Standardized Instructions and Format for Interim and Final Progress Reporting.” Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid control number issued by OMB. The requirement for grantees to report on performance is OMB's grants policy.
Comments must be received on or before March 8, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
To view the ASC-PR format, see
•
•
•
•
In general, the ASC will enter all comments received on the Federal eRulemaking (
The ASC will summarize and/or include your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information collection.
You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection request by any of the following methods:
•
•
Regeane Frederique, Grants Director, at (202) 792-1168 or
The ASC is responsible for monitoring its grantees on the use of Federal funds. The ASC developed this progress report for both interim and final reports for grants issued under the ASC authority. The progress report is submitted to the ASC semi-annually as an attachment to the Standard Form 425,
By the Appraisal Subcommittee.
Federal Labor Relations Authority.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Federal Labor Relations Authority (FLRA) is issuing public notice of an intent to introduce a new system of records entitled, “Privacy Act Requests and Appeals.” This notice publishes details of the new system as set forth below.
This notice action shall be applicable immediately, which will become effective February 7, 2024.
Comments will be accepted on or before: February 7, 2024.
You may send comments, which must include the caption “SORN Notice (Privacy Act),” by one of the following methods:
If you have any questions, please contact Thomas Tso, Solicitor, Senior Agency Official for Privacy, at (771) 444-5779.
The Privacy Act of 1974 requires that each agency publish notice of all the systems of records that it maintains. This document proposes the introduction of a new system of records. The “Freedom of Information Act Request and Appeal Files” is the system that the FLRA uses to provide the public with a single location to submit and track Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and related requests and appeals filed with the FLRA. The FLRA had used this single system to track Privacy Act requests, which are often combined with FOIA requests, see 82 FR 49813 (October 27, 2017). Other agencies have also treated Privacy Act and FOIA requests as a singular system of records.
The FLRA now proposes a new system of records, titled “Privacy Act Requests and Appeals,” to separate Privacy Act request records as an independent system of records. Pursuant to the Creating Advanced Streamlined Electronic Services for Constituents Act of 2019 (“CASES Act”), Public Law 116-50, 133 Stat. 1073 (2019), the Office of Management and Budget's M-21-04, “Modernizing Access to and Consent for Disclosure of Records Subject to the Privacy Act,” asks agencies to “provide a digital service option to ensure that individuals have the ability to digitally request access to or consent to disclosure of their records” covered by the Privacy Act. M-21-04 also asks agencies to “review SORNs governing systems of records that include Privacy Act requests for access to and consent to disclosure of records, and, if necessary, modify those SORNs, as well.” The FLRA determined that a separate system
Privacy Act Request and Appeal Files, FLRA/Internal-18.
Not applicable.
FLRA Headquarters, Office of the Solicitor.
Senior Agency Official for Privacy, Office of the Solicitor, Federal Labor Relations Authority, 1400 K St. NW, Washington, DC 20424.
Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
To provide the public with portals to submit and track Privacy Act requests and appeals filed with the FLRA and to manage internal Privacy Act administration activities.
All persons requesting information or filing appeals under the Privacy Act.
A copy of each Privacy Act request received by the FLRA and a copy of all correspondence related to the request, including the requesters' names, mailing addresses, email addresses, phone numbers, Social Security Numbers, birth certificates, evidence of guardianship or parentage, dates of birth, any aliases used by the requesters, alien numbers assigned to travelers crossing national borders, requesters' parents' names, user names and passwords for registered users, Privacy Act tracking numbers, dates requests are submitted and received, related appeals, and agency responses. Records also include communications with requesters, internal Privacy Act administrative documents (
Information in this system of records is provided by FLRA employees and Privacy Act requesters.
In addition to the disclosure generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information in these records may be used pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3):
a. To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule, regulation, or order, when the FLRA becomes aware of an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal law or regulation.
b. To provide information to a congressional office from the record of an individual in response to an inquiry from that congressional office made at the request of that individual.
c. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body, when the FLRA determines that the records are arguably relevant to the proceeding, or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
d. To a Federal, State, local, or foreign agency or entity for the purpose of consulting with that agency or entity to enable the FLRA to make a determination as to the propriety of access to or correction 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 or amendment of information.
e. To a Federal 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 correction 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.
f. To a submitter or subject of a record or information in order to obtain assistance to the FLRA in making a determination as to access or amendment.
g. To a Member of Congress or staff acting upon the Member's behalf when the Member or staff requests the information on behalf of, and at the request of, the individual who is the subject of the record.
h. To disclose information to the National Archives and Records Administration, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), only when there is overlap between Privacy Act and FOIA requests, to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures and compliance with FOIA, and to facilitate OGIS's offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
i. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) the FLRA suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) the FLRA has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, the FLRA (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 the FLRA's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
j. To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when the FLRA 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.
k. To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, students, and others performing or working on a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for the Federal Government, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to this system of records.
l. To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by Federal statute, regulation, or treaty.
All Privacy Act records are maintained in a secure, password-protected FedRAMP-certified third-party cloud environment, which utilizes security hardware and software, including multiple firewalls, active intruder detection, and role-based accessed controls. Any paper records are stored in secure FLRA offices and/or lockable file cabinets. Given the common overlap between FOIA and Privacy Act requests, Privacy Act request records in this system may be maintained within a related FLRA system of records, “Freedom of Information Act Request and Appeal Files, FLRA/Internal-17.”
Requests are retrieved from the system by numerous data elements and
Privacy Act records are maintained for three years or longer, in accordance with item 001 of General Records Schedule 4.2, as approved by the Archivist of the United States. Disposal is by shredding and/or by deletion of the electronic record.
Computer records are maintained in a secure, password-protected computer system. Paper records are maintained in secure offices or lockable file cabinets. All records are maintained in secure, access-controlled areas or buildings.
Individuals wishing access to records about them should contact the System Manager. Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
a. Full name.
b. Approximate date of the Privacy Act request or appeal.
Individuals requesting access must comply with the FLRA's Privacy Act regulations regarding access to records (5 CFR 2412).
Individuals wishing to request amendment of records about them should contact the System Manager. Individuals must furnish the following information for their records to be located and identified:
a. Full name.
b. Approximate date of the Privacy Act request or appeal.
Individuals requesting amendment must follow the FLRA's Privacy Act regulations regarding amendment of records (5 CFR 2412).
Individuals wishing to determine whether this system of records contains information about them should contact the System Manager. Individuals must furnish the following for their records to be located and identified:
a. Full name.
b. Approximate date of the Privacy Act request or appeal.
Individuals making inquiries must comply with the FLRA's Privacy Act regulations regarding the existence of records (5 CFR 2412).
None.
None.
Public Buildings Service (PBS), General Services Administration (GSA).
Notice of Intent (NOI); Announcement of meeting.
Pursuant to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) GSA intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to analyze the potential environmental impacts from the proposed modernization of the Land Port of Entry (LPOE) in Norton, Vermont. The proposed project would allow the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to more efficiently carry out its agency mission at the international border crossing between Norton, Vermont and Stanhope, Quebec. The project study area is located in an area susceptible to flooding and therefore project alternatives will be reviewed in accordance with Executive Orders 11988, and 13690. GSA also intends to initiate consultation as required by Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act.
Adam Hunter, Norton Project Manager, (347) 255-7483,
The project scope consists of the modernization of a LPOE in order to meet the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) current Program of Requirements to carry out their agency mission at the international border crossing between Norton, Vermont and Stanhope, Quebec. The existing LPOE was constructed in 1933, with a truck facility constructed in 1961. Two additional garages were built in 2003. The main building is listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The current facilities are significantly outdated and do not meet the CBP's current LPOE design standards.
The proposed modernization of the Norton, Vermont LPOE would help improve traffic flow, enhance security, and facilitate trade and travel in the region. The proposed new facility will strengthen supply chains, improve operational capabilities and facility infrastructure, spur economic growth, and bolster the country's security.
GSA intends to prepare an EIS to analyze the potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed modernization of the Norton, Vermont LPOE. The EIS will consider at a minimum, one “action” alternative and one “no action” alternative. The action
The EIS will address the potential environmental impacts of the proposed alternatives on environmental resources which may include aesthetics, air quality, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, cultural resources, biological resources including wetlands and threatened and endangered species, land use, noise, utilities, and traffic. The EIS will also address the socioeconomic effects of the project as well as impacts on Environmental Justice populations.
The views and comments of the public are necessary to help determine the scope and content of the environmental analysis. The scoping process will be accomplished through a public scoping meeting, direct mail correspondence to appropriate federal, state, and local agencies, and to private organizations and citizens who have previously expressed or are known to have an interest in the project. Agencies and the public are encouraged to attend the public scoping meeting and provide written comments regarding the scope of the EIS. There will be a project presentation at 6:00 p.m. with a public comment period to follow. After the meeting GSA will post the following items at the project website,
See information provided above for dates, addresses, and contact information.
Office of Refugee Resettlement; Administration for Children and Families; Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, is inviting public comments on revisions to an approved information collection. The request consists of several forms that allow the Unaccompanied Children (UC) Program to process release of unaccompanied children from ORR custody and provide services after release.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
There are two currently approved versions of this form under this information collection—one for UC Portal and one for UC Path. ORR proposes discontinuing the UC Portal version, incorporating the UC Path version into the UC Portal system, and making the below-listed revisions. ORR also updated the burden estimates for this form to account for an increase in the number care provider facilities and in the number of children placed in ORR care. The annual number of respondents increased from 216 to 300 and the annual number of responses per respondent increased from 253 to 428.
There are two currently approved versions of this form under this information collection—one for UC Portal and one for UC Path. ORR proposes discontinuing the UC Path version and revising the UC Portal version.
To support making iterative improvements, ORR proposes two versions of the form. The first version will be rolled out in the current UC Portal system. The second version will be rolled out in a modernized version of UC Portal. ORR expects to begin rolling out features in the new modernized system in 2024. Once the second version is rolled out, ORR will submit a nonsubstantive change request to remove the first version from the information collection.
ORR also updated the burden estimates for this form to reflect the revisions and to account for an increase in the number of care provider facilities and in the number of children placed in
In general, the purpose of the proposed revisions is to make the form more useful for processing the physical discharge of a child from a care provider program. To that end, ORR proposes adding several new fields, many of which are intended to support internal operations only and are not appropriate to share with stakeholders when notifying them of a child's discharge. To ensure that only information necessary to provide notification of a child's discharge is shared with stakeholders, ORR proposes making this form internal to the ORR care provider network and ORR staff. To more accurately capture the purpose of the form and to distinguish it from previous versions, ORR proposes renaming the form “Program Exit Processing” and assigning it a new internal control number, “Form R-10.” The UC Portal system will generate a separate report (
ORR proposes removing this instrument from the information collection. No information is requested specifically for this auto-populated document, instead this a document that is auto-populated with information ORR collects in other OMB-approved forms. The use of information consolidated on this notification document is consistent with the purpose for which ORR originally collects the information in its other forms and with ORR's system of records notice (81 FR 46682). This form simply compiles and presents approved information collections in a different format and is therefore not subject to PRA.
The fields in this form are auto-populated from the following instruments:
There are two currently approved versions of this form under this information collection—one for UC Portal and one for UC Path. ORR proposes discontinuing the UC Path version and revising the UC Portal version.
To support making iterative improvements, ORR proposes two
ORR also updated the burden estimates for this form to reflect the revisions and to account for an increase in the number of care provider facilities and in the number of children placed in ORR care. For both versions, the annual number of respondents increased from 216 to 300 for care providers; the annual number of responses per respondent increased from 254 to 430 for care providers and 321 to 756 for case coordinators. For the modernized UC Portal version, the average burden hours per response increased from 0.42 to 0.58 for care providers and 0.33 to 0.50 for case coordinators.
○ Replace the current
○ Auto-populate all fields in this section based on information captured in other sections of the form, information collected in the Sponsor Assessment (Form S-5, approved under OMB# 0970-0553), and system user information.
○ Add the following new fields:
○ Replace the fields
○ Remove the following fields:
○ This new section requests information related to referrals made to the Office of Trafficking in Persons, where applicable.
○ Add the following new fields:
○ Add the following new fields:
○ Reorganize the section to contain three subsections: Home Study, Release Recommendation, and Release Cancellation.
○ Replace the fields
○ Add the following new fields:
○ Reorganize the section to contain three subsections: Home Study, Release Recommendation, and Release Cancellation.
○ Replace the fields
○ Add the following new fields:
○ Replace the fields
○ Move the fields
○ Add the following new fields:
○ Replace the current
○ Auto-populate all fields in this section based on information captured in other sections of the form, information collected in the Sponsor Assessment (Form S-5, approved under OMB# 0970-0553), and system user information.
○ Add the following new fields:
○ Replace the fields
○ Add the following new fields that will auto-populate based on information entered in the Sponsor Assessment (Form S-5, approved under OMB# 0970-0553):
○ Add the following new fields that will be completed by the user:
○ Remove the following fields:
○ Add this new section which will reference all supporting documentation relevant for release recommendations to minimize the amount of cross-referencing system users typically do to complete this form.
○ Unification Documentation Subsection
Add the following new fields that will auto-populate based on information enter in the Sponsor Assessment (Form S-5, approved under OMB# 0970-0553):
Add the following new fields that will be completed by the user:
Hyperlink to information collected in the Child-Level Event (Form A-9, approved under OMB# 0970-0547), when applicable. This section is proposed purely to assist users in having all case information in one place. Child-Level Events in and of themselves are not the sole basis of release decisions but can inform whether a Home Study recommendation is made, what level of post-release services (PRS) is recommended for release, or what type of program would be best suited to a child released to program rather than a sponsor.
Add the following new fields:
Add the following new fields:
Add a hyperlink to the Child Advocate Best Interest Determination (which is uploaded into UC Portal) upon completion, is proposed to be added into this form for the user's ease of reference.
This subsection requests information related to referrals made to the Office of Trafficking in Persons, where applicable.
Add the following new fields:
Add a hyperlink to the OTIP Eligibility Letter (if applicable) which is uploaded into UC Portal, upon completion, will be added into this form for the user's ease of reference.
Add the following new fields:
Add a hyperlink to the Discharge Plan (Form R-9), which is a new instrument proposed under this request.
○ Auto-populate information on background check results from the Sponsor Assessment (Form S-5, approved under OMB# 0970-0553).
○ Employ progressive disclosure to limit or expand each subsection based on the facts of the case.
Add the following new fields that will be completed by the user:
Add the following new fields that will be completed by the user:
Add the following new fields that will be completed by the user:
○ Move all fields related to home study recommendations into this new section. Currently, the Case Manager Recommendation, Case Coordinator Recommendation, and ORR Decision sections contain fields related to home study recommendations, release recommendations, and cancellation reasons. Moving fields related to home study recommendations here will distinguish the home study decision from the release decision and cancellation reasons. This section will contain subsections for each party involved in the home study recommendation and decision process—Case Manager Recommendation, Case
○ Add a new dropdown option,
○ Add a new field,
○ Add the following new fields that will appear if a home study is approved:
○ Add a hyperlink to the Home Study Report will appear after it is uploaded into UC Portal, as well as a new field:
○ Bundle the Case Manager Recommendation, Case Coordinator Recommendation, and ORR Decision sections together as subsections under this new section. Fields related to home study recommendations will be moved into the Home Study Recommendation section (as discussed above) and fields related to cancellation reasons will be moved into the Release Cancellation section (as discussed below).
○ Add three checkboxes to assist in routing for this form:
○ Update the dropdown options for the following fields to reflect that all children released from ORR care will receive PRS beginning January 1, 2024:
○ Add the following fields to direct case routing:
○ Add the following new fields to each subsection:
Add checkboxes for the types of documents the user reviewed to inform their recommendation as well as an
Add a new field,
Add the following new fields: ORR Decisionmaker Role,
Add a hyperlink to the final Notification of Denial Letter signed by the ORR Director that will appear if
○ Move fields related to release cancellation into this new section to distinguish cancellations from home study and release recommendations. This section will contain subsections for each party involved in cancellations—Case Manager Recommendation, Case Coordinator Recommendation, and ORR Decision.
○ Add the following new fields to each subsection:
○ Add the following fields that will prompt the user to select a more specific reason for cancellation:
There are two currently approved versions of this form under this information collection—one in Excel and one for UC Path. ORR proposes the below-listed revisions to the current UC Path version and plans to incorporate the revised version into the UC Portal system.
In addition, ORR is requesting continued use of the current Excel version of this instrument to support a phased rollout of improvements to the UC Portal system.
ORR updated the burden estimates for this form to reflect form revisions, to account for an increase in the number of care provider facilities and in the number of children placed in ORR care, and to improve burden accuracy. The burden estimate was split into three separate line items for each respondent. The annual number of respondents changed from 216 care providers to 40 PRS providers, 128,487 sponsors, and 128,487 children; the annual number of responses per respondent increased from 253 to 19,273 for PRS providers, 3 for sponsors, and 3 for children; and the average burden hours per response increased from 0.42 to 0.58 for PRS providers, 0.17 to 0.25 for sponsors, and 0.17 to 0.25 for children.
ORR plans to shift responsibility for conducting safety and well-being calls from care provider facilities to PRS providers. Moving forward these calls will be called virtual check-ins. All children released to a sponsor and their sponsors will continue to receive calls, however, the frequency of the calls will increase from one to three calls—conducted at seven business days, 14 business days, and 30 business days after the child's release from ORR custody.
ORR proposes the following revisions to the UC Path version of Form R-6 to support this change in process:
• Change the title to “Virtual Check-In Questionnaire.”
•
•
•
•
ORR care providers are required to conduct discharge planning for children who are not likely to be released to a sponsor, may obtain a form of lawful immigration relief, are projected to have a prolonged stay in ORR care, and/or will soon turn age 18 and age out of ORR care. Discharge planning is a participatory process that takes into consideration the wishes and goals of the child and includes consultation with the child's legal services provider, attorney of record, child advocate, and other stakeholders (
ORR developed this instrument to improve and standardize the process for discharge planning across its national network of care providers. The new instrument will collect information on the following topics:
The Legal Services Plan section of this instrument will replace Post Legal Status Plan (Form L-8), which is currently approved under OMB# 0970-0565. ORR plans to submit a nonsubstantive change request to discontinue Form L-8 soon.
Division of Program Innovation, Office of Child Support Services, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Request for public comments.
The Division of Program Innovation (DPI), Office of Child Support Services (OCSS), Administration for Children and Families (ACF) is requesting a 3-year extension of the Access and Visitation Survey: Annual Report (Office of Management and Budget #: 0970-0204, expiration 6/30/2024). There are no requested changes to the form.
You can obtain copies of the proposed collection of information and submit comments by emailing
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
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 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 meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
The invention listed below is owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and is available for licensing to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.
Dr. Terrence Joyce at (240) 987-2347, or
Technology description follows:
There are five known Ebolavirus species: Ebola virus (Zaire ebolavirus); Sudan virus (Sudan ebolavirus or SUDV); Taï Forest virus (Taï Forest ebolavirus, formerly Cote d'Ivoire ebolavirus); Bundibugyo virus (Bundibugyo ebolavirus); and Reston virus (Reston ebolavirus). Last year an ebolavirus outbreak resulted in 164 cases and 55 deaths. While there is an
This invention provides a VSV-based vaccine expressing the SUDV-Gulu GP (VSV-SUDV). The VSV backbone of this vaccine appears to be very similar to the VSV backbone used in the ERVEBO vaccine discussed above. This could allow for a quicker and more efficient regulatory approval pathway through the FDA. Efficacy studies in non-human primates demonstrated that a single intramuscular vaccination protected animals from a lethal challenge dose of SUDV even when vaccination occurred only seven days prior to challenge. In addition, pre-exposure to the VSV vector did not inhibit a robust response to the SUDV GP component of the vaccine.
This technology is available for licensing for commercial development in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR part 404, as well as for further development and evaluation under a research collaboration.
• Prophylactic usage against SUDV infections in normal or high-risk populations.
• Therapeutic treatment, alone or in combination, in patients with SUDV infection.
• Assay development for surveillance, diagnostic, and prevention measures.
• Uses a VSV-based system to express antigens thereby increasing safety of the vaccine.
• Efficacious after single low dose vaccination in NHPs.
• VSV-platform induces a strong & rapid immune response.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
United States Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice of availability of recommendations and request for comments.
The U. S. Coast Guard announces the availability of recommendations from the National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee (NCFSAC). The Committee met in September 2023 and sent eight recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security. The U.S. Coast Guard issues this Notice as the mechanism for receiving public comments and requests public comments on the recommendations.
Comments must be submitted on or before April 8, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2023-0586 using the Federal Decision Making Portal at
For information about this document email questions to
We encourage you to submit comments (or related material) on the committee recommendations. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice, indicate the specific recommendation to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion.
The National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee is authorized by section 601 of the
The National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee provides advice and recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security through the Commandant of the U. S. Coast Guard, on matters relating to the safe operation of vessels. Additionally, the Committee will review regulations proposed under chapter 45 of title 46 of U.S Code (during preparation of the regulations) and review marine casualties and investigations of vessels covered by chapter 45 of title 46 U.S. Code and make recommendations to the Secretary to improve safety and reduce vessel casualties.
The National Commercial Fishing Safety Advisory Committee (the committee) met from September 26, 2023 to September 28, 2023 (88 FR 60961).
A. In so much as is practicable, all spaces subject to flooding and/or necessary spaces for safe vessel operation should be accessible by crew during normal operations.
B. In the event this is impractical, and access is over stacked deck equipment (
C. For spaces where access may be blocked, consideration may be given to supplementing high water alarms with infrared cameras, increased maintenance frequency on watertight seals, dogs, knife edges, etc., and also on bilge level alarms. Consideration may be given as well to secondary means of de-watering (
A. The committee recommends that the Voluntary Safety Initiatives and Good Marine Practices Document is updated to include a section on “Best Practices for Standing Navigational Watch” This section should include the following statement.
1. The individual in charge of the vessel should have a watchstanding policy for their vessel and any crew member standing a navigational watch should be informed and understand the responsibilities stated in the policy.
2. The policy may contain items such as:
i. Be familiar with the use and operation of the vessel's engine and gear controls.
ii. Be familiar with the use and operation of the vessel's Electronic Navigation Systems (ENS)
iii. Be familiar with the use and operation of the vessel's Radar, Depth Sounder, Autopilot, and AIS (Automatic Identification System). Further the CM will understand the use and operation of ARPA (Automatic Radar Plotting Aid) and the use and operation of AIS both with Radar and ENS and know how to determine CPA (Closet Point of Approach).
iv. Be familiar with the Vessel's Rules of the Road handbook and understand how they apply to watch standing on the vessel.
v. Be familiar with the use and operation of the Vessel's VHF radios, and will understand the need to monitor Channels 16, a common traffic and distress frequency, and Channel 13, a common vessel to vessel frequency.
vi. Be familiar with the use and operation of the Vessel's Watch Alarm, and ensure it is set for an appropriate period, generally 10 minutes after dusk, and 15 minutes during daylight hours.
vii. Be familiar with the use and operation of the vessels Navigation Lighting and will ensure the proper outlook is had.
viii. Be familiar with the use and operation of the Vessel's Fishing Lights and know their appropriate usage.
ix. If the crew member is unsure of their observations, they should immediately notify the Individual in Charge.
B. The committee recommends that the U.S. Coast Guard change the name of the
Voluntary Safety Initiatives and Good Marine Practices document to “Commercial Fishing Vessel Best Safety Practices.”
A. Operators of commercial fishing vessels of any sizes are encouraged as a best practice to attend a commercial fishing vessel stability training program. Operators are encouraged to share their experiences/stories of stability related issues in training. Where applicable, operators are encouraged to bring their vessel-specific stability instructions to this training.
B. Operators of commercial fishing vessels are encouraged as a best practice to implement procedures prior to departing port, such as observation of the vessel's trim, check condition of freeing ports and scuppers, watertight/weathertight doors, and closures if applicable. 08-23 Recommendations to the USCG
C. With regard to smaller vessels, the committee advises the U.S. Coast Guard look at other agencies, port controls on how they are implementing best practices for vessel stability safety (
D. The committee recommends that the USCG provides formalized training to its FV Examiners on the topic of compliance with vessel stability regulations, specific to the U.S. Coast Guard District and fleets within the District (
A. U.S. Coast Guard liaise with industry to understand and identify training needs addressing risks specific to individual fisheries. This can be accomplished in conjunction with dockside safety examinations, during industry events, (
B. U.S. Coast Guard then work with industry to develop fishery specific training programs for implementation.
The NCFSAC recommendations are available in the docket and also can also be found on our website at
We invite public comments on these recommendations.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development, Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD).
Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”).
New York City, through the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (“HPD”), and the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”), are providing Notice of Intent (“NOI”) to prepare an EIS for the proposed Fulton Elliott-Chelsea Houses Redevelopment Project in Manhattan, New York. As part of the NYCHA Permanent Affordability Commitment Together (“PACT”) Program, NYCHA intends to submit an application(s) to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) for: disposition of public housing, and conversion of Section 9 public housing subsidies to Section 8 Project Based Vouchers (“PBVs”) under the HUD Rental Assistance Demonstration (“RAD”) Program and Section 18 of the U.S. Housing Act of 1937 (“USHA”) as amended. This NOI initiates the public scoping for the EIS, and provides project information on the proposed action, the proposed action's purpose and need, and the alternatives being considered for evaluation in the EIS. This NOI invites public comments on the environmental impacts that may be associated with the proposed action and alternatives.
Comments on the Draft Scope of Work (“DSOW”) will be accepted during the Public Scoping Meetings and, in writing, until 5 p.m. on Tuesday, February 20, 2024. See “Instructions for submitting comments” below for further information.
Interested members of the public, tribes, and agencies are invited to submit comments to be considered on the proposed scope of the EIS, the proposed action's purpose and need, the identification of alternatives to be considered, the environmental benefits and impacts to be evaluated, and any other project-related issues or analysis. Written comments may be submitted electronically via email to
Anthony Howard, Director of Environmental Planning, Department of Housing Preservation and Development—Division of Building and Land Development Services, 100 Gold Street, #7-A3, New York, NY 10038; email:
New York City, through HPD, as Responsible Entity and joint lead agency in accordance with 24 CFR 58.2(a)(7), and NYCHA, serving as local project sponsor and joint lead agency in accordance with 40 CFR 1501.7(b), are providing this NOI to prepare an EIS for the proposed Fulton Elliott-Chelsea Houses Redevelopment Project in Manhattan, New York (the “proposed action” as further described below). The proposed action to be evaluated in the EIS includes the replacement of existing NYCHA buildings (including residential and community facility uses and the development of new residential buildings) across the Fulton, Elliott, Chelsea, and Chelsea Addition Houses campuses in Manhattan (the “Project Sites”). As part of the PACT Program, NYCHA intends to submit an application(s) to HUD for: (1) disposition of public housing property as authorized under Section 18 of USHA as amended and implementing regulations at 24 CFR part 970 (“Section 18”), and (2) conversion of subsidies under Section 9 of USHA (42 U.S.C. 1437g) to PBV subsidies under Section 8 of USHA (42 U.S.C. 1437f) in accordance with the RAD Program, created by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act of 2012, as amended, and the RAD Notice REV 4 (PIH Notice 2019-23 as supplemented in RAD Supplemental Notice 4B published July 27, 2023).
Under the PACT Program, NYCHA would enter into a long-term ground lease(s) involving the Project Sites with Elliott Fulton LLC, a joint venture between Essence Development and The Related Companies (and/or affiliates thereof) (collectively, the “PACT Partner”). Such planned activities and applications at HUD-assisted Project Sites require environmental clearance.
HPD and NYCHA will prepare the EIS in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321
The Project Sites consist of four NYCHA developments: Chelsea, Chelsea Addition, Elliott, and Fulton Houses, which are located across two separate public housing campuses in the Chelsea
There are a wide range of land uses surrounding the Fulton Houses Project Site, including residential, commercial, institutional, and open space. These uses are governed by different underlying zoning regulations, which are applied to certain geographic areas (known as Zoning districts). Zoning districts in the vicinity of the Fulton Houses Project Site include: a R7B residential district with a C2-5 commercial overlay along 10th Avenue to the north; a C2-6A commercial district (a R8A residential district equivalent), a R8 residential district with a C2-5 commercial overlay, and a R7B residential district to the east; a M1-5 manufacturing district to the south; and a C6-3 commercial district (a R9 residential district equivalent) and a R8A residential district with a C2-5 commercial overlay along 10th Avenue to the west. Some portions of the above are in the Special West Chelsea District, an area in which special zoning rules apply. These rules may modify or supersede the underlying zoning.
The Chelsea, Chelsea Addition, and Elliott Houses (collectively, the “Elliott-Chelsea Houses Project Site”) are generally bounded by West 27th Drive to the north, 9th Avenue to the east, West 25th Street to the south, and 10th Avenue to the west, with Chelsea Park adjacent to the north side of the Site. Elliott Houses was constructed in the 1940s. The campus includes four 11-12 story buildings. These buildings contain 591 residential units and house approximately 1,200 residents. There is also an early childhood center. Chelsea Houses was constructed in the early 1960s. The campus includes two 21-story buildings. These buildings contain 425 residential units and house approximately 1,000 residents. Chelsea Addition Houses was constructed in 1968. It is a single 14-story building. The building contains 96 residential units and houses approximately 110 residents. The building is designated for elderly families (42 U.S.C. 1437e). Hudson Guild also operates a community center, offices, and recreational space located within a building adjoining the Chelsea Addition building on the Elliott-Chelsea Houses Project Site.
There are a wide range of land uses surrounding the Elliott-Chelsea Houses Project Site, which include residential, institutional, commercial, open space, and transportation/utility; the latter use including the U.S. Postal Service Manhattan Vehicle Maintenance Facility and the NYC Department of Sanitation Repair Shop, both located between 11th and 12th Avenues. Zoning districts in the vicinity of the Elliott-Chelsea Houses Project Site include: a C6-4 commercial district (a R10 residential equivalent) to the north of Chelsea Park (which as mapped parkland does not have a zoning designation); a R8 residential district to the east; a C2-6 commercial district (a R8 residential equivalent) to the southeast; R7B and R8A residential districts to the south; a C6-3 commercial district (a R9 residential equivalent) and a M1-5 manufacturing district to the west (along with the Special West Chelsea District).
As stated above, the Elliott Houses were built in the 1940s and the Chelsea Houses and Fulton Houses were built in the early 1960s. Chelsea Addition was built in 1968. The buildings and units within these developments have seriously deteriorated and require substantial repair and rehabilitation. These issues include, but are not limited to, persistent mold and leaks, the presence of lead-based paint, outdated mechanical and electrical systems, and outdated fixtures and appliances. These issues negatively impact the quality of life of residents.
The purpose of the proposed action is to improve the quality of life and housing stability for existing public housing residents of the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea Houses. It would do so by constructing new PBV-assisted housing for all existing residents, while also preserving permanent affordability and residents' rights under the PACT Program. The purpose of the proposed action is also to facilitate the construction of additional affordable and market rate housing units to address the critical shortage of affordable housing and housing in general in New York City and financially support the PACT portion of the project. This would help to address the critical shortage of affordable housing in New York City through the construction of hundreds of new housing units, both affordable and market rate. The new affordable units would directly address the shortage by increasing New York City's affordable housing stock while the new market-rate units would indirectly address the shortage by increasing the overall supply of housing in New York City. The proposed action will also facilitate the development of additional community facility, retail and open space for the benefit of NYCHA residents and the surrounding community.
The proposed action contemplates the following activities:
(a) The staged demolition and replacement of all existing dwelling units and community facility spaces at the Project Sites; and
(b) The staged development of new mixed-use buildings, including affordable and market rate residential units, new community facility spaces, and new retail (including supermarket) uses at the Project Sites.
The proposed action would facilitate the staged replacement of the following existing uses, including:
(a) 2,056 DUs at the Fulton and Elliott-Chelsea developments;
(b) Approximately 67,159 gross square feet (gsf) of existing community facility space currently operated by Hudson Guild; and
(c) 95 accessory parking spaces.
New development would follow the above-described actions. Two development alternatives for the proposed action have been identified and will be analyzed in the EIS, referred to as the Rezoning Alternative and the Non-Rezoning Alternative.
The Rezoning Alternative would require approvals from the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) through the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). This alternative would result in additional development, including:
(a) Up to an additional 3,454 new DUs, with a mix of up to 1,038 affordable DUs (
(b) Up to 46,364 gsf of local retail (including supermarket) space;
(c) Up to an additional 108,693 gsf of community facility space; and
(d) 1 additional parking space at the Fulton Houses Project Site.
The Non-Rezoning Alternative would not require the approval of the CPC. It would result in additional development, including:
(a) Up to an additional 1,783 new DUs, with a mix of up to 536 affordable DUs and 1,247 market-rate DUs in new mixed-income buildings. The affordable DUs will be developed in mixed-income buildings and recorded in the NYCHA Regulatory Agreement and other transaction documents between NYCHA and the PACT Partner;
(b) Up to 29,075 gsf of local retail (including supermarket) space;
(c) Up to an additional 132,549 gsf of community facility space; and
(d) 1 additional parking space at the Fulton Houses Project Site.
The proposed action would involve the staged demolition of all 18 existing buildings across the Project Sites and their staged replacement with new buildings. The staging of the proposed action will be designed to minimize disruption to the existing residents on site. The estimated completion date for the proposed action is 2040 (which is referred to as the “build year”). Under the Rezoning Alternative, there would be 15 new buildings ranging in height from 11 stories (approximately 140.33 feet) to 39 stories (approximately 416.0 feet) with a total of 96 accessory parking spaces on site. Under the Non-Rezoning Alternative, there would be 17 new buildings ranging in height from 11 stories (approximately 140.33 feet) to 39 stories (approximately 416.0 feet).
The EIS will analyze the net incremental changes to the Project Sites under both the Rezoning Alternative and Non-Rezoning Alternative. These alternatives will be compared to a No-Action Alternative, which assumes that the existing buildings would remain, no new development would occur on the Project Sites, and routine maintenance and repairs would continue. This analysis ensures that the potentially most severe environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action are considered in the environmental review.
In October 2023, the New York State Office of Parks, Recreation, and Historic Preservation, State Historic Preservation Office (“SHPO”) stated that review was required under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) for Elliott-Chelsea Houses. This site is eligible for listing on the State and National Register of Historic Places (S/NR). Section 106 requires a process of outreach and consultation with SHPO and interested parties, tribes, or agencies. Outreach will also be conducted to the general public.
In addition to outreach and consultation under Section 106, implementation of the proposed action will require federal, state and local approvals. These include HUD approvals for the disposition of public housing property as authorized under HUD Section 18 and NYCHA board approval of a long-term ground lease(s) with the PACT Partner.
The Rezoning Alternative would require approval from the CPC pursuant to the New York City Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The land use actions sought before the CPC would include: a zoning map amendment to establish zoning districts that would allow the proposed bulk and height; a zoning text amendment to designate the Projects Sites as Mandatory Inclusionary Housing Areas (MIHAs); and a large-scale general development (LSGD) special permit to facilitate the proposed site plan. The Non-Rezoning Alternative would not require approval from the CPC pursuant to ULURP.
Each alternative described above will be evaluated at an equal level of detail for each impact category. The analysis will be conducted consistent with the applicable screening thresholds, methodologies, and impact determination thresholds.
Consistent with the CEQ regulations implementing NEPA, the EIS will examine a range of reasonable alternatives (40 CFR 1502.14) to the Proposed Action that are potentially feasible. As required by NEPA, each of the alternatives will be evaluated at an equal level of detail. As a result of the project planning efforts to date, the alternatives currently proposed for evaluation in the EIS include:
(a)
(b)
(c)
The Proposed Action described above has the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. The implementing regulations of the CEQ (40 CFR parts 1500-1508) and HUD's regulations (24 CFR part 58) require the preparation of an EIS in accordance with NEPA requirements. Responses to this notice will be used to: (1) determine significant environmental issues; (2) assist in developing a range of alternatives to be considered; (3) identify issues that the EIS should address; and (4) identify agencies and other parties that will participate in the EIS process and the basis for their involvement.
Due to the increase in the number of residents and expansion of the built environment, the proposed action could have the potential for significant environmental impacts in the following areas, which will be addressed in the EIS: Land Use, Zoning, and Public Policy; Coastal Zone Management/Waterfront Revitalization Policies (WRP); Floodplain Management and Flood Insurance; Socioeconomic Conditions; Environmental Justice; Community Facilities and Services; Open Space; Incremental Shadows; Historic and Cultural Resources/Historic Preservation; Urban Design and Visual Resources; Natural Resources; Hazardous Materials; Water and Sewer Infrastructure; Solid Waste and Sanitation Services; Energy; Transportation; Air Quality; Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change; Noise; Public Health; Neighborhood Character; and Construction Impacts.
The NEPA Draft Scope of Work includes a preliminary list of anticipated permits and approvals from Federal, State, and local agencies. HPD and NYCHA will coordinate with appropriate agencies or entities for compliance with federal, local and state laws. The NEPA EIS will also assist relevant entities in any eventual CEQR and/or SEQRA findings.
HPD and NYCHA invite all interested parties to participate in the scoping meetings.
The publication of this Notice serves to initiate the public scoping period. Following the scoping process and the finalization of the scoping framework, the preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) will commence. The DEIS will include relevant information, assessments, and analyses of the Proposed Action's potential environmental effects. Once the DEIS is completed, it will be made available to the public through a Notice of Availability public posting in the
No decisions about the project will be made at the Public Scoping Meeting. After the public scoping period, HPD, NYCHA, and the PACT Partner will compile the comments that are received to develop a Final Scope of Work for the DEIS. A Notice of Availability of the DEIS is anticipated to be published in the
Instructions for participating in the scoping meetings are available at
The second scoping meeting will be an online scoping meeting and will begin at 4 p.m. EST on Monday, February 5, 2024. The meeting will be held via Zoom (Zoom information will be shared on the project website at least 10 days prior to the meeting; accessible at
The third scoping meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. EST on Wednesday, February 7, 2024 and will be held at the Hudson Guild John Lovejoy Elliott Community Center on the Elliott-Chelsea Campus (428 West 26th Street, New York, NY 10001).
The date of all public scoping meetings also will be announced at least 15 days in advance of the meetings through a notice to be published in local newspapers and online on the Proposed Action's website at
Office of Community Planning and Development, HUD.
Notice of a rescindment of a system of records.
The Department of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD) is issuing a public notice of its intent to rescind Integrated Disbursement Information System (IDIS). During a routine review of the Office of Community Planning and Development (CPD) system of records notices, it was determined that this system does not retrieve information by name or another unique identifier.
Comments will be accepted on or before February 7, 2024. This proposed action will be effective immediately upon publication.
You may submit comments, identified by one of the following methods:
LaDonne White, Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10139, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number (202) 708-3054 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
The Integrated Disbursement Information System does not require a SORN given that information collected on U.S. residents is not retrieved by name or another unique identifier, but by grantee organization name.”
HUD/H-8: Integrated Disbursement & Information System (IDIS).
The previously published notice in the
Office of Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Notice of a rescindment of a system of records.
Pursuant to the provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of the Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Public and Indian Housing, Office of Public Housing and Voucher Programs, is issuing a public notice of its intent to rescind the Effort-to-Outcomes (ETO) because the requirement for the Disaster
This proposed action will be effective immediately upon publication. January 8, 2024.
You may submit comments, identified by one of the following methods:
LaDonne White, Chief Privacy Officer, 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10139; Washington, DC 20410; telephone number (202) 708-3054 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech or communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
The Efforts-to-Outcomes (ETO) is being terminated because the ETO system was designed to contain information for a specific population (FEMA eligible referrals) for a specific use and amount of time (DHAP eligible families who worked towards self-sufficiency until program end). ETO system was used for program implementation activities related to the Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP) case management services. DHAP is a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) pilot grant program to provide temporary rental subsidies and case management for non-HUD assisted individuals and families displaced by Hurricanes Gustav or Ike. HUD is the servicing agency that administers the DHAP program for FEMA. The program ended in 2011 and once over, none of the records would continue to be active because the information would not be eligible for existing HUD or FEMA programs and as such would no longer be needed. Records are no longer maintained by HUD and have run the record retention period and wiped from the system.
Effort to Outcomes (ETO).
The previously published notice in the
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit applications; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have received applications for permits to conduct activities intended to enhance the propagation or survival of endangered or threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on these applications. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
We must receive your written comments on or before February 7, 2024.
•
•
Nathan Rathbun, 612-713-5343 (phone);
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, invite review and comment from the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies on applications we have received for permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The ESA prohibits certain activities with endangered and threatened species unless authorized by a Federal permit. The ESA and our implementing regulations in part 17 of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) provide for the issuance of such permits and require that we invite public comment before issuing permits for activities involving endangered species.
A recovery permit issued by us under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the ESA authorizes the permittee to conduct activities with endangered species for scientific purposes that promote recovery or for enhancement of propagation or survival of the species. Our regulations implementing section 10(a)(1)(A) for these permits are found at 50 CFR 17.22 for endangered wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.32 for threatened wildlife species, 50 CFR 17.62 for endangered plant species, and 50 CFR 17.72 for threatened plant species.
The ESA requires that we invite public comment before issuing these
Written comments we receive become part of the administrative record associated with this action. 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 request in your comment that we withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so. Moreover, all submissions from organizations or businesses, and from individuals identifying themselves as representatives or officials of organizations or businesses, will be made available for public disclosure in their entirety.
If we decide to issue permits to any of the applicants listed in this notice, we will publish a notice in the
We publish this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are proposing to renew an information collection without change.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before February 7, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice at
Madonna Baucum, Service Information Collection Clearance Officer, by email at
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
On February 9, 2023, we published in the
As part of our continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burdens, we are again soliciting comments from the public and other Federal agencies on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. We are especially interested in public comment addressing the following:
(1) Whether or not the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether or not the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of our estimate of the burden for this collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) How might the agency minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Our regulations implementing the ESA are in chapter I, subchapter B of title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) (50 CFR 13 and 50 CFR 17). The regulations stipulate general and specific requirements that, when met, allow us to issue permits to authorize activities that are otherwise prohibited. Upon receipt of a complete application, the Director may issue a permit authorizing any activity otherwise prohibited by § 17.21, in accordance with the issuance criteria of this section, for scientific purposes, for enhancing the propagation or survival, or for the incidental taking of endangered wildlife. Such permits may authorize a single transaction, a series of transactions, or a number of activities over a specific period of time. (See § 17.32 for permits for threatened species.)
We collect information associated with application forms to determine the eligibility of applicants for permits requested in accordance with the criteria in section 10 of the ESA. The Service uses the following permit application forms for activities associated with native endangered and threatened species:
• Form 3-200-54,
• Form 3-200-56,
• Form 3-200-59,
• Form 3-200-60,
Annual reporting of the results subsequent to the activity authorized by the permit is required in most cases (under the authority of section 10(a)(1)(A) and 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17). These reports allow us to evaluate the success of the project, formulate further research, and develop and adjust management and recovery plans for the species. We currently use the following reports specific to particular species (and regions, where appropriate):
• Form 3-202-55a,
• Form 3-202-55b,
• Form 3-202-55c,
• Form 3-202-55d,
• Form 3-202-55e,
• Form 3-202-55f,
• Form 3-202-55g,
• Form 3-2523,
• Form 3-2526,
• Form 3-2530,
• Form 3-2532,
• Form 3-2533,
• Form 3-2534,
Annual reporting of the results subsequent to the activity authorized by the permit is required in most cases (under the authority of section 10(a)(1)(A) and section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA and its implementing regulations at 50 CFR 17). The Service designed the forms to facilitate the electronic reporting specifically for each species. The Service will use the reported data to evaluate the success of the permitted project, formulate further research, and develop and adjust management and recovery plans for the species. The data will also inform 5-year reviews and species status assessments conducted under the ESA.
Additionally, we require that the following notifications be made to the Service:
• Private landowners who have an enhancement of survival permit (and accompanying safe harbor agreement or candidate conservation agreement with assurances) must notify us if their land management activities incidentally take a listed or candidate species covered under their permit.
• We issue enhancement of survival permits to landowners, and their name is printed on the permit. If ownership of the land changes, this permit does not automatically transfer to the new landowner. Therefore, we ask the permittee to notify us if there is a change in land ownership so that we may update the permit; and
• If a recovery or interstate commerce permit authorizes activities that include keeping wildlife in captivity, we ask the permittee to notify us if any of the captive wildlife escape.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The authority for this action is the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of
We must receive your written comments on or before February 7, 2024.
•
•
Mr. Jonathan Snyder, Assistant Field Supervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, 760-431-9440 (telephone). Individuals in the United States who are deaf, blind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have received an application from Metro Heights Montebello, LLC (applicant) for an 11-year incidental take permit (ITP) for two covered species pursuant to section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
The proposed project is the second part of the larger 488-acre Montebello Hills Development and Conservation Project (also known as Montebello Hills Specific Plan). The Service consulted with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act on the effects to the coastal California gnatcatcher from the proposed issuance of a Clean Water Act section 404 permit for the Montebello Hills Development and Conservation Project in 2009 and in 2019. Ultimately, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers did not issue a 404 permit, because they determined that waters within the Montebello Hills Development and Conservation Project area are excluded from Clean Water Act jurisdiction. Phase A of the Montebello Hills Development and Conservation Project was initiated in 2019 and is currently under construction.
The proposed project includes the construction of 851 residential homes, a park, and fuel modification zones on 86.78 acres in the City of Montebello, California. The applicant requests an 11-year ITP under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA. If we approve the permit, the applicant anticipates taking coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo as a result of impacts to 86.78 acres, including about 32 acres of native coastal sage scrub vegetation these species use for breeding, feeding, and sheltering. The take would be incidental to the applicant's activities associated with the construction of the Montebello Hills Phase B Project.
Coastal California gnatcatchers are common in coastal sage scrub vegetation within the Montebello Hills, with a maximum of 160 pairs recorded in 2012. The proposed project area contained 7 pairs prior to initiation of the Phase A of the Montebello Hills Development and Conservation Project in 2019 and 3 pairs in 2023. Least Bell's vireos are common in riparian woodlands near the proposed project area within Whittier Narrows Recreation Area, but were first observed within the project area in May of 2023. Riparian vegetation, suitable for vireo, occurs in small patches within the coastal sage scrub vegetation community.
The applicant's proposed HCP contains measures to minimize the effects of construction activities on the coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo. During construction, a Service-approved biological monitor will be present to ensure avoidance and minimization measures are understood by the contractors and implemented as anticipated. Impacts to preserved vegetation adjacent to the Project footprint will be avoided by surveying, staking, and fencing the limits of proposed impacts and controlling erosion, sedimentation, and pollution within the footprint of impacts. Vegetation removal will occur outside the breeding season to avoid active nests, and impacts to productivity will be minimized by limiting construction within 200 feet of an active nest.
The applicant proposes to increase the quality and extent of habitat for the gnatcatcher and vireo that occurs within and adjacent to the project area by (1) restoring, preserving, and managing 91.51 acres of native vegetation communities within the 276.83-acre Montebello Hills Habitat Reserve (Habitat Reserve), and (2) restoring, preserving, and managing 12 acres of native vegetation communities in the Puente Hills. In total, 100.11 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher and 3.4 acres riparian woodland habitat for least Bell's vireo will be protected in perpetuity with conservation easements and managed in accordance with long-term management plans, with funding secured in non-wasting endowment
Because the Habitat Reserve will be surrounded by residential development, the proposed project also includes several design features to minimize the potential for degradation of habitat that is preserved as part of the project. The fuel modification zone was minimized by incorporating fire-resistant features into the project design and will be planted with coastal sage scrub species approved for use by the local fire authority to maintain foraging habitat for coastal California gnatcatchers. Development landscaping will exclude invasive plant species and incorporate primarily drought-tolerant plants to minimize artificial irrigation. Lighting will be shielded and designed to minimize spillover into the Montebello Habitat Reserve. Fencing will prohibit access to the Habitat Reserve by homeowners and their pets, and no-trespassing signs will be posted at likely points of entry.
The proposed action consists of the issuance of an incidental take permit and implementation of the proposed HCP, which includes measures to avoid, minimize, and mitigate impacts to coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo. To comply with the requirements for an HCP under ESA section 10(a), alternatives to the project and the incidental take of coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo were evaluated. Under the No Action Alternative, the project would not be constructed, and no ITP would be issued. The No Action Alternative would not meet the primary goal of the proposed project, which is to construct residential homes within the project area. It would also represent a loss of the value of the infrastructure (roadways, utilities, and storm water facilities) previously constructed to facilitate development of Phase B, including revegetation of 41.85 acres of coastal sage scrub on slopes as part of the Phase A development. Alternatives to the proposed project are constrained by the Phase A development and would necessitate extensive changes to the developed subdivisions in Phase A from a land use, circulation, and utility perspective. There are no other feasible alternatives, based on the description of already installed improvements that would avoid incidental take of coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's proposed project would individually and cumulatively have a minor effect on the coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, and the human environment. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) ITP would be a “low-effect” ITP that individually or cumulatively would have a minor effect on the species and may qualify for application of a categorical exclusion pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations, DOI's NEPA regulations, and the DOI Departmental Manual. A “low-effect” ITP is one that would result in (1) minor or nonsignificant effects on species covered in the HCP; (2) nonsignificant effects on the human environment; and (3) impacts that, when added together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions, would not result in significant cumulative effects to the human environment.
The Service will evaluate the application and the comments received to determine whether to issue the requested ITP. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue the permit to the applicant for incidental take of coastal California gnatcatcher and least Bell's vireo.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
We provide this notice under section 10 of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of initiation of reviews; request for information.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, are initiating 5-year reviews under the Endangered Species Act, as amended, for five northeastern species. A 5-year review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. We are requesting submission of any such information that has become available since the previous 5-year review for each species.
To ensure consideration, please submit your written information by February 7, 2024. However, we will continue to accept new information about any listed species at any time.
For instructions on how and where to submit information, see Request for New Information and Table 2—Contacts under
Individuals in the United States who are deaf, deafblind, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability may dial 711 (TTY, TDD, or TeleBraille) to access telecommunications relay services. Individuals outside the United States should use the relay services offered within their country to make international calls to the point-of-contact in the United States.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), are initiating 5-year reviews under the Endangered Species Act, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
A 5-year review is based on the best scientific and commercial data available at the time of the review. We are requesting submission of any such information that has become available since the most recent status review for each species.
Under the ESA, we maintain Lists of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants (which we collectively refer to as the List) in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations at 50 CFR 17.11(h) (for wildlife) and 50 CFR 17.12(h) (for plants). Listed wildlife and plants can also be found at
We are initiating 5-year status reviews of the species in table 1.
A 5-year review considers all new information available at the time of the review. In conducting the review, we consider the best scientific and commercial data that have become available since the most recent status review. We are seeking new information specifically regarding:
(1) Species biology, including but not limited to life-history and habitat requirements and impact tolerance thresholds;
(2) Historical and current population conditions, including but not limited to population abundance, trends, distribution, demographics, and genetics;
(3) Historical and current habitat conditions, including but not limited to amount, distribution, and suitability;
(4) Historical and current threats, threat trends, and threat projections in relation to the five listing factors (as defined in section 4(a)(1) of the ESA);
(5) Conservation measures for the species that have been implemented or are planned; and
(6) Other new information, data, or corrections, including but not limited to taxonomic or nomenclatural changes, identification of erroneous information contained in the List, and improved analytical methods.
Any new information received will be considered during the 5-year review and will also be useful in evaluating ongoing recovery programs for the species.
To ensure that 5-year reviews are based on the best available scientific and commercial information, we request new information from all sources. If you submit information, please support it with documentation such as maps, bibliographic references, methods used to gather and analyze the data, and/or copies of any pertinent publications, reports, or letters by knowledgeable sources.
Please submit your questions, comments, and materials to the appropriate contact in table 2, below.
Before including your address, phone number, electronic mail address, or other personal identifying information in your submission, you should be aware that your entire submission—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. Although you can request that personal information be withheld from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
New information on the species covered in this notice should be submitted by mail or electronic mail to the appropriate contact shown in table 2, by the deadline provided above in
We publish this document under the authority of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice announces the extension of the Class III gaming compacts between two Tribes in California and the State of California.
The extension takes effect on January 8, 2024.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240,
An extension to an existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compact does not require approval by the Secretary if the extension does not modify any other terms of the compact. 25 CFR 293.5. The following Tribes and the State of California have reached an agreement to extend the expiration date of their existing Tribal-State Class III gaming compacts to December 31, 2024: the Bishop Paiute Tribe; and the Pit River Tribe, California. This publication provides notice of the new expiration date of the compacts.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the current list of 574 Tribal entities recognized by and eligible for funding and services from the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) by virtue of their status as Indian Tribes.
The list is updated from the notice published on August 11, 2023 (88 FR 54654).
Ms. Genevieve Giaccardo, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Deputy Director, Office of Indian Services, Mail Stop 3645-MIB, 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC 20240. Telephone number: (202) 513-7641.
This notice is published pursuant to section 104 of the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of November 2, 1994 (Pub. L. 103-454; 108 Stat. 4791, 4792), in accordance with section 83.6(a) of part 83 of title 25 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and in exercise of authority delegated to the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs under 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9 and 209 DM 8. Published below is an updated list of federally recognized Indian Tribes within the contiguous 48 states and Alaska. Amendments to the list include formatting edits and name changes.
To aid in identifying Tribal name changes, Tribes' previously listed, former names, or also known as (aka) names are included in parentheses after the correct current Tribal name. The BIA will continue to list the Tribe's former or previously listed name for several years before dropping the former or previously listed name from the list.
The listed Indian entities are recognized to have the immunities and privileges available to federally recognized Indian Tribes by virtue of their Government-to-Government relationship with the United States as well as the responsibilities, powers, limitations, and obligations of such Indian Tribes. The BIA has continued the practice of listing the Alaska Native entities separately for the purpose of facilitating identification of them.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior
Notice of official filing.
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon, 30 calendar days from the date of this publication.
Protests must be received by the BLM prior to the scheduled date of official filing, February 7, 2024.
A copy of the plats may be obtained from the Public Room at the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, 1220 SW 3rd Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204, upon required payment. The plats may be viewed at this location at no cost.
Robert Femling, telephone: (503) 808-6633, email:
The plats of survey of the following described lands are scheduled to be officially filed in the Bureau of Land Management, Oregon State Office, Portland, Oregon:
A person or party who wishes to protest one or more plats of survey identified above must file a written notice of protest with the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Oregon/Washington, Bureau of Land Management. The notice of protest must identify the plat(s) of survey that the person or party wishes to protest. The notice of protest must be filed before the scheduled date of official filing for the plat(s) of survey being protested. Any notice of protest filed after the scheduled date of official filing will be untimely and will not be considered. A notice of protest is considered filed on the date it is received by the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Oregon/Washington during regular business hours; if received after regular business hours, a notice of protest will be considered filed the next business day. A written statement of reasons in support of a protest, if not filed with the notice of protest, must be filed with the Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Oregon/Washington within 30 calendar days after the notice of protest is filed. If a notice of protest against a plat of survey is received prior to the scheduled date of official filing, the official filing of the plat of survey identified in the notice of protest will be stayed pending consideration of the protest. A plat of survey will not be officially filed until the next business day following dismissal or resolution of all protests of the plat.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in a notice of protest or statement of reasons, you should be aware that the documents you submit—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available in their entirety at any time. While you can ask us to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Portland State University (PSU) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from southwest Florida.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after February 7, 2024.
Reno Nims, Portland State University, Research & Graduate Studies, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207, telephone (503) 725-6611, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of PSU. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by PSU.
Human remains representing, at minimum, six individuals were removed from unknown locations in southwest Florida at an unknown date. PSU faculty members encountered these human remains in the Anthropology Department's archeology holdings at an unknown date between 1990 and 2002 in a box labeled “Arch-2 Burial.” Some of the human remains in this box were kept in a bag labeled “Florida,” and they were associated with other Native American human remains that were removed from Galt's Kay in Sarasota County, FL (Smithsonian catalog number: 292.763) and Casey Key in Lee County, FL (Smithsonian catalog numbers: 229.311, 229.316, 229.319, 229.320, 229.324, 229.328, 229.330, 229.334, 229.253, 229.259, and 229.844) by Aleš Hrdlička in 1916 or 1917 that are under the control of the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History. These human remains are all reasonably believed to have been brought to PSU by Marshall “Bud” Newman in 1962 when he left his position as Associate Curator of Physical Anthropology at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History to join the Anthropology Department at PSU. The 11 associated funerary objects are six pieces of worked faunal remains, two stone projectile points, one stone drill, one metal fragment, and one stone bowl fragment.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological information, archeological information, geographical information, and historical information.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, PSU has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of six individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 11 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Seminole Tribe of Florida and The Seminole Nation of Oklahoma.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 7, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, PSU must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. PSU is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), The Fort Ticonderoga Association has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Essex County, NY.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after February 7, 2024.
Margaret Staudter, The Fort Ticonderoga Association, 30 Fort Ti Rd., Ticonderoga, NY 12883, telephone (518) 585-1015, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of The Fort Ticonderoga Association. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by The Fort Ticonderoga Association.
Human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Ticonderoga Rock Shelter #2 in Essex County, NY. In September 1936, members of the Champlain Valley Archaeology Society led an excavation of a rock shelter near “Sentinel Rock”, a point on the Ticonderoga peninsula. The individuals (FT HR-01; FT HR-03; FT HR-08), and associated funerary objects were removed during the excavations were brought to Fort Ticonderoga. The 73 associated funerary objects are two bone awls, one lot of beaver teeth, one lot of bird bones, one lot of bear bones, one lot of bobcat bones, one lot of unidentified bones, one lot of nutshell fragments, one bullfrog pelvis, one lot of Canadian goose bones, one carnivore mandible, one lot of catfish/bullhead bones, one lot of
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: archeological and geographical evidence.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, The Fort Ticonderoga Association has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of three individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 73 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Cayuga Nation; Oneida Indian Nation; Oneida Nation; Onondaga Nation; Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe; Seneca Nation of Indians; Seneca-Cayuga Nation; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; Tonawanda Band of Seneca; and the Tuscarora Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 7, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the Fort Ticonderoga Association must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. The Fort Ticonderoga Association is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), California State University, Chico (CSU Chico) intends to repatriate certain cultural items that meet the definition of objects of cultural patrimony and that have a cultural affiliation with the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The cultural items were removed from Butte County, CA.
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice may occur on or after February 7, 2024.
Dawn Rewolinski, California State University, Chico, 400 W 1st Street, Chico, CA 95929, telephone (530) 898-3090, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of CSU Chico. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the summary or related records held by CSU Chico.
The 15 cultural items were removed from Butte County, CA. Sycamore Canyon Rock Shelter (CA-BUT-827) was surveyed by Bill Dreyer and Dan Foster in 1982. The cultural items that were archeologically recovered were brought to CSU Chico at an unknown date by an unknown individual. The 15 objects of cultural patrimony are 14 lots of modified stone and one lot of soil.
The cultural items in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological information, archeological information, oral tradition, and expert opinion in the form of Tribal traditional knowledge.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, CSU Chico has determined that:
• The 15 cultural items described above have ongoing historical, traditional, or cultural importance central to the Native American group or culture itself, rather than property owned by an individual.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the cultural items and the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California.
Additional, written requests for repatriation of the cultural items in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
Repatriation of the cultural items in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 7, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, CSU Chico must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the cultural items are considered a single request and not competing requests. CSU Chico is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before December 30, 2023, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted electronically by January 23, 2024.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to
Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program, 1849 C Street NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240,
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before December 30, 2023. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers.
310 Carrie Rex Avenue, Melba, SG100009871
A request for removal has been made for the following resource(s):
An additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Portland State University (PSU) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Clark County, WA, and Columbia County, OR.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after February 7, 2024.
Reno Nims, Portland State University, Research & Graduate Studies, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207, telephone (503) 725-6611, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of PSU. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by PSU.
Human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from Lady Island (45-CL-48) in Clark County, WA, by Oregon Archaeological Society members. Radiocarbon dates from the site suggest these individuals may have been buried between 750 cal BCE and 200 cal CE. Unknown individuals donated the human remains to PSU at an unknown date between 1976 and 2011. The 27 associated funerary objects are one wood fragment, one faunal cranium, and 25 obsidian flakes.
Human remains representing, at minimum, 13 individuals were removed from the Herzog site (45-CL-11) in Clark County, WA, in 1965 by PSU under the direction of Thomas Newman, a faculty member in the Anthropology Department. The 20 associated funerary objects are two ceramic sherds, eight nails, three metal spoons, one lot of brick fragments, two lots of wood fragments, three rocks, and one fire-cracked rock.
Human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Meier site (35-CO-5) in Columbia County, OR, between 1987 and 1991, by PSU under the direction of Ken Ames, a faculty member in the Anthropology Department. These human remains were inadvertently excavated from deposits of faunal remains, and subsequently identified as human between 1991 and 1992 during faunal sorting and analysis. Radiocarbon dates and fur trade items from the site suggest these individuals may have been buried between 1000 cal CE and the late 1700s CE. The 15 associated funerary objects are faunal remains.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological information, archeological information, geographical information, and historical information.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of 19 individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 62 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 7, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, PSU must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. PSU is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Portland State University (PSU) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were removed from Columbia County, OR, and Cowlitz County, WA.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after February 7, 2024.
Reno Nims, Portland State University, Research & Graduate Studies, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207, telephone (503) 725-6611, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of PSU. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by PSU.
Human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from the Trojan site (35-CO-1) in Columbia County, OR, between 1968 and 1970 by members of the Oregon Archaeological Society. Excavated human remains were taken to PSU for osteological analysis. Radiocarbon dates and fur trade items from the site suggest these individuals may have been buried between 600 cal CE and the early 1800s CE. No associated funerary objects are present.
Human remains representing, at minimum, four individuals were removed from the Abernathy Creek site (45-CW-2) in Cowlitz County, WA, sometime before 1940, by Sanford Lord. In 1960, Sanford Lord donated these human remains to the Cowlitz County Historical Museum along with the bulk of his collection of Native American objects. On May 4, 1998, the director of the Cowlitz County Historical Museum, David Freece, transferred these human remains to PSU. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological information, archeological information, geographical information, and historical information.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, PSU has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of seven individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation; Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation; Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon; and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice, and, if joined to a request from one or more of the Indian Tribes, Chinook Indian Nation, a non-federally recognized Indian group.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows,
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 7, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, PSU must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. PSU is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Bonanzaville, Cass County Historical Society (Bonanzaville) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes in this notice. The human remains were removed from unknown locations in either North Dakota or South Dakota.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after February 7, 2024.
David Hubin, Curator, Bonanzaville, Cass County Historical Society, 1351 Main Avenue West, West Fargo, ND 58078, telephone (701) 282-2822, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of Bonanzaville. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by Bonanzaville.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown location. The human remains, a bracelet made of human finger and toe bones, were loaned to the State Teachers College in Moorhead, MN, which would later become the Clay County Historical Society in Moorhead, MN, by Usher Burdick. It was part of a larger collection of Native American items loaned by Burdick for display starting in 1930. In 1970, at the request of Quentin Burdick (Usher's son), the collection was transferred to the Cass County Historical Society, ND, for display in their new Native American Museum with full ownership. The finger bone bracelet is mentioned in several early inventories, but no other information is given on how Usher Burdick received the items. No known individuals were identified. No associated funerary objects are present.
Usher Burdick was a member of the North Dakota State House of Representatives from 1907 to 1911 and served as Speaker in 1909. He was Lieutenant Governor of North Dakota from 1911 to 1913 and served as assistant United States district attorney for North Dakota from 1929 to 1932. Burdick was a State Representative for North Dakota from 1935 to 1944 and again from 1949-1959. His service to North Dakota led him to many relationships with tribal leaders in North and South Dakota who either gave him or sold him Native American items. We can only assume that these human remains were given to him in the same manner.
A physical examination of the human remains by Phoebe Stubblefield, Professor of Forensic Anthropology at the University of North Dakota and Paul Picha, Chief Anthropologist at the State Historical Society of North Dakota revealed some additional clues. They confirmed the bones to be human and the bracelet contains a combination of first distal phalange from thumbs and first toe and distal phalange from other four digits. Stubblefield concluded that the human remains had spent some time buried and may have spent some time on a scaffold. Each bone has had a precise hole drilled suggesting a modern drill bit. Both Stubblefield and Picha estimate the age to be 100-150 years old based on native customs and the decomposition of the bones. Based on the physical evidence, we could not determine race or tribal affiliation. Because of its inclusion in the Native American collection given by Burdick and his collecting habits, staff has deduced that the human remains are Native American remains from a North Dakota or South Dakota Tribe.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical and historical.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, Bonanzaville has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe of the Cheyenne River Reservation, South Dakota; Crow Creek Sioux Tribe of the Crow Creek Reservation, South Dakota; Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe of South Dakota; Lower Brule Sioux Tribe of the Lower Brule Reservation, South Dakota; Oglala Sioux Tribe; Rosebud Sioux Tribe of the Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota; Sisseton-Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation, South Dakota; Spirit Lake Tribe, North Dakota; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe of North & South Dakota; Three Affiliated Tribes of the Fort Berthold Reservation, North Dakota; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Yankton Sioux Tribe of South Dakota.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 7, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, Bonanzaville must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. Bonanzaville is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Lake Mead National Recreation Area (LAKE) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Clark County, NV.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after February 7, 2024.
Mike Gauthier, Superintendent, Lake Mead National Recreation Area, 601 Nevada Way, Boulder City, NV 89005, telephone (760) 252-6103, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, LAKE. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by LAKE.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the Lost City site (26CK007) in Clark County, NV, in the early to mid-1960s by amateur archeologist R.V. Seeley during his exploration of the site. The collection was donated by Mr. Seeley to the Burke Museum at the University of Washington in 1965 and later transferred to LAKE in 2002. The two associated funerary objects are one lot of ceramic sherds and one lot of lithic fragments.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological information, archeological information, geographical information, and historical information.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, LAKE has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of one individual of Native American ancestry.
• The two objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Ak-Chin Indian Community; Chemehuevi Indian Tribe of the Chemehuevi Reservation, California; Colorado River Indian Tribes of the Colorado River Indian Reservation, Arizona and California; Fort Mojave Indian Tribe of Arizona, California & Nevada; Gila River Indian Community of the Gila River Indian Reservation, Arizona; Havasupai Tribe of the Havasupai Reservation, Arizona; Hopi Tribe of Arizona; Hualapai Indian Tribe of the Hualapai Indian Reservation, Arizona; Kaibab Band of Paiute Indians of the Kaibab Indian Reservation, Arizona; Las Vegas Tribe of Paiute Indians of the Las Vegas Indian Colony, Nevada; Moapa Band of Paiute Indians of the Moapa River Indian Reservation, Nevada; Navajo Nation, Arizona, New Mexico, & Utah; Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah (Cedar Band of Paiutes, Kanosh Band of Paiutes, Koosharem Band of Paiutes, Indian Peaks Band of Paiutes, and Shivwits Band of Paiutes); Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, California & Arizona; Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community of the Salt River Reservation, Arizona; Yavapai-Prescott Indian Tribe; and the Zuni Tribe of the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 7, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, LAKE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. LAKE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee (UWM) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary object and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary object and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary object were removed from Clark County, IN.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object in this notice may occur on or after February 7, 2024.
Jennifer R. Haas, NAGPRA Coordinator, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53201, telephone (414) 229-3078, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the UWM. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by the UWM.
On an unknown date, human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Clark County, IN, by Paul Turney (also spelled “Tourney”) during investigations at the “Kelly” site, part of the Old Clarksville Site (12CL1). The human remains and associated funerary object were donated to the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee in 1990 after Turney's death. The one associated funerary object is one lot of faunal bone including an antler tine and two indeterminate fragments.
The human remains and associated funerary object in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: geographical information and expert opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, the UWM has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The one object described in this notice is reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians of the Bad River Reservation, Wisconsin; Bay Mills Indian Community, Michigan; Chippewa Cree Indians of the Rocky Boy's Reservation, Montana; Citizen Potawatomi Nation, Oklahoma; Eastern Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Forest County Potawatomi Community, Wisconsin; Grand Traverse Band of Ottawa and Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Hannahville Indian Community, Michigan; Keweenaw Bay Indian Community, Michigan; Kickapoo Traditional Tribe of Texas; Kickapoo Tribe of Indians of the Kickapoo Reservation in Kansas; Kickapoo Tribe of Oklahoma; Lac Courte Oreilles Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Lac du Flambeau Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of the Lac du Flambeau Reservation of Wisconsin; Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Michigan; Little River Band of Ottawa Indians, Michigan; Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa Indians of Montana; Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, Michigan; Match-e-be-nash-she-wish Band of Pottawatomi Indians of Michigan; Miami Tribe of Oklahoma; Minnesota Chippewa Tribe, Minnesota (Six component reservations: Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake); Fond du Lac Band; Grand Portage Band; Leech Lake Band; Mille Lacs Band; White Earth Band); Nottawaseppi Huron Band of the Potawatomi, Michigan; Ottawa Tribe of Oklahoma; Peoria Tribe of Indians of Oklahoma; Pokagon Band of Potawatomi Indians, Michigan, and Indiana; Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation; Red Cliff Band of Lake Superior Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians, Minnesota; Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe of Michigan; Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, Michigan; Shawnee Tribe; Sokaogon Chippewa Community, Wisconsin; St. Croix Chippewa Indians of Wisconsin; Stockbridge Munsee Community, Wisconsin; Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians of North Dakota; and the Wyandotte Nation.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 7, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, the UWM must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary object are considered a single request and not competing requests. The UWM is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Yosemite National Park (YOSE) has completed an inventory of human remains and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains were removed from Mariposa County, CA.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice may occur on or after February 7, 2024.
Cicely Muldoon, Superintendent, Yosemite National Park, 9039 Village Drive, Yosemite National Park, CA 95389, telephone (202) 372-8181, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of the Superintendent, YOSE. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by YOSE.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown site in Mariposa County, CA, in the 1930s by a California Conservation Crew working in the Crane Flat area. The human remains were identified at the time of discovery as Native American by a physical anthropologist and were turned over to the Yosemite Museum by Gus Eastman, the park ranger overseeing the crew. No associated funerary objects are present.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from an unknown site in the Cascades area in Mariposa County, CA, in the 1930s. The human remains were identified at the time of discovery as Native American by a physical anthropologist and were turned over by a donor named Edward L. Eidem. No associated funerary objects are present.
Human remains representing, at minimum, three individuals were removed from CA-MRP-301 in Mariposa County, CA in 1988 during heavy equipment excavation of a trench for a National Park Service electrical line. An examination by a physical anthropologist determined that these human remains are Native American and were buried approximately 800 years ago. No associated funerary objects are present.
The human remains in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: archeological information, biological information, geographical information, historical information, and expert opinion.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, YOSE has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of five individuals of Native American ancestry.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains described in this notice and the Bishop Paiute Tribe; Bridgeport Indian Colony; Northfork Rancheria of Mono Indians of California; Picayune Rancheria of Chukchansi Indians of California; and the Tuolumne Band of Me-Wuk Indians of the Tuolumne Rancheria of California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes identified in this notice and, if joined to a request from one or more of the Indian Tribes, the Southern Sierra Miwuk Nation, and Mono Lake Kootzaduka'a Tribe, non-federally recognized Indian groups.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 7, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, YOSE must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains are considered a single request and not competing requests. YOSE is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the California State University, Chico (CSU Chico) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from CSU Chico.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects
Dawn Rewolinski, California State University, Chico, 400 W 1st Street, Chico, CA 95929, telephone (530) 898-3090, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of CSU Chico. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the determinations in this notice, including the results of consultation, can be found in the inventory or related records held by CSU Chico.
The Finch Site (CA-BUT-12) in Butte County, CA, was first recorded by A. Pilling in 1949 and later in 1963 by Dorothy Hill. Francis Riddell led a Chico State College (now CSU, Chico) field class excavation at the site in the summer of 1963, and Professor Keith Johnson, accompanied by Riddell, led a second excavation at the site with a Chico State College field class in spring, 1964. Joseph Chartkoff (then of UCLA) led an excavation at the site in summer, 1967. In spring, 1983, and spring, 1984, Professor Makoto Kowta led CSU, Chico field class excavations at the site. Our records indicated the site was archeologically recovered as a joint project between UCLA and CSU Chico. CSU Chico contacted UCLA to determine if they held any additional human remains and cultural items from the 1967 archeological recovery. UCLA determined they did have cultural items from CA-BUT-12 and transferred legal and physical control of the additional cultural items to CSU Chico on October 23, 2023. Human remains were also identified in the rehousing process of the additional cultural items at CSU Chico.
Human remains representing, at minimum, two individuals were removed from Butte County, CA. The 6,735 associated funerary objects were a part of the original excavations and collection, which UCLA transferred to CSU Chico to be reinterred with the ancestors and cultural items of Accession 4, Finch Site (CA-BUT-12) listed in the Notice of Inventory Completion published in the
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological information, archeological information, oral tradition, and expert opinion in the form of tribal traditional knowledge.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, CSU Chico has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of two individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 6,735 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Mechoopda Indian Tribe of Chico Rancheria, California.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 7, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, CSU Chico must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. CSU Chico is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
In accordance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), Portland State University (PSU) has completed an inventory of human remains and associated funerary objects and has determined that there is a cultural affiliation between the human remains and associated funerary objects and Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations in this notice. The human remains and associated funerary objects were removed from Tillamook County, OR.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice may occur on or after February 7, 2024.
Reno Nims, Portland State University, Research & Graduate Studies, P.O. Box 751, Portland, OR 97207, telephone (503) 725-6611, email
This notice is published as part of the National Park Service's administrative responsibilities under NAGPRA. The determinations in this notice are the sole responsibility of PSU. The National Park Service is not responsible for the determinations in this notice. Additional information on the
Human remains representing, at minimum, five individuals were removed from an unknown location in Tillamook County, OR, at an unknown date. PSU faculty members encountered these human remains in the Anthropology Department's archeology holdings at an unknown date between 2003 and 2011. The 21 associated funerary objects are 15 pieces of worked stone, three burnt faunal remains, one bivalve shell, and two ceramic plate fragments.
Human remains representing, at minimum, one individual were removed from the site of Chishucks Village in Tillamook County, OR, in 1971 by Ron Kent, a PSU master's student in the Anthropology Department. These human remains were inadvertently excavated from deposits of faunal remains, and subsequently identified as human in 2021 and 2022 by PSU staff members during a thorough search for Native American human remains and cultural items in the Anthropology Department's archeology holdings. The one associated funerary object is a clay pipe fragment.
The human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice are connected to one or more identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures. There is a relationship of shared group identity between the identifiable earlier groups, tribes, peoples, or cultures and one or more Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations. The following types of information were used to reasonably trace the relationship: anthropological information, archeological information, geographical information, and historical information.
Pursuant to NAGPRA and its implementing regulations, and after consultation with the appropriate Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, PSU has determined that:
• The human remains described in this notice represent the physical remains of six individuals of Native American ancestry.
• The 22 objects described in this notice are reasonably believed to have been placed with or near individual human remains at the time of death or later as part of the death rite or ceremony.
• There is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced between the human remains and associated funerary objects described in this notice and the Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians of Oregon; Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon; and the Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs Reservation of Oregon.
Written requests for repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice must be sent to the Responsible Official identified in
1. Any one or more of the Indian Tribes or Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice, and, if joined to a request from one or more of the Indian Tribes, Chinook Indian Nation, a non-federally recognized Indian group.
2. Any lineal descendant, Indian Tribe, or Native Hawaiian organization not identified in this notice who shows, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the requestor is a lineal descendant or a culturally affiliated Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian organization.
Repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects in this notice to a requestor may occur on or after February 7, 2024. If competing requests for repatriation are received, PSU must determine the most appropriate requestor prior to repatriation. Requests for joint repatriation of the human remains and associated funerary objects are considered a single request and not competing requests. PSU is responsible for sending a copy of this notice to the Indian Tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations identified in this notice.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of intent to grant exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license.
NASA hereby gives notice of its intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license to practice the inventions described and claimed in the patents and/or patent applications listed in
The prospective exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive license may be granted unless NASA receives written objections including evidence and argument, no later than January 23, 2024 that establish that the grant of the license would not be consistent with the requirements regarding the licensing of federally owned inventions as set forth in the Bayh-Dole Act and implementing regulations. Competing applications completed and received by NASA no later than January 23, 2024 will also be treated as objections to the grant of the contemplated exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive license. Objections submitted in response to this notice will not be made available to the public for inspection and, to the extent permitted by law, will not be released under the Freedom of Information Act.
NASA intends to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive, or partially exclusive patent license in the United States to practice the inventions described and claimed in: U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 17/999,875, entitled “Manual Ventilators and Methods for Making Ventilators” to LifeBot, LLC., having its principal place of business in Chicago, Illinois. The fields of use may be limited. NASA has not yet made a final determination to grant the requested license and may deny the requested license even if no objections are submitted within the comment period. This notice of intent to grant an exclusive, co-exclusive or partially exclusive patent license is issued in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 209(e) and 37 CFR 404.7(a)(1)(i). The patent rights in these inventions have been assigned to the United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The prospective license will comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 209 and 37 CFR 404.7.
Information about other NASA inventions available for licensing can be found online at
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice.
NARA has submitted to OMB for approval the information collection described in this notice. We invite you to comment on the proposed information collection.
OMB must receive written comments on or before February 7, 2024.
Send any comments and recommendations on the proposed information collection in writing to
Tamee Fechhelm, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, by email at
Pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13), we invite the public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed information collections. We published a notice of proposed collection for this information collection on October 23, 2023 (88 FR 72795) and we received no comments. We are therefore submitting the described information collection to OMB for approval.
If you have comments or suggestions, they should address one or more of the following points: (a) whether the proposed information collection is necessary for NARA to properly perform its functions; (b) our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection and its accuracy; (c) ways we could enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information we collect; (d) ways we could minimize the burden on respondents of collecting the information, including through information technology; and (e) whether this collection affects small businesses.
In this notice, we solicit comments concerning the following information collection:
In notice document 2023-28880 appearing on page 488 in the issue of Thursday, January 4, 2024, make the following correction:
On page 488 in the first column, after the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Request for comment; public comment meetings; opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), published as NUREG-1437, Supplement 7a, Second Renewal, “Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for Comment.” This DEIS supersedes NUREG-1437, Supplement 7, Second Renewal, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 7, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for Comment,” published in August 2021. North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2 (North Anna) are located in Louisa County, Virginia. Possible alternatives to the proposed action of subsequent license renewal for North Anna include the no-action alternative and reasonable replacement power alternatives. A new notice of opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave to intervene—limited to contentions based on new information in the DEIS—is also being issued.
The NRC will hold a webinar on the DEIS, including a presentation on the preliminary recommendation in the DEIS and a transcribed public comment session. The webinar will be held January 30, 2024, at 1 p.m. eastern time (ET). NRC is also planning an in-person meeting during the DEIS comment period. The meeting details will be posted on the NRC's Public Meeting Schedule at:
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
Tam Tran, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-3617; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2020-0201 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC will post all comment submissions at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
The NRC is issuing for public comment a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), published as NUREG-1437, Supplement 7a, Second Renewal, “Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for Comment.” The DEIS supersedes a draft supplemental environmental impact statement (DSEIS) published as NUREG-1437, Supplement 7, Second Renewal, “Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 7, Second Renewal, Regarding Subsequent License Renewal for North Anna Power Station Units 1 and 2, Draft Report for Comment” (ADAMS Accession No. ML21228A084) published for comment on August 25, 2021 (86 FR 47525).
The DEIS supersedes the August 2021 DSEIS and includes the NRC staff's site-specific evaluation of the environmental impacts of subsequent license renewal (SLR) for North Anna for each of the environmental issues that were previously dispositioned as Category 1 issues (generic to all or a distinct subset of nuclear power plants) in the August 2021 DSEIS consistent with the list of Category 1 issues in Table B-1 in appendix B to subpart A of title 10 of the
As the Commission directed in CLI-22-03, a new notice of opportunity to request a hearing and petition for leave
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
A State, local governmental body, federally recognized Native American Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, federally recognized Native American Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, federally recognized Native American Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC's public website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Postal Service has filed an Annual Compliance Report on the costs, revenues, rates, and quality of service associated with its products in fiscal year 2023. Within 90 days, the Commission must evaluate that information and issue its determination as to whether rates were compliant and whether service standards in effect were met. To assist in this, the Commission seeks public comments on the Postal Service's Annual Compliance Report.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
On December 29, 2023, the Postal Service filed with the Commission its Annual Compliance Report (ACR) for fiscal year (FY) 2023, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3652.
The filing begins a review process that results in an Annual Compliance Determination (ACD) issued by the Commission to determine whether Postal Service products offered during FY 2023 were in compliance with applicable title 39 requirements.
The FY 2023 ACR includes a discussion by class of each Market Dominant product, including costs, revenues, and volumes, workshare discounts, and passthroughs responsive to 39 U.S.C. 3652(b), and FY 2023 promotions.
The Commission also invites public comment on the cost coverage matters the Postal Service addresses in its filing; service performance results; levels of customer satisfaction achieved; and such other matters that may be relevant to the Commission's review.
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. ACR2023 to consider matters raised by the United States Postal Service's FY 2023 Annual Compliance Report.
2. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Kenneth R. Moeller as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) in this proceeding to represent the interests of the general public.
3. Comments on the United States Postal Service's FY 2023 Annual Compliance Report to the Commission are due on or before January 30, 2024.
4. Reply comments are due on or before February 13, 2024.
5. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's fee schedule applicable to Members
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to establish an ORF in the amount of $0.0015 per contract side, effective immediately.
MEMX previously filed a proposal to establish an ORF in the amount of $0.0015 per contract side on September 27, 2023 (the “Initial ORF Filing”),
As explained in the Initial ORF Filing, the per-contract ORF will be collected by the Options Clearing Corporation (“OCC”) on behalf of the Exchange for each options transaction, cleared or ultimately cleared by an Exchange member in the “customer” range, regardless of the exchange on which the transaction occurs. The ORF is collected from either: (1) a Member that was the ultimate clearing firm
To illustrate how the ORF will be assessed and collected, the Exchange provides the following set of examples.
1. For all transactions executed on the Exchange, if the ultimate clearing firm is a Member of the Exchange, the ORF is assessed to and collected from that Member. If the ultimate clearing firm is not a Member of the Exchange, the ORF is collected from that non-Member clearing firm but assessed to the executing clearing firm.
2. If the transaction is executed on an away exchange, the ORF is only assessed and collected if either the executing clearing firm or ultimate clearing firm are Members of the Exchange. If the ultimate clearing firm is a Member of the Exchange, the ORF is assessed to and collected from that ultimate clearing firm. If the ultimate clearing firm is not a Member of the Exchange, the ORF is assessed to the executing clearing firm (again, only if that executing clearing firm is a Member of the Exchange), and collected from the ultimate clearing firm. Thus, to reiterate, if neither the executing clearing firm nor the ultimate clearing firm are members of the Exchange, no ORF is assessed or collected.
Finally, the Exchange will not assess the ORF on outbound linkage trades. “Linkage trades” are tagged in the Exchange's system, so the Exchange can distinguish them from other trades. A customer order routed to another exchange results in the appearance of two customer trades, one from the originating exchange and one from the recipient exchange. Charging ORF on both trades could result in double-billing of ORF for a single customer order, thus the Exchange will not assess ORF on outbound linkage trades in a linkage scenario.
As a practical matter, when a transaction that is subject to the ORF is not executed on the Exchange, the Exchange lacks the information necessary to identify the order entering member for that transaction. There are countless order entering market participants, and each day such participants can drop their connection to one market center and establish themselves as participants on another. For these reasons, it is not possible for the Exchange to identify, and thus assess fees such as an ORF, on order entering participants on away markets on a given trading day.
Clearing members, however, are distinguished from order entering participants because they remain identified to the Exchange on information the Exchange receives from the OCC regardless of the identity of the order entering participant, their location, and the market center on which they execute transactions. Therefore, the Exchange believes it is more efficient for the operation of the Exchange and for the marketplace as a whole to collect the ORF from clearing members. Additionally, this collection method was originally instituted for the benefit of clearing firms that desired to have the ORF be collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the transaction. The clearing firms may then choose to pass through all, a portion, or none of the cost of the ORF to its customers,
As discussed below, the Exchange believes it is appropriate to charge the ORF only to transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. The Exchange believes that its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to a Member's activities support applying the ORF to transactions cleared but not executed by a Member. The Exchange's regulatory responsibilities are the same regardless of whether a Member enters an order that executes or clears a transaction executed on behalf of another party. The Exchange will regularly review all such activities, including performing surveillance for position limit violations, end of day and intra-day manipulation, front-running, contrary exercise advice violations and insider trading. These activities span across multiple exchanges.
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs to the Exchange of the supervision and regulation of Members' customer options business, including performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive and enforcement activities. The Exchange believes that revenue generated from the ORF, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees and fines, will
The Exchange will monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. More specifically, the Exchange will ensure that revenue generated from ORF not exceed 75% of total annual regulatory costs. The Exchange will monitor regulatory costs and revenues at a minimum on a semi-annual basis. If the Exchange determines regulatory revenues exceed or are insufficient to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, the Exchange will adjust the ORF by submitting a fee change filing to the Commission. Going forward, the Exchange will notify Members of adjustments to the ORF via regulatory circular at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable and appropriate for the Exchange to charge the ORF for customer options transactions regardless of the exchange on which the transactions occur. The Exchange has a statutory obligation to enforce compliance by Members and their associated persons under the Act and the rules of the Exchange and to surveil for other manipulative conduct by market participants trading on the Exchange. The Exchange will not be able to effectively surveil for such conduct without looking at and evaluating activity across all options markets. Many of the Exchange's market surveillance programs require the Exchange to look at and evaluate activity across all options markets, such as surveillance for position limit violations, end of day and intra-day manipulation, front-running and contrary exercise advice violations/expiring exercise declarations. While much of this activity relates to the execution of orders, the ORF is assessed on and collected from clearing firms. The Exchange, because it lacks access to information on the identity of the entering firm for executions that occur on away markets, believes it is appropriate to assess the ORF on its Members' clearing activity, based on information the Exchange receives from the OCC, including for away market activity. Among other reasons, doing so better and more accurately captures activity that occurs away from the Exchange but which may relate to activity occurring on the Exchange. Without reviewing activity on a market-wide basis, the Exchange would not be able to effectively identify potentially problematic cross-market activity, with a portion occurring on other options exchanges and a portion on the Exchange. Again, the Exchange reiterates that it will not
In addition to its own surveillance programs, the Exchange will work with other SROs and exchanges on intermarket surveillance related issues in connection with its regulatory program for options. Specifically, the Exchange and other options exchanges are required to populate a consolidated options audit trail (“COATS”)
The Exchange believes that charging the ORF across markets will avoid having Members direct their trades to other markets in order to avoid the fee and to thereby avoid paying for their fair share for regulation. If the ORF did not apply to activity across markets then a Member would send their orders to the least cost, least regulated exchange (to the extent permissible under the Options Linkage plan, which, among other requirements, prohibits trading through of better priced quotations). Other exchanges do impose a similar fee on their members' activity, and their fees will extend to include the activities of their own members on the Exchange. In other words, since MEMX Options launched on September 27, 2023, other exchanges have charged the ORF for executions occurring on MEMX Options cleared by their customers.
The Exchange notes that there is established precedent for an SRO charging a fee across markets, namely, FINRA's Trading Activity Fee
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to specify in the Fee Schedule that the Exchange may only increase or decrease the ORF semi-annually. In addition to submitting a proposed rule change to the Commission as required by the Act to increase or decrease the ORF, the Exchange will notify participants via a Regulatory Circular of any anticipated change in the amount of the fee at least 30 calendar days prior to the effective date of the change. The Exchange believes that by providing guidance on the timing of any changes to the ORF, the Exchange would make it easier for participants to ensure their systems are configured to properly account for the ORF.
Lastly, the Exchange recognizes that in 2019, the Commission issued suspensions of and orders instituting proceedings to determine whether to approve or disapprove a proposed rule change to modify the Options Regulatory Fee of NYSE American, NYSE Arca, MIAX, MIAX Pearl, MIAX Emerald, Cboe, Cboe EDGX Options, and C2.
In the OIP, the Commission emphasized the potential lack of sufficiently detailed “quantitative and qualitative evidence” in support of the Exchange's proposal. As an example, as it relates to the Exchange's imposition of ORF on executions cleared in a customer capacity, the Commission suggested the Exchange provide, amongst other data points, the percentage of volume expected to clear
As such, the Exchange proposes that the ORF proposed herein will automatically sunset on May 31, 2024, approximately six months after the operative date of this filing. The Exchange believes this will allow it the time to gather the necessary data, including its actual regulatory costs and revenues, as well as the cost of regulating executions that clear in a customer capacity and executions that occur on away markets, while also allowing it to adequately cover a portion of the projected costs associated with the regulation of its Members and avoid the unfair competitive disadvantage it would be placed at if it were disallowed to collect ORF during the time period needed to assess and collect data it does not have as a new options exchange. Such a process will inform the Exchange's approach to the ORF after the sunset date. To reiterate, as a new exchange, not having the opportunity to fund its regulatory program through the same regulatory fee charged by every other options exchange would place an undue competitive disadvantage upon the Exchange's regulatory program and options business as a whole. Further, the Exchange emphasizes that other exchanges will be charging ORF for transactions occurring on MEMX Options, and as such, it follows that the Exchange that is primarily responsible for monitoring those transactions should also be able to charge the ORF for activity occurring on its own market, as well as transactions it surveils on away markets.
The Exchange is proposing to establish an ORF in the amount of $0.0015 per contract side, to be operative immediately, and that will automatically sunset on May 31, 2024. The amount of the proposed fee is based on historical industry volume, projected volumes on the Exchange, and projected Exchange regulatory costs. As noted above, the Exchange will continually gather relevant data throughout the sunset period and review its ORF to ensure that the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange believes that this proposal will permit the Exchange to cover a material portion of its regulatory costs, while not exceeding regulatory costs, and gather the necessary data to provide the Commission evidence to inform its approach to the ORF after the sunset period.
The Exchange notified current and future Members via a Regulatory Circular of the proposed ORF at least 30 calendar days prior to the proposed operative date, on August 1, 2023,
The Exchange believes that its proposal to amend its Fee Schedule is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act
The Exchange believes that establishing an ORF in the amount of $0.0015 is reasonable because the Exchange's collection of ORF needs to be balanced against the amount of projected regulatory costs incurred by the Exchange. The Exchange believes that the amount proposed herein will serve to balance the Exchange's regulatory revenue against the anticipated regulatory costs. Moreover, the proposed amount is lower than the amount of ORF assessed on other exchanges.
The Exchange believes the proposed ORF is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it is objectively allocated to Members in that it is charged to all Members on all their transactions that clear as customer at the OCC. Moreover, the Exchange believes the ORF ensures fairness by assessing fees to those Members that are directly based on the amount of customer options business they conduct. Regulating customer trading activity is generally more labor intensive and requires greater expenditure of human and technical resources than regulating non-customer trading activity as the Exchange needs to review not only the trading activity on behalf of customers, but also the Member's relationship with its customers via more labor-intensive exam-based programs. As a result, the costs associated with administering the customer component of the Exchange's overall regulatory program are materially higher than the costs associated with administering the non-customer component (
The ORF is designed to recover a material portion of the costs of supervising and regulating Members' customer options business including performing routine surveillances and investigations, as well as policy, rulemaking, interpretive, and enforcement activities. The Exchange will monitor the amount of revenue collected from the ORF to ensure that it, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed the Exchange's total regulatory costs. The Exchange has designed the ORF to generate revenues that, when combined with all of the Exchange's other regulatory fees, will be less than 75% of the Exchange's regulatory costs, which is consistent with the Exchange's by-laws that state in Section 17.4(b): “[a]ny Regulatory Funds shall not be used for non-regulatory purposes or distributed, advanced or allocated to any Company Member, but rather, shall be applied to fund regulatory operations of the Company (including surveillance and enforcement activities) . . .”.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to limit changes to the ORF to twice a year with advance notice is reasonable because it will give participants certainty on the timing of changes, if any, and better enable them to properly account for ORF charges among their customers. The Exchange believes that limiting changes to the ORF to twice a year is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to the ORF and provide them with additional advance notice of changes to that fee.
The Exchange believes that the proposal to collect the ORF from non-Members when such non-Members ultimately clear the transaction (that is, when the non-Member is the “ultimate clearing firm” for a transaction in which a Member was assessed the ORF), is an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities. The Exchange notes that there is a material distinction between “assessing” the ORF and “collecting” the ORF. The Exchange does not assess the ORF to non-Members in any instance. For all executions, regardless of where they occur, the ORF is collected from the ultimate clearing firm, regardless of whether that clearing firm is a Member, but only if the original executing clearing firm is a Member. If the original executing clearing firm is a not a Member, no ORF is assessed or collected. If the original executing clearing firm is a Member, while the ORF may be collected from the ultimate non-Member clearing firm, the ORF is assessed to the Member executing clearing firm. The Exchange believes that this collection practice is reasonable and appropriate, given its broad regulatory responsibilities with respect to its Members activity, as well as the fact that this collection method was originally instituted for the benefit of clearing firms that desired to have the ORF be collected from the clearing firm that ultimately clears the transaction.
The Exchange believes that implementing the proposed ORF with a sunset date of approximately six months after the operative date is reasonable because it will give the Exchange adequate time to collect and analyze pertinent data while ensuring the Exchange, as a new entrant into equity options trading, is able to adequately fund its regulatory program to the same extent as its competitors. As noted above, the Exchange emphasizes that other exchanges will be charging ORF for transactions occurring on MEMX Options, and as such, it follows that the Exchange that is primarily responsible for monitoring those transactions should also be able to charge the ORF for activity occurring on its own market, as well as transactions it surveils on away markets.
The Exchange believes that implementing the ORF with the sunset provision is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it will apply in the same manner to all Members that are subject to the ORF and the Exchange will provide such Members with advance notice of any changes to the ORF imposed by the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. This proposal will not create an unnecessary or inappropriate intra-market burden on competition because the ORF will apply to all customer activity, and is designed to enable the Exchange to recover a material portion of the Exchange's cost related to its regulatory activities. This proposal will not create an unnecessary or inappropriate inter-market burden on competition because it will be a regulatory fee that supports regulation and customer protection in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange is obligated to ensure that the amount of regulatory revenue collected from the ORF, in combination with its other regulatory fees and fines, does not exceed regulatory costs. The Exchange's proposed ORF, as described herein, is lower than or comparable to fees charged by other options exchanges (though as noted above, some exchange groups do have options exchanges operating with a lower ORF on a
The Exchange notes that while it does not believe that its proposed ORF will impose any burden on inter-market competition, the Exchange not charging an ORF or being precluded from charging an ORF would, in-fact, represent a significant burden on competition. As noted above, the Exchange is a new entrant in the highly competitive environment for equity options trading. As also noted above, all sixteen (16) registered options exchanges currently impose the ORF on their members, and, similar to the Exchange, the majority of the options exchanges launched over the last decade have implemented an ORF on the day of launch or shortly thereafter.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the 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 change 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.
2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 11, 2024.
The meeting will be held via remote means and/or at the Commission's headquarters, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549.
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Commissioners, Counsel to the Commissioners, the Secretary to the Commission, and recording secretaries will attend the closed meeting. Certain staff members who have an interest in the matters also may be present.
In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date, and/or place of the meeting will be posted on the Commission's website at
The General Counsel of the Commission, or her designee, has certified that, in her opinion, one or more of the exemptions set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(3), (5), (6), (7), (8), 9(B) and (10) and 17 CFR 200.402(a)(3), (a)(5), (a)(6), (a)(7), (a)(8), (a)(9)(ii) and (a)(10), permit consideration of the scheduled matters at the closed meeting.
The subject matter of the closed meeting will consist of the following topics:
Institution and settlement of injunctive actions;
Institution and settlement of administrative proceedings;
Resolution of litigation claims; and
Other matters relating to examinations and enforcement proceedings.
At times, changes in Commission priorities require alterations in the scheduling of meeting agenda items that may consist of adjudicatory, examination, litigation, or regulatory matters.
For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.
Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (“PRA”) (44 U.S.C. 3501
Rule 12f-1 (“Rule”), originally adopted in 1979 pursuant to Sections 12(f) and 23(a) of the Act, and as further modified in 1995 and 2005, sets forth the requirements for filing an exchange application to reinstate unlisted trading privileges (“UTP”) in a security in which UTP has been suspended by the Commission pursuant to Section 12(f)(2)(A) of the Act. Under Rule 12f-1, an exchange must submit one copy of an application for reinstatement of UTP to the Commission that contains specified information, as set forth in the Rule. The application for reinstatement, pursuant to the Rule, must provide the name of the issuer, the title of the security, the name of each national securities exchange, if any, on which the security is listed or admitted to unlisted trading privileges, whether transaction information concerning the security is reported pursuant to an effective transaction reporting plan contemplated by Rule 601 of Regulation NMS, the date of the Commission's suspension of unlisted trading privileges in the security on the exchange, and any other pertinent information related to whether the reinstatement of UTP in the subject security is consistent with the maintenance of fair and orderly markets and the protection of investors. Rule 12f-1 further requires a national securities exchange seeking to reinstate its ability to extend unlisted trading privileges in a security to indicate that it has provided a copy of such application to the issuer of the security, as well as to any other national securities exchange on which the security is listed or admitted to unlisted trading privileges.
The information required by Rule 12f-1 enables the Commission to make the necessary findings under the Act prior to granting applications to reinstate unlisted trading privileges. This information is also made available to members of the public who may wish to comment upon the applications. Without the Rule, the Commission would be unable to fulfill these statutory responsibilities.
There are currently 24 national securities exchanges subject to Rule 12f-1. The burden of complying with Rule 12f-1 arises when a potential respondent seeks to reinstate its ability to extend unlisted trading privileges to any security for which unlisted trading privileges have been suspended by the Commission, pursuant to Section 12(f)(2)(A) of the Act. The staff estimates that each application would require approximately one hour to complete. Thus, each potential respondent would incur on average one burden hour in complying with the Rule.
The Commission staff estimates that there could be as many as 24 responses annually for an aggregate annual hour burden for all respondents of approximately 24 hours (24 responses × 1 hour per response). Each respondent's related internal cost of compliance for Rule 12f-1 would be approximately $242.00 (the cost of one hour of professional work of a paralegal needed to complete the application). The total annual cost of compliance for all potential respondents, therefore, is approximately $5,808 (24 responses × $242.00 per response).
Compliance with Rule 12f-1 is mandatory. Rule 12f-1 does not have a record retention requirement
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information under the PRA unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The public may view background documentation for this information collection at the following website:
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to amend the Exchange's fee schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) pursuant to Exchange Rules 15.1(a) and (c). The Exchange proposes to extend the waiver (the “Membership Fee Waiver”) of membership fees (“Membership Fees”) which is currently in place for all new Members
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to extend the time period for the waiver of Membership Fees until January 31, 2024. The Exchange will continue to implement the Membership Fee Waiver (as defined above) for all new Members who join the Exchange prior to and including January 31, 2024. The Exchange notes that the proposed change does not amend any existing fee or rebate for equities transactions, market data or connectivity fees. The sole change proposed herein is to extend the timeframe during which the Exchange will waive Membership Fees for new Members of the Exchange.
Currently, MEMX applies a Membership Fee Waiver to all new Members of the Exchange which is set to expire on December 31, 2023. Under the current Membership Fee Waiver, new Members who join the Exchange after December 31, 2023, would be assessed Membership Fees of $200 per month to maintain active membership, and new Members whose Membership Fees were waived during the Waiver Period would be assessed Membership Fees of $200 per month beginning January 1, 2024. In addition, in September of 2023 the Exchange adopted specific fees applicable to participation on the Exchange's platform for trading equity options (“MEMX Options”).
The Exchange believes that the existing Membership Fee Waiver has been effective in incentivizing options market participants to join MEMX Options. MEMX Options launched in September of 2023, and has been conducting a staged rollout of options available for trading on the Exchange since that time. The Exchange believes that its rollout will be complete in January of 2024 and would like to extend the Membership Fee Waiver until after its rollout is complete in the event there are options firms that are waiting to join the Exchange until after such rollout is complete. In addition, the Exchange believes the Membership Fee Waiver is a proper incentive for new participants on MEMX Options to continue to increase their participation as they become accustomed to the new trading platform.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to extend the time period of the Membership Fee Waiver to expire on January 31, 2024. The Exchange proposes to continue to waive Membership Fees for all new Members who join the exchange on or before January 31, 2024. Under the proposed Membership Fee Waiver, new Members who join the Exchange after January 31, 2024, will be assessed Membership Fees to maintain active membership and if applicable, Members who participate on MEMX Options will be assessed the specific Additional Fees applicable to such participation. Similarly, new Members whose Membership Fees have been waived since joining the Exchange will be assessed Membership Fees, including Additional Fees applicable to participation on MEMX Options, if applicable, beginning February 1, 2024. In addition, new Members of MEMX Options who join after January 31, 2024, will be assessed Membership Fees of $200 per month to maintain active membership, and new Members whose Membership Fees were waived will be assessed Membership Fees of $200 per month beginning February 1, 2024. Specifically, the Exchange is proposing to amend the description under “Membership” in the Exchange's Fee Schedule, noting that Membership Fees will be waived for new Members of the Exchange until February 1, 2024.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 6 of the Act,
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to extend the timeframe of the Membership Fee Waiver for new Members of the Exchange, primarily to continue to provide an incentive for options trading firms to continue to apply for Exchange membership during the current phase of the rollout of MEMX Options. The options markets are quote-driven markets and are dependent on liquidity providers for liquidity and price discovery. Extending the timeframe of the Membership Fee Waiver will continue to encourage additional liquidity providers to become members of the Exchange, which may result in more trading opportunities, enhanced competition, and improved overall market quality on the Exchange. Although the proposed extension of the Membership Fee Waiver timeframe is intended primarily to encourage new participants to join the Exchange in order to participate on the MEMX Options market and the Exchange believes the participants that will benefit from this waiver are firms that will do so, the Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to continue applying the Membership Fee Waiver broadly to all new participants on the Exchange during the timeframe extension, including firms that would trade only on the Exchange's market for equity securities or on both the Exchange's market for equity securities and MEMX Options.
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed extension of the Membership Fee Waiver is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory in that it will apply uniformly to all new
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would encourage market participants who have not already done so to join the Exchange. As a result, if such participants do join the Exchange and route their orders to the Exchange or support other Members that route orders (
As discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposal would encourage new participants to apply for Exchange membership, thereby enhancing liquidity and market quality on the Exchange, as well as enhancing the attractiveness of the Exchange as a trading venue, which the Exchange believes, in turn, would continue to encourage market participants to direct additional order flow to the Exchange.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes would impose any burden on intramarket competition because such changes will incentivize new participants to join the Exchange and the majority of the Exchange's current members joined at a time when the Exchange did not impose membership fees (also to incentivize such participants to join), and thus have already received this benefit. The options markets are quote-driven markets and are dependent on liquidity providers for liquidity and price discovery. The proposal will be of particular importance in encouraging additional liquidity providers to become members of the Exchange, which may result in more trading opportunities, enhanced competition, and improved overall market quality on the Exchange. For the foregoing reasons, the Exchange believes the proposed changes would not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
As described above, the proposed extension of the Membership Fee Waiver timeframe will incent market participants to join the Exchange during the extended Membership Fee Waiver period. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the proposal would not burden, but rather promote, intermarket competition by enabling it to better compete with other options exchanges during the continued rollout of MEMX Options. In addition, as noted above, the Exchange has intentionally proposed to apply the waiver broadly so that it continues to be applicable to new Members that will participate on the Exchange's market for equity securities or that will participate on such market as well as MEMX Options, and thus, the proposal may also better enable the Exchange to compete with other options exchanges and equities exchanges.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the 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 change 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”)
The proposed rule change
In its filing with the Commission, the clearing agency included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The clearing agency has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The proposed rule change would modify the Fee Guide to revise certain fees charged to Participants for (i) Participants Fund Maintenance; (ii) Underwriting Services; (iii) Asset Services; and (iv) Settlement Services, as described below.
DTC operates a “low cost” pricing model and has in place procedures to control costs and to regularly review pricing levels against costs of operation. It reviews pricing levels against its costs of operation during the annual budget process. The budget is approved annually by the Board. DTC's fees are cost-based plus a low-margin markup, as approved by the Board or management (pursuant to authority delegated by the Board), as applicable. The markup is applied to recover development costs and operating expenses, and to accumulate capital sufficient to meet regulatory and economic requirements. When estimating expected revenues and costs, DTC typically uses historical, current, and expected usage and market trends to determine revenue outlook and apply current budgeted assumptions on costs.
In addition to assessing the overall impact of fee changes at DTC, the Board also considers impacts of fee changes from an individual product/service category (
DTC maintains a pool of funds used for liquidity purposes consisting of mandatory and voluntary contributions by Participants (“Participants Fund”). The Participants Fund creates liquidity and collateral resources to support the business of DTC and to cover losses and liabilities incident to that business. For this purpose, every Participant has a Required Participants Fund Deposit based on the Participant's activity at DTC. The Participants Fund is held in cash at DTC and is used in the event a Participant fails to settle.
In support of maintaining the Participants Fund, DTC charges a Participants Fund Maintenance Fee, which is a monthly fee calculated, in arrears, as the product of (A) 0.25 percent and (B) the average of each Participant's Actual Participants Fund Deposit, as of the end of each day, for the month, multiplied by the number of days for that month and divided by 360.
All 193 Participants are projected to incur a 40 percent increase to their
DTC, through its Underwriting Department, serves the financial industry by making securities eligible for depository services. Through DTC, Participants have the ability to distribute new and secondary offerings quickly and economically by electronic book-entry delivery and settlement. These securities are then available for depository services.
Due to decreasing issuance volumes since 2021, strategic investments in modernization, and continued inflationary headwinds, DTC's Underwriting fees, which have not changed in 10 years, are not covering its costs. DTC proposes to amend the Fee Guide to increase the Underwriting eligibility fees charged to Participants to better align costs and revenue.
Specifically, DTC proposes to increase eligibility fees by approximately 20 percent across the following Underwriting fees (bold, underlined text indicates additions and bold, strikethrough text indicates deletions):
Sixty-five Participants would see an increase in Underwriting fees. Of these Participants, 14 would see an increase between $100,000 and $800,000; 26 would see an increase between $10,000 and $100,000; and 25 would see an increase of less than $10,000.
Asset Services is comprised of diverse asset events outside of clearance and settlement. It encompasses over 1.3 million DTC-eligible equity and debt securities, and provides efficient and effective centralization, simplification, and automation in the handling of physical securities. It also processes principal, income, and corporate actions for these instruments.
DTC conducted an extensive review of the current DTC Fee Schedule to ensure alignment with current practice and to streamline DTC's fee structure for a better client experience. The proposed changes to both eliminate and consolidate several Asset Services fees would improve customer billing transparency and provide clearer guidance on when fees are applied. The proposed changes also further reduce the complexity of tiered fee structures and eliminate fees for outdated and non-value-add services. These changes will not have a material impact on the total dollar amount of Asset Services fees charged to Participants.
Specifically, the following entries in the Asset Services section of the Fee Guide would be revised (bold, underlined text indicates additions and bold, strikethrough text indicates deletions):
The following entries in the Settlement Services section of the Fee Guide would be revised (bold, underlined text indicates additions and bold strikethrough text indicates deletions):
DTC has conducted ongoing outreach to each Participant in order to provide them with notice of the proposed changes and the anticipated impact for the Participant. The impact of the proposed changes was provided to Participants using year to date July 2023 annualized data. Participants asked clarifying questions but did not express concerns.
DTC would implement this proposal on January 1, 2024. To that effect, a legend would be added to the Fee Guide stating there are changes that have become effective upon filing with the but have not yet been implemented. The
DTC believes this proposal is consistent with the requirements of the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to a registered clearing agency. Specifically, DTC believes the proposed changes to modify fees charged to Participants for (i) Participants Fund Maintenance; (ii) Underwriting Services; (iii) Asset Services; and (iv) Settlement Services, as described above, are consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act,
Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act requires,
DTC also believes that the proposed fees would continue to be reasonable under the described changes. As described above, DTC's fees are cost-based plus a low-margin markup. As such the proposed fee changes are simply designed to better align to the projected operating costs and expenses of DTC relating to its services. For this reason, DTC believes that the proposed fee changes, as described above, are reasonable and consistent with Section 17A(b)(3)(D) of the Act.
Rule 17Ad-22(e)(23)(ii) under the Act
The proposed rule change may impact competition and that impact may be a burden because it would result in increased fees paid by Participants, as described above. However, DTC does not believe such a burden would be significant because the fees would be charged equally to all Participants that utilize DTC's services and would merely reflect the Participants' activity at DTC. Regardless, DTC believes any burden would be necessary and appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, as permitted by Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Act.
DTC believes any such burden would be necessary because the proposed fee increases would better align the fees with DTC's associated costs, helping DTC to achieve and maintain its net income margin. Meanwhile, DTC also believes that any such burden would be appropriate because the fees would continue to be equitably and reasonably allocated among all Participants, as described above.
DTC has not received or solicited any written comments relating to this proposal. If any written comments are received, they would be publicly filed as an Exhibit 2 to this filing, as required by Form 19b-4 and the General Instructions thereto.
Persons submitting comments are cautioned that, according to Section IV (Solicitation of Comments) of the Exhibit 1A in the General Instructions to Form 19b-4, the Commission does not edit personal identifying information from comment submissions. Commenters should submit only information that they wish to make available publicly, including their name, email address, and any other identifying information.
All prospective commenters should follow the Commission's instructions on how to submit comments,
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act and paragraph (f) of Rule 19b-4 thereunder. 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.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On November 17, 2023, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc. (“FINRA”) and Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“PHLX”) (together with FINRA, the “Parties”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a plan for the allocation of regulatory responsibilities, dated November 12, 2023 (“17d-2 Plan” or the “Plan”). The Plan was published for comment on December 7, 2023.
Section 19(g)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 17(d)(1) of the Act
To implement Section 17(d)(1), the Commission adopted two rules: Rule 17d-1 and Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
To address regulatory duplication in these and other areas, the Commission adopted Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
The proposed 17d-2 Plan is intended to reduce regulatory duplication for firms that are common members of both PHLX and FINRA.
The text of the Plan delineates the proposed regulatory responsibilities with respect to the Parties. Included in the proposed Plan is an exhibit (the “PHLX Certification of Common Rules,” referred to herein as the “Certification”) that lists every PHLX rule, and select federal securities laws, rules, and regulations, for which FINRA would bear responsibility under the Plan for overseeing and enforcing with respect to PHLX members that are also members of FINRA and the associated persons therewith (“Dual Members”).
Specifically, under the 17d-2 Plan, FINRA would assume examination and enforcement responsibility relating to
Under the Plan, PHLX would retain full responsibility for surveillance, examination, investigation and enforcement with respect to trading activities or practices involving PHLX's own marketplace, including, without limitation, registration pursuant to its applicable rules of associated persons (
The Commission finds that the proposed Plan is consistent with the factors set forth in Section 17(d) of the Act
The Commission notes that, under the Plan, PHLX and FINRA have allocated regulatory responsibility for those PHLX rules, set forth in the Certification, that are substantially similar to the applicable FINRA rules in that examination for compliance with such provisions and rules would not require FINRA to develop one or more new examination standards, modules, procedures, or criteria in order to analyze the application of the rule, or a common member's activity, conduct, or output in relation to such rule. In addition, under the Plan, FINRA would assume regulatory responsibility for certain provisions of the federal securities laws and the rules and regulations thereunder that are set forth in the Certification. The Common Rules covered by the Plan are specifically listed in the Certification, as may be amended by the Parties from time to time.
According to the Plan, PHLX will review the Certification, at least annually, or more frequently if required by changes in either the rules of PHLX or FINRA, and, if necessary, submit to FINRA an updated list of Common Rules to add PHLX rules not included on the then-current list of Common Rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules; delete PHLX rules included in the then-current list of Common Rules that are no longer substantially similar to FINRA rules; and confirm that the remaining rules on the list of Common Rules continue to be PHLX rules that are substantially similar to FINRA rules.
The Commission is hereby declaring effective a Plan that, among other things, allocates regulatory responsibility to FINRA for the oversight and enforcement of all PHLX rules that are substantially similar to the rules of FINRA for common members of PHLX and FINRA. Therefore, modifications to the Certification need not be filed with the Commission as an amendment to the Plan, provided that the Parties are only adding to, deleting from, or confirming changes to PHLX rules in the Certification in conformance with the definition of Common Rules provided in the Plan. However, should the Parties decide to add a PHLX rule to the Certification that is not substantially similar to a FINRA rule; delete a PHLX rule from the Certification that is substantially similar to a FINRA rule; or leave on the Certification a PHLX rule that is no longer substantially similar to a FINRA rule, then such a change would constitute an amendment to the Plan, which must be filed with the Commission pursuant to Rule 17d-2 under the Act.
This Order gives effect to the Plan filed with the Commission in File No. 4-818. The Parties shall notify all members affected by the Plan of their rights and obligations under the Plan.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On December 26, 2023, MEMX LLC (the “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: I hereby determine that certain objects being imported from abroad pursuant to agreements with their foreign owners or custodians for temporary display in the exhibition “Klimt Landscapes” at the Neue Galerie New York, in New York, New York, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, are of cultural significance, and, further, that their temporary exhibition or display within the United States as aforementioned is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these determinations be published in the
Reed Liriano, Program Coordinator, Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email:
The foregoing determinations were made pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681,
The Department of State will conduct a public meeting at 1 p.m. on Wednesday, January 17, 2024, both in-person at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC, and via teleconference. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 10th session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Sub-committee on Ship Design and Construction (SDC) to be held at IMO Headquarters in London, United Kingdom from Monday, January 22 to Friday, January 26, 2024.
Members of the public may participate up to the capacity of the teleconference phone line, which can handle 500 participants or up to the seating capacity of the room if attending in person. The meeting location will be the United States Coast Guard Headquarters, and the teleconference line will be provided to those who RSVP. To RSVP, participants should contact the meeting coordinator, LCDR Bryan Andrews, by email at
The agenda items to be considered at SDC 10 include:
Those who plan to participate should contact the meeting coordinator, LCDR Bryan Andrews, by email at
Additional information regarding this and other IMO public meetings may be found at:
Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to release airport property.
The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of a 21.81 acre parcel of land at the Grand Junction Regional Airport.
Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication of this notice in the
Emailed comments can be provided to Mr. John Sweeney, Community Planner, Denver Airports District Office,
Ms. Angela Padalecki, Executive Director, Grand Junction Regional Airport, 2828 Walker Field Drive, Grand Junction, CO 81506,
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at the Grand Junction Regional Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The proposal consists of 21.81 acres of land located on the West side of the airport, shown as 27
Federal Aviation Administration, (FAA), DOT.
Notice of request to release airport property.
The FAA proposes to rule and invite public comment on the release of a .3 acre parcel of land at Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport.
Comments are due within 30 days of the date of the publication of this notice in the
Emailed comments can be provided to Mr. John Sweeney, Community Planner, Denver Airports District Office,
Mr. Brian Bishop, Deputy Director, Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport, 11755 Airport Way, Broomfield, CO 80021,
The FAA invites public comment on the request to release property at Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47107(h)(2). The proposal consists of .3 acres of land located on the West side of the airport, shown as a portion of Parcel 2 on the Airport Layout Plan. The parcel lies on the South side of State Highway 128 near the relocated Simms Road. The FAA concurs that the parcel is no longer needed for airport purposes. The proposed use of this property is compatible with existing airport operations in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, as published in the
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning a proposed new information collection titled, “Information Collection for Qualitative Research on Consumer Trust in Banking and Bank Supervision.”
Comments must be received by March 8, 2024.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Following the close of this notice's 60-day comment period, the OCC will publish a second notice with a 30-day comment period. You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection beginning on the date of publication of the second notice for this collection by the method set forth below.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
While the key elements of trust are established in academic research, it is unclear how trust should be measured from a consumer perspective. It is also unclear whether, and to what extent, trust impacts financial decision making. Trust in a specific bank, in banks generally, and in the banking system as a whole may be distinctively different, even if interrelated. Moreover, the components that influence and the meaning of trust in each of these may differ. Consumers may understand trust to mean that they expect an institution to treat them fairly, to help them during economic hardships, to protect their savings, or to function in a reliable and predictable manner (or any combination of these). Such perceptions may differ across individuals, across different financial services and products, and/or across different types of financial institutions. Moreover, perceptions may be based on personal experiences, media reports, personal expectations, or how well someone understands how the U.S. banking system works. Moreover, decisions to bank with a specific financial service provider may not necessarily reflect greater trust in that institution. Rather, it may reflect convenience or cost considerations that may be unrelated to trust. Conversely, lack of participation in the banking system may not necessarily reflect lower levels of trust in banks or the banking system. Rather, it may reflect cultural norms or a mismatch of supply and demand that may be unrelated to trust.
To ensure that the quantitative survey instrument accurately measures trust in banking and its role in banking choices, the OCC will recruit individuals from diverse socioeconomic backgrounds/conditions to participate in focus groups/interviews to help identify the specific types of financial services where trust is highly influential in a consumers' decision to bank, the sources of (dis)trust, reasons consumers may choose a particular financial institution, and whether they have different perceptions of trust across different types of financial institutions. Such discussions will help the OCC refine the quantitative survey to help ensure that the results reflect an accurate understanding of consumers' trust and its role in banking.
Additionally, the OCC may engage with industry stakeholders to understand the meaning and role of consumer trust in banking, as perceived by the industry stakeholders. From these industry stakeholder discussions, the OCC may gain additional insight in the approaches and lessons learned from the industry regarding the strategies to maintain or build consumer trust.
The discussion with stakeholders about their own experiences of establishing trust with consumers will enable us to identify any other additional perspectives and the reasons behind the level of consumer trust in banking.
Participation in this information collection will be voluntary and confidential and conducted in-person, by phone, or using other methods, such as virtual technology. The OCC estimates that the focus groups are expected to average 90 minutes with an estimated 345 annualized burden hours to 230 respondents (1.5 hours per participant, including intake form × 230 participants). Travel time, if any, is excluded from the estimated hours of burden. Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including
Departmental Offices, Treasury.
Notice.
For the period beginning January 1, 2024, and ending on March 31, 2024, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement Immigration Bond interest rate is 3 per centum per annum.
Rates are applicable January 1, 2024, to March 31, 2024.
Comments or inquiries may be mailed to Will Walcutt, Supervisor, Funds Management Branch, Funds Management Division, Fiscal Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Services, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-1328.
You can download this notice at the following internet addresses: <
Ryan Hanna, Manager, Funds Management Branch, Funds Management Division, Fiscal Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Parkersburg, West Virginia 261006-1328 (304) 480-5120; Will Walcutt, Supervisor, Funds Management Branch, Funds Management Division, Fiscal Accounting, Bureau of the Fiscal Services, Parkersburg, West Virginia 26106-1328, (304) 480-5117.
Federal law requires that interest payments on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds shall be “at a rate determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, except that in no case shall the interest rate exceed 3 per centum per annum.” 8 U.S.C. 1363(a). Related Federal regulations state that “Interest on cash deposited to secure immigration bonds will be at the rate as determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, but in no case will exceed 3 per centum per annum or be less than zero.” 8 CFR 293.2. Treasury has determined that interest on the bonds will vary quarterly and will accrue during each calendar quarter at a rate equal to the lesser of the average of the bond equivalent rates on 91-day Treasury bills auctioned during the preceding calendar quarter, or 3 per centum per annum, but in no case less than zero. [FR Doc. 2015-18545]. In addition to this Notice, Treasury posts the current quarterly rate in Table 2b—Interest Rates for Specific Legislation on the Treasury Direct website.
The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public Finance, Gary Grippo, having reviewed and approved this document, is delegating the authority to electronically sign this document to Heidi Cohen, Federal Register Liaison for the Department, for purposes of publication in the
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch. 10., that the Research Advisory Committee on Gulf War Veterans' Illnesses (hereinafter the Committee) will meet by teleconference on February 12, 2024. The meeting will begin at 11 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) and adjourn at 3 p.m. ET.
The open session will be available to the public by connecting to Webex URL:
The purpose of the Committee is to provide advice and make recommendations to the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on proposed research studies, research plans, and research strategies relating to the health consequences of military service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Gulf War in 1990-91.
The Committee will review VA program activities related to Gulf War Veterans' illnesses and updates on relevant scientific research published since the last Committee meeting. This meeting will focus on Federal Advisory Committee annual training, the Committee Charter and deliberation of Committee recommendations.
Time will be allocated for receiving public comments on February 12, 2024 at 2:30 p.m. EST. Individuals wishing to make public comments should contact Marsha Turner at
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
As required by the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2023, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is hereby giving notice of adjustments in certain benefit rates. These adjustments affect the compensation program.
These adjustments became effective on December 1, 2023.
Claire Starke, Policy Staff (211B), Compensation Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, 202-461-9700. (This is not a toll-free telephone number.)
Section 2 of Public Law 118-6 provides for an
The Social Security Administration has announced that there will be a 3.2% cost-of-living increase in Social Security benefits for 2024. Therefore, applying the same percentage, the following rates for VA's compensation program became effective on December 1, 2023:
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, approved and signed this document on January 2, 2024, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch.10, that a meeting of the Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board will be held January 30, 2024, via Webex. The meeting will be held between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. EDT. The meeting will be closed to the public from 3:30-5 p.m. EDT for the discussion, examination and reference to the research applications and scientific review. Discussions will involve reference to staff and consultant critiques of research proposals. Discussions will deal with scientific merit of each proposal and qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Additionally, premature disclosure of research information could significantly obstruct implementation of proposed agency action regarding the research proposals. As provided by Public Law 92-463 subsection 10(d), as amended by Public Law 94-409, closing the committee meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (6) and (9)(B).
The objective of the Board is to provide for the fair and equitable selection of the most meritorious research projects for support by VA research funds and to offer advice for research program officials on program priorities and policies. The ultimate objective of the Board is to ensure the high quality and mission relevance of VA's legislatively mandated Biomedical Laboratory and Clinical Science Research and Development programs.
Board members advise the Directors of the Biomedical Laboratory and Clinical Sciences Research Services and the Chief Research and Development Officer on the scientific and technical merit, the mission relevance, and the protection of human subjects of Biomedical Laboratory and Clinical Sciences Research and Development proposals. The Board does not consider grants, contracts, or other forms of extramural research.
Members of the public may attend the open portion of the meeting. The time limited agenda does not enable public comments or presentations. To attend the open portion of the meeting (3-3:30 p.m. EDT), the public may join by dialing the phone number 1-404-397-1596 and entering the meeting number (access code): 2763 451 0764.
Written public comments must be sent to Michael R. Burgio, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, Office of Research and Development, Department of Veterans Affairs (14RD), 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420, or to
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Commission a proposed rule change to establish fees for Industry Members
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
On July 11, 2012, the Commission adopted Rule 613 of Regulation NMS, which required the self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) to submit a national market system (“NMS”) plan to create, implement and maintain a consolidated audit trail that would capture customer and order event information for orders in NMS securities across all markets, from the time of order inception through routing, cancellation, modification or execution.
The CAT Funding Model provides a framework for the recovery of the costs to create, develop and maintain the CAT, including providing a method for allocating costs to fund the CAT among Participants and Industry Members. The CAT Funding Model establishes two categories of fees: (1) CAT fees assessed by CAT LLC and payable by certain Industry Members to recover a portion of historical CAT costs previously paid by the Participants (“Historical CAT Assessment” fees); and (2) CAT fees assessed by CAT LLC and payable by Participants and Industry Members to fund prospective CAT costs (“Prospective CAT Costs” fees).
Under the CAT Funding Model, “[t]he Operating Committee will establish one or more fees (each a `Historical CAT Assessment') to be payable by Industry Members with regard to CAT costs previously paid by the Participants (`Past CAT Costs').”
Each Historical CAT Assessment to be paid by CEBBs and CEBSs is designed to contribute toward the recovery of two-thirds of the Historical CAT Costs. Because the Participants previously have paid Past CAT Costs via loans to the Company, the Participants would not be required to pay any Historical CAT Assessment. In lieu of a Historical
CAT LLC proposes to charge CEBBs and CEBSs (as described in more detail below) Historical CAT Assessment 1 to recover certain historical CAT costs incurred prior to January 1, 2022, in accordance with the CAT Funding Model. To implement this fee on behalf of CAT LLC, the CAT NMS Plan requires the Participants to “file with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act any such fees on Industry Members that the Operating Committee approves, and such fees shall be labeled as `Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees.' ”
Historical CAT Assessment 1 will be charged to each CEBB and CEBS for each applicable transaction in Eligible Securities.
(a) with respect to a transaction in an Eligible Security that is executed on an exchange, the Industry Member identified as the Industry Member responsible for the order on the buy-side of the transaction and the Industry Member responsible for the sell-side of the transaction in the equity order trade event and option trade event in the CAT Data submitted to the CAT by the relevant exchange pursuant to the Participant Technical Specifications; and (b) with respect to a transaction in an Eligible Security that is executed otherwise than on an exchange and required to be reported to an equity trade reporting facility of a registered national securities association, the Industry Member identified as the executing broker and the Industry Member identified as the contra-side executing broker in the TRF/ORF/ADF transaction data event in the CAT Data submitted to the CAT by FINRA pursuant to the Participant Technical Specifications; provided, however, in those circumstances where there is a non-Industry Member identified as the contra-side executing broker in the TRF/ORF/ADF transaction data event or no contra-side executing broker is identified in the TRF/ORF/ADF transaction data event, then the Industry Member identified as the executing broker in the TRF/ORF/ADF transaction data event would be treated as CAT Executing Broker for the Buyer and for the Seller.
The following
In addition, the
The Operating Committee determined the Historical Fee Rate to be used in calculating Historical CAT Assessment 1 (“Historical Fee Rate 1”) by dividing the Historical CAT Costs for Historical CAT Assessment 1 (“Historical CAT Costs 1”) by the projected total executed share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for the Historical Recovery Period for Historical CAT Assessment 1 (“Historical Recovery Period 1”), as discussed in detail below. Based on this calculation, the Operating Committee has determined that Historical Fee Rate 1 would be $0.0000439371316687066 per executed equivalent share. This rate is then divided by three and rounded to determine the fee rate of $0.000015 per executed equivalent share that will be assessed to CEBBs and CEBSs, as also discussed in detail below.
Under the CAT NMS Plan, for purposes of calculating each Historical CAT Assessment, executed equivalent shares in a transaction in Eligible Securities will be reasonably counted as follows: (1) each executed share for a transaction in NMS Stocks will be counted as one executed equivalent share; (2) each executed contract for a transaction in Listed Options will be counted based on the multiplier applicable to the specific Listed Options (
The CAT NMS Plan states that “[t]he Operating Committee will reasonably determine the Historical CAT Costs sought to be recovered by each Historical CAT Assessment, where the Historical CAT Costs will be Past CAT Costs minus Past CAT Costs reasonably excluded from Historical CAT Costs by the Operating Committee. Each Historical CAT Assessment will seek to recover from CAT Executing Brokers two-thirds of Historical CAT Costs incurred during the period covered by the Historical CAT Assessment.”
The following describes in detail Historical CAT Costs 1 with regard to four separate historical time periods as well as Past CAT Costs excluded from Historical CAT Costs 1 (“Excluded Costs”). The following cost details are provided in accordance with the requirement in the CAT NMS Plan to provide in the fee filing “a brief description of the amount and type of Historical CAT Costs, including (1) the technology line items of cloud hosting services, operating fees, CAIS operating fees, change request fees, and capitalized developed technology costs, (2) legal, (3) consulting, (4) insurance, (5) professional and administration and (6) public relations costs.”
Historical CAT Costs 1 would include costs incurred by CAT prior to June 22, 2020 (“Pre-FAM Period”) and already funded by the Participants, excluding Excluded Costs (described further below). Historical CAT Costs 1 would include costs for the Pre-FAM Period of $143,919,521. The Participants would remain responsible for one-third of this cost (which they have previously paid) ($47,973,174), and Industry Members would be responsible for the remaining two-thirds, with CEBBs paying one-third ($47,973,174) and CEBSs paying one-third ($47,973,174). These costs do not include Excluded Costs, as discussed further below. The following table breaks down Historical CAT Costs 1 for the Pre-FAM Period into the categories set forth in Section 11.3(b)(iii)(B)(II) of the CAT NMS Plan.
The Pre-FAM
The $10,268,840 in technology costs for cloud hosting services represent costs incurred for services provided by the cloud services provider for the CAT, Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“AWS”), during the Pre-FAM Period.
As part of its proposal for acting as the successor Plan Processor for the CAT, FCAT selected AWS as a subcontractor to provide cloud hosting services. In 2019, after reviewing the capabilities of other cloud services providers, FCAT determined that AWS was the only cloud services provider at that time sufficiently mature and capable of providing the full suite of necessary cloud services for the CAT, including, for example, the security, resiliency and complexity necessary for the CAT computing requirements. The use of cloud hosting services is standard for this type of high-volume data activity and reasonable and necessary for implementation of the CAT, particularly given the substantial data volumes associated with the CAT.
Under the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT, CAT LLC is required to pay FCAT the fees incurred by the Plan Processor for cloud hosting services provided by AWS as FCAT's subcontrator on a monthly basis for the cloud hosting services, and FCAT, in turn, pays such fees to AWS. The fees for cloud hosting services were negotiated by FCAT on an arm's length basis with the goals of managing cost and receiving services required to comply with the CAT NMS Plan and Rule 613, taking into consideration a variety of factors, including the expected volume of data, the breadth of services provided and market rates for similar services. The fees for cloud hosting services during the Pre-FAM Period were paid to FCAT by CAT NMS LLC
AWS was engaged by FCAT to provide a broad array of cloud hosting services for the CAT, including data ingestion, data management, and analytic tools. Services provided by AWS include storage services, databases, compute services and other services (such as networking, management tools and DevOps tools). AWS also was engaged to provide various environments for CAT, such as development, performance testing, test and production environments.
The cost for AWS services for the CAT is a function of the volume of CAT Data. The greater the amount of CAT Data, the greater the cost of AWS services to the CAT. During the Pre-FAM Period from the engagement of AWS in February 2019 through June 2020, AWS provided cloud hosting services for volumes of CAT Data far in excess of the volume predictions set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. The CAT NMS Plan states, when all CAT Reporters are submitting their data to the CAT, it “must be sized to receive[,] process and load more than 58 billion records per day,”
The $21,085,485 in technology costs related to operating fees represent costs incurred with regard to activities of FCAT as the Plan Processor. Operating fees are those fees paid by CAT LLC to FCAT as the Plan Processor to operate and maintain the CAT and to perform business operations related to the system, including compliance, security, testing, training, communications with the industry (
FCAT was selected to assume the role of the successor Plan Processor. Prior to this selection, the Participants engaged in discussions with two prior Bidders
The Selection Subcommittee considered factors including, but not limited to, the following, in recommending FINRA to the Operating Committee as the successor Plan Processor:
a. FINRA's specialized technical expertise and capabilities in the area of broker-dealer technology;
b. The need to appoint a successor Plan Processor with specialized expertise to develop, implement, and maintain the CAT System in accordance with the CAT NMS Plan and SEC Rule 613;
c. FINRA's detailed proposal in response to CATLLC's recent inquiries; and
d. FINRA's data query and analytics systems demonstration to the Participants.
Based on these and other factors, the Selection Subcommittee determined that FINRA was the most appropriate Bidder to become the successor Plan Processor.
On February 26, 2019, the Operating Committee (with FINRA recusing itself) voted to select FINRA as the successor Plan Processor pursuant to Section 6.1(t) of the CAT NMS Plan.
Under the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT, CAT LLC is required to pay FCAT a negotiated monthly fixed price for the operation of the CAT. This fixed price contract was negotiated on an arm's length basis with the goals of managing costs and receiving services required to comply with the CAT NMS Plan and Rule 613, taking into consideration a variety of factors, including the breadth of services provided and market rates for similar types of activity. The operating fees during the Pre-FAM Period were paid to FCAT by CAT LLC.
From March 29, 2019 (the commencement of the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT) through June 22, 2020 (the end of the Pre-FAM Period), the Plan Processor's activities with respect to the CAT included the following:
• Commenced user acceptance testing with market data provided by Exegy Incorporated (“Exegy”), a market data provider;
• Published Technical Specifications and related reporting scenarios documents for Phase 2a, 2b and 2c reporting for Industry Members, after substantial engagement with SEC staff, Industry Members and Participants on the Technical Specifications;
• Facilitated testing for Phase 2a and 2b reporting for Industry Members;
• Began developing Technical Specifications and related reporting scenarios documents for Phase 2d reporting for Industry Members, after substantial engagement with SEC staff, Industry Members and Participants on the Technical Specifications;
• Published Central Repository Access Technical Specifications, and provided regulator access to test data from Industry Members;
• Facilitated Participant exchanges that support options market makers sending Quote Sent Time to the CAT;
• Facilitated the introduction of OPRA and Options NBBO Other Data to CAT;
• Addressed compliance items, including drafting CAT policies and procedures, and addressing requirements under Regulation SCI;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Compliance Subcommittee and CAT working groups;
• Assisted with interpretive efforts and exemptive requests regarding the CAT NMS Plan;
• Oversaw the security of the CAT;
• Monitored the operation of the CAT, including with regard to Participant and Industry Member reporting;
• Provided support to subcontractors under the Plan Processor Agreement;
• Provided support in discussions with Participants, SEC and its staff;
• Operated the FINRA CAT Helpdesk, which is the primary source for answers to questions about CAT, including questions regarding: clock synchronization, firm reporting responsibilities, interpretive questions,
• Facilitated communications with the industry, including via FAQs, CAT Alerts, meetings, presentations and webinars;
• Administered the CAT website and all of its content;
• Provided technical support and assistance with connectivity, data access, and user support, including the use of CAT Data and query tools, for Participants and the SEC staff.
The $2,072,908 in technology costs related to CAIS operating fees represent the fees paid for FCAT's subcontractor charged with the development and operation of CAT's Customer and Account Information System (“CAIS”). The CAT is required under the CAT NMS Plan to capture and store Customer Identifying Information and Customer Account Information in a database separate from the transactional database and to create a CAT-Customer-ID for each Customer.
During the Pre-FAM Period, the CAIS-related services were provided by the Plan Processor through the Plan Processor's subcontractor, Kingland Systems Incorporation (“Kingland”). Kingland had experience operating in the securities regulatory technology space, and as a part of its proposal for acting as the Plan Processor for the CAT, FCAT selected Kingland as a subcontractor to provide certain CAIS-related services.
Under the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT, CAT LLC is required to pay to the Plan Processor the fees incurred by the FCAT for CAIS-related services provided by FCAT through Kingland on a monthly basis. FCAT negotiated the fees for Kingland's CAIS-related services on an arm's length basis with the goals of managing costs and receiving services required to comply with the CAT NMS Plan, taking into consideration a variety of factors, including the services to be provided and market rates for similar types of activity. The fees for CAIS-related services during the Pre-FAM Period were paid by CAT LLC to FCAT. FCAT, in turn, paid Kingland. During the Pre-FAM Period, Kingland began development of the CAIS Technical Specifications and the building of CAIS. In addition, Kingland also worked on the build related to the CCID Alternative, an alternative approach to customer information that was not included in the CAT NMS Plan as originally adopted.
The technology costs related to change request fees include costs related to certain modifications, upgrades or other changes to the CAT. Change requests are standard practice and necessary to reflect operational changes, including changes related to new market developments, such as new market participants. In general, if CAT LLC determines that a modification, upgrade or other changes to the functionality or service is necessary and appropriate, CAT LLC will submit a request for such a change to the Plan Processor. The Plan Processor will then respond to the request with a proposal for implementing the change, including the cost (if any) of such a change. CAT LLC then determines whether to approve the proposed change. The change request costs were paid by CAT LLC to FCAT. During the Pre-FAM Period, CAT LLC incurred costs of $141,346 related to change requests implemented by FCAT. Such change requests related to a development fee regarding the OPRA and SIP data feeds, and the reprocessing of certain exchange data.
This category of costs includes capitalizable application development costs incurred in the development of the CAT. The capitalized developed technology costs for the Pre-FAM Period of $71,475,941 relate to technology provided by the Initial Plan Processor and the successor Plan Processor.
On January 17, 2017, the Selection Committee of the CAT NMS Plan selected the Initial Plan Processor, Thesys Technologies, LLC, for the CAT NMS Plan pursuant to Article V of the CAT NMS Plan.
From January 17, 2017 through January 30, 2019, the time in which the Thesys CAT was engaged for the CAT, but excluding the period from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018, the Initial Plan Processor engaged in various activities with respect to the CAT, including preparing iterative drafts of Participant Technical Specifications, Industry Member Technical Specifications and the Central Repository Access Technical Specifications. Thesys CAT initiated and maintained the Participant reporting per the Participant Technical Specifications. In addition, Thesys CAT also developed CAT technology, addressed compliance items, including drafting CAT policies and procedures, addressing Regulation SCI requirements, establishing a CAT Compliance Officer and a Chief Information Security Officer, and addressed security-related matters for the CAT. Furthermore, Thesys CAT performed transition services related to the transition from Thesys CAT to FCAT as the successor
The legal costs of $19,674,463 represent the fees paid for legal services provided by two law firms, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (“WilmerHale”) and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP (“Pillsbury”), during the Pre-FAM Period. The legal costs exclude those costs incurred from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018.
WilmerHale's billing rates are negotiated on an annual basis and are determined with reference to the rates charged by other leading law firms for similar work. The Participants assess WilmerHale's performance and review prospective budgets and staffing plans submitted by WilmerHale on an annual basis. WilmerHale's compensation arrangements are reasonable and appropriate, and in line with the rates charged by other leading law firms for similar work.
The legal costs for WilmerHale during the Pre-FAM Period included costs incurred from 2013 until June 22, 2020 to address corporate and regulatory legal matters related to the CAT. The legal fees for this law firm during the period from February 2013 until the formation of the CAT NMS, LLC on November 15, 2016 were paid directly by the exchanges and FINRA to WilmerHale. After the formation of CAT NMS LLC, the legal fees were paid by CAT LLC to WilmerHale.
After WilmerHale was engaged in 2013 through the end of the Pre-FAM Period on June 22, 2020 (excluding the legal costs from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018), WilmerHale provided legal assistance to the CAT on a variety of matters, including with regard to the following:
• Analyzed various legal matters associated with the Selection Plan, and drafted an amendment to Selection Plan;
• Assisted with the RFP and bidding process for the CAT Plan Processor;
• Analyzed legal matters related to the Development Advisory Group (“DAG”);
• Drafted the CAT NMS Plan, analyzed various items related to the CAT NMS Plan, and responded to comment letters on CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided legal support for the formation of the legal entity, the governance of the CAT, including governance support prior to the adoption of the CAT NMS Plan, which involved support for the full committee of exchanges and FINRA as well as subcommittees of this group (
• Assisted with the development of the CAT funding model and drafted related amendments of the CAT NMS Plan and related filings;
• Negotiated and drafted the plan processor agreements with the Initial Plan Processor and the successor Plan Processor;
• Provided assistance with compliance with Regulation SCI;
• Assisted with clock synchronization study;
• Provided assistance with respect to the establishment of CAT security;
• Drafted exemptive requests from CAT NMS Plan requirements, including with regard to options market maker quotes, Customer IDs, CAT Reporter IDs, linking allocations to executions, CAT reporting timeline, FDIDs, customer and account information, timestamp granularity, small industry members, data facility reporting and linkage, allocation reports, SRO-assigned market participant identifiers and cancelled trade indicators, thereby seeking to implement changes that would be cost effective and benefit Industry Members and Participants;
• Assisted with the Implementation Plan required pursuant to Section 6.6(c)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided advice regarding CAT policies and procedures;
• Analyzed the SEC's amendment of the CAT NMS Plan regarding financial accountability;
• Provided interpretations of and related to the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided support with regard to discussions with the SEC and its staff, including with respect to addressing interpretive and implementation issues; and
• Assisted with third party vendor agreements.
The consulting costs of $17,013,414 represent the fees paid to the consulting firm Deloitte & Touche LLP (“Deloitte”) as project manager during the Pre-FAM Period, from October 2012 until June 22, 2020. These consulting costs include costs for advisory services related to the operation of the CAT, and meeting facilitation and communications coordination, vendor support and financial analyses.
To help facilitate project management given the unprecedented complexity and scope of the CAT project, the Participants determined it was necessary to engage a consulting firm to assist with the CAT project in 2012, following the adoption of Rule 613. A variety of factors were considered in the analysis of prospective consulting firms, including (1) the firm's qualifications, resources, and expertise, (2) the firm's relevant experience and understanding of the regulatory issues raised by the CAT and in coordinating matters of similar scope, (3) the composition of the consulting team, and (4) professional fees. Following a series of interviews, the exchanges and FINRA as a consortium determined that Deloitte was well qualified given the balance of these considerations and engaged Deloitte on October 1, 2012.
Deloitte's fee rates are negotiated on an annual basis and are in line with market rates for this type of specialized consulting work. CAT LLC assesses Deloitte's performance and reviews prospective budgets and staffing plans submitted by Deloitte on an annual basis. Deloitte's compensation arrangements are reasonable and appropriate, and in line with the rates charged by other leading consulting firms for similar work.
The consulting costs for CAT during the period from 2012 until the formation of the CAT NMS, LLC were paid directly by the Participants to Deloitte. After the formation of CAT NMS, LLC, the consulting fees were paid by CAT LLC to Deloitte. CAT LLC reviewed the consulting fees each month and approved the invoices.
After Deloitte was hired in 2012 through the end of the Pre-FAM Period on June 22, 2020 (excluding the consulting costs from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018), Deloitte provided a variety of consulting services, including the following:
• Established and implemented program operations for the CAT project, including the program managment office and workstream design;
• Assisted with the Plan Processor selection process, including but not limited to, the development of the RFP and the bidder evaluation process, and facilitation and consolidation of the Participant's independent reviews;
• Assisted with the development and drafting of the CAT NMS Plan, including conducting cost-benefit studies, analyzing OATS and CAT requirements, and drafting appendices to the Plan;
• Assisted with cost and funding-related activities for the CAT, including the development of the CAT funding model and assistance with loans and the CAT bank account for CAT funding;
• Provided governance support to the CAT, including governance support prior to the adoption of the CAT NMS Plan, which involved support for the full committee of exchanges and FINRA as well as subcommittees of this group (
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Chair of the Operating Committee and the Leadership Team, including project management support, coordination and planning for meetings and communications, and interfacing with law firms and the SEC;
• Assisted with industry outreach and communications regarding the CAT, including assistance with industry outreach events, the development of the CAT website, frequently asked questions, and coordinating with the CAT LLC's public relations firm;
• Provided support for updating the SEC on the progress of the development of the CAT;
• Provided active planning and coordination with and support for the Initial Plan Processor with regard to the development of the CAT, and reported to the Participants on the progress;
• Coordinated efforts regarding the selection of the successor Plan Processor;
• Assisted with the transition from the Initial Plan Processor to the successor Plan Processor, including support for the Operating Committee and successor Plan Processor for the new role; and
• Provided support for third party vendors for the CAT, including FCAT, Anchin and the law firms engaged by CAT LLC.
The insurance costs of $880,419 represent the cost incurred for insurance for CAT during the Pre-FAM Period. Commencing in 2020, CAT LLC performed an evaluation of various potential alternatives for CAT insurance policies, which included engaging in discussions with different insurance companies and conducting cost comparisons of various alternative approaches to insurance. Based on an analysis of a variety of factors, including coverage and premiums, CAT LLC determined to purchase cyber security liability insurance, directors' and officers' liability insurance, and errors and omissions liability insurance from USI Insurance Services LLC (“USI”). Such policies are standard for corporate entities, and cyber security liability insurance is important for the CAT System. The annual premiums for these policies were competitive for the coverage provided. The annual premiums were paid by CAT LLC to USI.
In adopting the CAT NMS Plan, the Commission amended the Plan to add a requirement that CAT LLC's financial statements be prepared in compliance with GAAP, audited by an independent public accounting firm, and made publicly available.
After Anchin was hired in April 2018 through the end of the Pre-FAM Period on June 22, 2020 (excluding the period from April 2018 through November 15, 2018), Anchin provided a variety of services, including the following:
• Developed, updated and maintained internal controls;
• Provided cash management and treasury functions;
• Facilitated bill payments;
• Provided monthly bookkeeping;
• Reviewed vendor invoices and documentation in support of cash disbursements;
• Provided accounting research and consultations on various accounting, financial reporting and tax matters;
• Addressed not-for-profit tax and accounting considerations;
• Prepared tax returns;
• Addressed various accounting, financial and operating inquiries from Participants;
• Developed and maintained quarterly and annual operating and financial budgets, including budget to actual fluctuation analyses;
• Addressed accounting and financial reporting matters relating to the transition from CAT NMS, LLC to Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC, including supporting the dissolution of CAT NMS, LLC;
• Supported compliance with the CAT NMS Plan;
• Worked with and provided support to the Operating Committee and various CAT working groups;
• Prepared monthly, quarterly and annual financial statements;
• Supported the annual financial statement audits by an independent auditor;
• Reviewed historical costs from inception; and
• Provided accounting and financial information in support of SEC filings.
After performing an analysis of the available market data vendors to confirm that the data provided met the SIP Data requirements of the CAT NMS Plan and comparing the costs of the vendors providing the required SIP Data, CAT LLC determined to purchase market data from Exegy from July 2018 through March 2019. CAT LLC determined that, unlike certain other vendors, Exegy provided market data that included all data elements required by the CAT NMS Plan.
Upon the termination of the contract between CAT LLC and Exegy, FCAT entered into a contract with Exegy to purchase the required market data from Exegy in July 2019. All costs under the contract were treated as a direct pass through cost to CAT LLC. Therefore, the fees for the market data were paid by CAT LLC to FCAT, who, in turn, paid Exegy for the market data.
The public relations costs of $224,669 represent the fees paid to public relations firms during the Pre-FAM Period for professional communications services to CAT, including media relations consulting, strategy and execution. By engaging a public relations firm, CAT LLC was better positioned to understand and address CAT matters to the benefit of all market participants. Specifically, the public relations firms provided services related to communications with the public regarding the CAT, including monitoring developments related to the CAT (
The services performed by each of the public relations firms were comparable. The fees for such services were reasonable and in line with market rates. Only one public relations firm was engaged at a time; the three firms were engaged sequentially as the
Historical CAT Costs 1 would include costs incurred by CAT and already funded by the Participants during Period 1 of the Financial Accountability Milestones (“FAM Period 1”),
By the
CAT LLC continued to utilize AWS in FAM Period 1 to provide a broad array of cloud hosting services for the CAT, including data ingestion, data management, and analytic tools. AWS continued to provide storage services, databases, compute services and other services (such as networking, management tools and DevOps tools), as well as various environments for CAT, such as development, performance testing, test, and production environments, during the FAM 1 Period. Accordingly, the $2,642,122 in technology costs for cloud hosting services represent costs incurred for services provided by AWS, as the cloud services provider, during FAM Period 1. The fee arrangement for AWS described above with regard to the Pre-FAM Period continued in place during FAM Period 1 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. Moreover, CAT LLC continued to believe that AWS's maturity in the cloud services space as well as the significant cost and time necessary to move the CAT to a different cloud services provider supported the continued engagement of AWS.
The cost for AWS cloud services for the CAT continued to be a function of the volume of CAT Data. During the
Pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement discussed above, FCAT continued in its role as the Plan Processor for the CAT during FAM Period 1. Accordingly, the $1,099,680 in technology costs for operating fees represent costs incurred for the services provided by FCAT under the Plan Processor Agreement during FAM Period 1. The fee arrangement for FCAT described above with regard to the Pre-FAM Period continued in place during FAM Period 1 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. During FAM Period 1, FCAT's activities with respect to the CAT included the following:
• Published iterative drafts of draft Technical Specifications for Phase 2d, after substantial engagement with SEC staff, Industry Members and Participants on the Technical Specifications;
• Published iterative drafts of CAIS Technical Specifications, after substantial engagement with SEC staff, Industry Members and Participants on the Technical Specifications;
• Facilitated Industry Member reporting of Quote Sent Time on Options Market Maker quotes;
• Addressed compliance items, including drafting CAT policies and procedures, and addressing Regulation SCI requirements;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Compliance Subcommittee and CAT working groups;
• Assisted with interpretive efforts and exemptive requests regarding the CAT NMS Plan;
• Oversaw the security of the CAT;
• Monitored the operation of the CAT, including with regard to Participant and Industry Member reporting;
• Provided support to subcontractors under the Plan Processor Agreement;
• Provided support in discussions with Participants and the SEC and its staff;
• Operated the FINRA CAT Helpdesk;
• Facilitated communications with the industry, including via FAQs, CAT Alerts, meetings, presentations and webinars;
• Administered the CAT website and all of its content; and
• Provided technical support and assistance with connectivity, data access, and user support, including the use of CAT Data and query tools, for Participants and the SEC staff.
Pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement discussed above, Kingland continued in its role as a subcontractor for the development and implementation of CAIS during FAM Period 1. Accordingly, the $254,998 in technology costs for CAIS operating fees represent costs incurred for services provided by Kingland during FAM Period 1. The fee arrangement for Kingland described above with regard to the Pre-FAM Period continued in place during FAM Period 1 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. During FAM Period 1, Kingland continued the development of the CAIS Technical Specifications and building of CAIS. In addition, Kingland continued to work on the CAIS Technical Specifications and build related to CCID Alternative, as well as the acceleration of the reporting of LTIDs.
CAT LLC did not incur costs related to change requests during FAM Period 1.
Capitalized developed technology costs for FAM Period 1 of $1,684,870 include capitalizable application development costs incurred in the development of the CAT by FCAT. Such costs include: (1) costs related to certain modifications, upgrades, or other changes to the CAT that were not contemplated by the agreement between CAT LLC and the Plan Processor, including separate production and industry test entitlements, and reprocessing of exchange event timestamps; (2) implementation fees; and (3) license fees.
The legal costs of $481,687 represent the fees paid for legal services provided by two law firms, WilmerHale and Pillsbury during FAM Period 1.
• Assisted with the development of the CAT funding model and drafted related amendments and fee filings;
• Drafted exemptive requests from CAT NMS Plan requirements regarding, for example, verbal activity, options market maker quote sent time, TRF linkages, and allocations;
• Provided interpretations related to CAT NMS Plan requirements, including the Financial Accountability Milestone amendment;
• Assisted with compliance with Regulation SCI;
• Provided support for the Operating Committee, Compliance Subcommittee, working groups and Leadership Team, including with regard to meetings with the SEC staff;
• Assisted with the drafting of the Implementation Plan required pursuant to Section 6.6(c)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan;
• Assisted with communications and presentations for the industry regarding CAIS;
• Drafted SRO rule filings related to the CAT Compliance Rule;
• Provided support for Compliance Subcommittee, including with regard to response to OCIE examinations and the annual assessment;
• Provided guidance regarding CAT technical specifications;
• Assisted with third party vendor agreements; and
• Provided support with regard to discussions with the SEC and its staff, including with respect to addressing interpretive and implementation issues.
The consulting costs of $137,209 represent the fees paid to Deloitte as project manager during FAM Period 1. CAT LLC continued to employ Deloitte during FAM Period 1 based on, among other things, their expertise and cumulative experience with the CAT. The fee rates for Deloitte during FAM Period 1 were negotiated and in line with market rates for this type of specialized consulting work. The consulting fees during FAM Period 1 were paid by CAT LLC to the consulting firm. CAT LLC reviewed the consulting fees each month and approved the invoices. During FAM Period 1, Deloitte's CAT-related activities included the following:
• Implemented program operations for the CAT project;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Chair of the Operating Committee and the Leadership Team, including project management support, coordination and planning for meetings and communications, and interfacing with law firms and the SEC;
• Assisted with cost and funding matters for the CAT, including the development of the CAT funding model and assistance with loans and the CAT bank account for CAT funding;
• Provided support for updating the SEC on the progress of the development of the CAT;
• Assisted with the transition from the Initial Plan Processor to the successor Plan Processor; and
• Provided support for third party vendors for the CAT, including FCAT, Anchin and the law firms engaged by CAT LLC.
Although insurance was in effect during FAM Period 1, CAT LLC did not incur costs related to insurance during FAM Period 1.
• Maintained internal controls;
• Provided cash management and treasury functions;
• Facilitated bill payments;
• Provided monthly bookkeeping;
• Reviewed vendor invoices and documentation in support of cash disbursements;
• Provided accounting research and consultations on various accounting, financial reporting and tax matters;
• Addressed various accounting, financial reporting and operating inquiries from Participants;
• Developed and maintained quarterly and annual operating and financial budgets, including budget to actual fluctuation analyses;
• Supported compliance with the CAT NMS Plan;
• Worked with and provided support to the Operating Committee and various CAT working groups; and
• Prepared monthly and quarterly financial statements.
The public relations costs of $7,700 represent the fees paid to Peak Strategies during FAM Period 1. CAT LLC continued to employ Peak Strategies during FAM Period 1 based on, among other things, their expertise and history with the project. The fee rates for this firm were reasonable and in line with market rates for these types of services. The fees for these services during FAM Period 1 were paid by CAT LLC to Peak Strategies. During FAM Period 1, Peak Strategies continued to provide professional communications services to CAT LLC, including media relations consulting, strategy and execution. Specifically, the public relations firm provided services related to communications with the public regarding the CAT, including monitoring developments related to the CAT (
Historical CAT Costs 1 would include costs incurred by CAT LLC and already funded by Participants during Period 2 of the Financial Accountability Milestones (“FAM Period 2”),
By the
(a) Industry Member reporting (excluding reporting by Small Industry Members that are not OATS reporters) for equities transactions, excluding Customer Account Information, CustomerID, and Customer Identifying Information, is developed, tested, and implemented at a 5% Error Rate or less and with sufficient intra-firm linkage, inter-firm linkage, national securities exchange linkage, and trade reporting facilities linkage to permit the Participants and the Commission to analyze the full lifecycle of an order across the national market system, excluding linkage of representative orders, from order origination through order execution or order cancellation; and (b) the query tool functionality required by Section 6.10(c)(i)(A) and Appendix D, Sections 8.1.1-8.1.3 and Section 8.2.1 incorporates the Industry Member equities transaction data described in condition (a) and is available to the Participants and to the Commission.
CAT LLC completed the requirements of FAM Period 2 by December 31, 2020. The following describes the costs for each of the categories for FAM Period 2.
CAT LLC continued to utilize AWS in FAM Period 2 to provide a broad array of cloud hosting services for the CAT, including data ingestion, data management, and analytic tools. AWS continued to provide storage services, databases, compute services and other services (such as networking, management tools and DevOps tools), as well as various environments for CAT, such as development, performance testing, test, and production environments, during the FAM 2 Period. Accordingly, the $20,709,212 in technology costs for cloud hosting services represent costs incurred for services provided by AWS, as the cloud services provider, during FAM Period 2. The fee arrangement for AWS described above with regard to the Pre-FAM Period and FAM Period 1 continued in place during FAM Period 2 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement.
The cost for AWS cloud services for the CAT continued to be a function of the volume of CAT Data. During the FAM 2 Period, the volume of CAT Data continued to far exceed the original predictions for the CAT as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. During this period, data submitted to the CAT included options and equities Participant Data, Phase 2a and Phase 2b Industry Member Data (including certain linkages) as well as SIP Data, and Other Data, including reference data. In addition, Industry Members began reporting LTID account information. The following chart provides data regarding the average daily volume, cumulative total events, total compute hours and storage footprint of the CAT during FAM Period 2.
Pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement discussed above, FCAT continued in its role as the Plan Processor for the CAT during FAM Period 2. Accordingly, the $9,108,700 in technology costs for operating fees represent costs incurred for the services provided by FCAT under the Plan Processor Agreement during FAM Period 2. The fee arrangement for FCAT described above with regard to the Pre-FAM Period and FAM Period 1 continued in place during FAM Period 2 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. During FAM Period 2, FCAT's activities with respect to the CAT included publishing the Technical Specifications for Phase 2d and overseeing the reporting of firm to firm and intrafirm linkages by Industry Members. In addition, FCAT also continued to engage in the following activities during FAM Period 2:
• Addressed compliance items, including drafting CAT policies and procedures, and addressing Regulation SCI requirements;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, Compliance Subcommittee and CAT working groups;
• Assisted with interpretive efforts and exemptive requests regarding the CAT NMS Plan;
• Oversaw the development and implementation of the security of the CAT;
• Monitored the operation of the CAT, including with regard to Participant and Industry Member reporting;
• Provided support to subcontractors under the Plan Processor Agreement;
• Provided support in discussions with the Participants and the SEC and its staff;
• Operated the FINRA CAT Helpdesk;
• Facilitated communications with the industry, including via FAQs, CAT Alerts, meetings, presentations and webinars;
• Administered the CAT website and all of its content; and
• Provided technical support and assistance with connectivity, data access, and user support, including the use of CAT Data and query tools, for Participants and the SEC staff.
Pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement discussed above, Kingland continued in its role as a subcontractor for the development and implementation of CAIS during FAM Period 2. Accordingly, the $1,590,298 in technology costs for CAIS operating fees represent costs incurred for services provided by Kingland during FAM Period 2. The fee arrangement for Kingland described above with regard to the Pre-FAM Period and FAM Period 1 continued in place during FAM Period 2 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. During FAM Period 2, Kingland continued the development of the CAIS Technical Specifications and building of CAIS. In addition, Kingland continued to work on the CAIS Technical Specifications and build related to the CCID Alternative, as well as the acceleration of the reporting of LTIDs.
During FAM Period 2, CAT LLC engaged FCAT to pursue certain change requests in accordance with the Plan Processor Agreement. The change request costs were paid by CAT LLC to FCAT. Specifically, during FAM Period 2, CAT incurred costs of $51,823 related to a change request regarding the addition of functionality for exchange Participants to report rejected messages to the CAT.
Capitalized developed technology costs for FAM Period 2 of $6,761,094 include capitalizable application development costs incurred in the development of the CAT by FCAT. Such costs include (1) development costs incurred during the application development stage to meet various agreed-upon milestones regarding the CAT, as defined in the agreement between CAT LLC and the Plan Processor; (2) costs related to certain modifications, upgrades, or other changes to the CAT that were not contemplated by the agreement between CAT LLC and the Plan Processor, including costs related to separate production and industry test entitlements, market maker reference data, and back-processing of exchange exception logic; (3) implementation fees; and (4) license fees.
The legal costs of $2,766,644 represent the fees paid for legal services provided by two law firms, WilmerHale and Pillsbury during FAM Period 2.
• Assisted with the development of the CAT funding model and drafting related amendments and rule filings;
• Drafted exemptive requests from CAT NMS Plan requirements regarding, for example, allocations, exchange activity, OTQT, initial data validation, error corrections and recordkeeping;
• Provided interpretations related to CAT NMS Plan requirements, including with regard to the Financial Accountability Milestone amendment, FAQs and technical specifications;
• Provided support for the Operating Committee, Compliance Subcommittees, working groups and Leadership Team, including with regard to meetings with the SEC staff;
• Assisted with the Implementation Plan and Quarterly Progress Reports required pursuant to Section 6.6 of the CAT NMS Plan;
• Drafted SRO rule filings related to the CAT Compliance Rule;
• Provided support for the Compliance Subcommittee, including with regard to responses to OCIE examinations and the annual assessment;
• Provided guidance regarding the SEC's proposed security amendments to the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided guidance regarding SRO rule filings for the retirement of systems;
• Provided legal support for Operating Committee meetings, including drafting resolutions and other materials and voting advice;
• Assisted with third party vendor agreements (
• Assisted with change requests; and
• Provided support with regard to discussions with the SEC and its staff, including with respect to addressing interpretive and implementation issues.
The consulting costs of $532,146 represent the fees paid to Deloitte as project manager during FAM Period 2. CAT LLC continued to employ Deloitte during FAM Period 2 based on, among other things, their expertise and long history with the project. The fee rates for Deloitte during FAM Period 2 were negotiated and in line with market rates for this type of specialized consulting work. The consulting fees during FAM Period 2 were paid to Deloitte by CAT LLC. CAT LLC reviewed the consulting fees each month and approved the invoices. During FAM Period 2, Deloitte's CAT-related activities included the following:
• Implemented program operations for the CAT project;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Chair of the Operating Committee and the Leadership Team, including project management support, coordination and planning for meetings and communications, and interfacing with law firms and the SEC;
• Assisted with cost and funding matters for the CAT, including the development of the CAT funding model and assistance with loans and the CAT bank account for CAT funding;
• Provided support for updating the SEC on the progress of the development of the CAT; and
• Provided support for third party vendors for the CAT, including FCAT, Anchin and the law firms engaged by CAT LLC.
The insurance costs of $976,098 represent the fees paid for insurance during FAM Period 2. CAT LLC continued to maintain cyber security liability insurance, directors' and officers' liability insurance, and errors and omissions liability insurance offered by USI. After engaging in a process for renewing the coverage, CAT LLC determined to purchase these insurance policies from USI. The annual premiums for these policies were competitive for the coverage provided. The annual premiums were paid by CAT LLC to USI.
The professional and administration costs of $438,523 represent the fees paid to Anchin and Grant Thornton for financial services provided during FAM Period 2.
• Updated and maintained internal controls;
• Provided cash management and treasury functions;
• Faciliated bill payments;
• Provided monthly bookkeeping;
• Reviewed vendor invoices and documentation in support of cash disbursements;
• Provided accounting research and consultations on various accounting, financial reporting and tax matters;
• Addressed not-for-profit tax and accounting considerations;
• Prepared tax returns;
• Addressed various accounting, financial reporting and operating inquiries from the Participants;
• Developed and maintained quarterly and annual operating and financial budgets, including budget to actual fluctuation analyses;
• Supported compliance with the CAT NMS Plan;
• Worked with and provided support to the Operating Committee and various CAT working groups;
• Prepared monthly, quarterly and annual financial statements;
• Supported the annual financial statement audit by an independent auditor; and
• Reviewed historical costs from inception.
The public relations costs of $41,940 represent the fees paid to Peak Strategies during FAM Period 2. CAT LLC continued to employ Peak Strategies during FAM Period 2 based on, among other things, their expertise and history with the project. The fee rates for this firm were in line with market rates for these types of services. The fees for these services during FAM Period 2 were paid by CAT LLC to Peak Strategies. During FAM Period 2, Peak Strategies continued to provide professional communications services to CAT, including media relations consulting, strategy and execution. Specifically, the public relations firm provided services related to communications with the public regarding the CAT, including monitoring developments related to the CAT (
Historical CAT Costs 1 would include costs incurred by CAT and already funded by the Participants during Period 3 of the Financial Accountability Milestones (“FAM Period 3”),
By the completion
(a) reporting to the Order Audit Trail System (“OATS”) is no longer required for new orders; (b) Industry Member reporting for equities transactions and simple electronic options transactions, excluding Customer Account Information, Customer-ID, and Customer Identifying Information, with sufficient intra-firm linkage, inter-firm linkage, national securities exchange linkage, trade reporting facilities linkage, and representative order linkages (including any equities allocation information provided in an Allocation Report) to permit the Participants and the Commission to analyze the full lifecycle of an order across the national market system, from order origination through order execution or order cancellation, is developed, tested, and implemented at a 5% Error Rate or less; (c) Industry Member reporting for manual options transactions and complex options transactions, excluding Customer Account Information, Customer-ID, and Customer Identifying Information, with all required linkages to permit the Participants and the Commission to analyze the full lifecycle of an order across the national market system, from order origination through order execution or order cancellation, including any options allocation information provided in an Allocation Report, is developed, tested, and fully implemented; (d) the query tool functionality required by Section 6.10(c)(i)(A) and Appendix D, Sections 8.1.1-8.1.3, Section 8.2.1, and Section 8.5 incorporates the data described in conditions (b)-(c) and is available to the Participants and to the Commission; and (e) the requirements of Section 6.10(a) are met.
CAT LLC completed the requirements of FAM Period 3 by December 31, 2021. The following describes the costs for each of the categories for FAM Period 3.
CAT LLC continued to utilize AWS in FAM Period 3 to provide a broad array of cloud hosting services for the CAT, including data ingestion, data management, and analytic tools. AWS continued to provide storage services, databases, compute services and other services (such as networking, management tools and DevOps tools), as well as various environments for CAT, such as development, performance testing, test, and production environments, during the FAM 3 Period. Accordingly, the $94,574,759 in technology costs for cloud hosting services represents costs incurred for services provided by AWS, as the cloud services provider, during FAM Period 3. The fee arrangement for AWS described above for the earlier periods continued in place during FAM Period 3 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement.
The cost for AWS cloud services for the CAT continued to be a function of the volume of CAT Data. During FAM Period 3, the volume of CAT Data continued to far exceed the original predictions for the CAT as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. During this period, data submitted to the CAT included options and equities Participant Data, Phase 2a, Phase 2b, Phase 2c and Phase 2d Industry Member Data (including certain linkages), SIP Data, Other Data, including reference data, and LTID account information. The following chart provides data regarding the average daily volume, cumulative total events, total compute hours and storage footprint of the CAT during FAM Period 3.
Pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement discussed above, FCAT continued in its role as the Plan Processor for the CAT during FAM Period 3. Accordingly, the $23,106,091 in technology costs for operating fees represent costs incurred for the services provided by FCAT under the Plan Processor Agreement during FAM Period 3. The fee arrangement for FCAT described above with regard to the prior Periods continued in place during FAM Period 3 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. During FAM Period 3, FCAT's activities with respect to the CAT included the following:
• Facilitated Phase 2c and Phase 2d testing for Industry Members;
• Oversaw creation of linkages of the lifecycle of order events based on the received data through Phase 2d;
• Addressed compliance items, including drafting CAT policies and procedures, and addressing Regulation SCI requirements;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Compliance Subcommittee and CAT working groups;
• Assisted with interpretive efforts and exemptive requests regarding the CAT NMS Plan;
• Oversaw the security of the CAT;
• Monitored the operation of the CAT, including with regard to Participant and Industry Member reporting;
• Provided support to subcontractors under the Plan Processor Agreement;
• Provided support in discussions with the Participants and the SEC and its staff;
• Operated the FINRA CAT Helpdesk;
• Facilitated communications with the industry, including via FAQs, CAT Alerts, meetings, presentations and webinars;
• Administered the CAT website and all of its content; and
• Provided technical support and assistance with connectivity, data access, and user support, including the use of CAT Data and query tools, for Participants and the SEC staff.
Pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement with FCAT discussed above, Kingland continued in its role as a subcontractor for the development and implementation of CAIS during FAM Period 3. Accordingly, the $5,562,383 in technology costs for CAIS operating fees represents costs incurred for services provided by Kingland during FAM Period 3. The fee arrangement for Kingland described above with regard to the prior Periods continued in place during FAM Period 3 pursuant to the Plan Processor Agreement. During FAM Period 3, Kingland continued the development of the CAIS Technical Specifications and building of CAIS. In addition, Kingland continued to work on the CAIS Technical Specifications and build related to the CCID Alternative, as well as the acceleration of the reporting of LTIDs. The full CAIS Technical Specifications were published during FAM Period 3.
During FAM Period 3, CAT LLC engaged FCAT to pursue certain change requests in accordance with the Plan Processor Agreement. The change request costs were paid by CAT LLC to FCAT. Specifically, during FAM Period 3, CAT incurred costs of $396,169 related to change requests, including the following: (1) the addition of functionality for exchange Participants to report rejected messages to the CAT; (2) the migration of MIRS query engine to AWS to reduce operational costs and increase resiliency; and (3) updating the Participant Technical Specifications to allow for two-sided Participant option quote reporting.
Capitalized developed technology costs for FAM Period 3 of $10,763,372 include capitalizable application development costs incurred in the development of the CAT by FCAT. Such costs include (1) development costs incurred during the application development stage to meet various agreed-upon milestones regarding the CAT, as defined in the agreement between CAT LLC and the Plan Processor, including the transition from equity data received by FINRA pursuant to various regulatory services agreements between FINRA and Participant exchanges to the equity CAT Data, and the completion of the Industry Member Phase 2d options manual and complex orders go-live requirements; (2) costs related to certain modifications, upgrades, or other changes to the CAT that were not contemplated by the agreement between CAT LLC and the Plan Processor, including costs related to off-exchange volume concentration, Participant 24-hour trading and an external metastore; (3) implementation fees; and (4) license fees.
The legal costs of $6,333,248 represent the fees paid for legal services provided by three law firms, WilmerHale, Pillsbury and Covington & Burling LLP (“Covington”) during FAM Period 3.
• Assisted with the development of the CAT funding model and drafting related amendments and rule filings;
• Drafted exemptive requests from CAT NMS Plan requirements, including, for example, verbal activity regarding Phase 2c cutover, error reports, error
• Provided interpretations related to CAT NMS Plan requirements, including with regard to the Financial Accountability Milestone amendment, FAQs, CAIS requirements, ADF, and technical specifications;
• Provided support for the Operating Committee, Compliance Subcommittee, working groups and Leadership Team, including with regard to meetings with the SEC staff;
• Assisted with the Implementation Plan and Quarterly Progress Reports required pursuant to Section 6.6(c) of the CAT NMS Plan;
• Drafted SRO rule filings related to the CAT Compliance Rule;
• Provided support for Compliance Subcommittee, including with regard to response to OCIE examinations and the annual assessment;
• Provided guidance regarding SEC's proposed security amendments to CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided guidance regarding SRO rule filings for the retirement of systems;
• Provided legal support for Operating Committee meetings, including drafting resolutions and other materials and voting advice;
• Provided assistance with change requests;
• Provided guidance and regulatory support for litigation regarding the response to SEC's exemptive orders;
• Assisted with communications with the industry, includng CAT Alerts and presentations;
• Provided guidance regarding the confidentiality of CAT Data, including third-party information requests;
• Assisted with cost management analysis and proposals; and
• Provided support with regard to discussions with the SEC and its staff, including with respect to addressing interpretive and implementation issues.
After Covington was hired in 2021 through the end of 2021, the firm provided legal assistance regarding the litigation with the SEC regarding the 2020 Orders. These services included researching, drafting, and filing motions to stay the 2020 orders and related materials in proceedings before the SEC, as well as researching, drafting, and filing petitions for judicial review of the 2020 Orders in proceedings before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Covington oversaw ongoing litigation proceedings on these matters, and also supported WilmerHale with respect to settlement negotiations with the SEC staff regarding the 2020 Orders.
In addition to these services, CAT LLC engaged Covington in November 2021 to provide assistance with respect to the SEC's disapproval of CAT NMS Plan amendments concerning a proposed limitation on liability in the event of a data breach or similar event. Covington provided advice concerning CAT's response to the SEC's disapproval order. This work accounted for a minority of Covington's fees in 2021.
The consulting costs of $1,408,209 represent the fees paid to Deloitte as project manager during FAM Period 3. CAT LLC continued to employ Deloitte during FAM Period 3 based on, among other things, their expertise and long history with the project. The fee rates for Deloitte during FAM Period 3 were negotiated and in line with market rates for this type of specialized consulting work. The consulting fees during FAM Period 3 were paid to Deloitte by CAT LLC. CAT LLC reviewed the consulting fees each month and approved the invoices. During FAM Period 3, Deloitte's CAT-related activities included the following:
• Implemented program operations for the CAT project;
• Provided support to the Operating Committee, the Chair of the Operating Committee and the Leadership Team, including project management support, coordination and planning for meetings and communications, and interfacing with law firms and the SEC;
• Assisted with cost and funding matters for the CAT, including the development of the CAT funding model and assistance with loans and the CAT bank account for CAT funding;
• Provided support for updating the SEC on the progress of the development of the CAT; and
• Provided support for third party vendors for the CAT, including FCAT, Anchin and the law firms engaged by CAT LLC.
The insurance costs of $1,582,714 represent the fees paid for insurance FAM Period 3. CAT LLC continued to maintain cyber security liability insurance, directors' and officers' liability insurance, and errors and omissions liability insurance offered by USI. After engaging in a process for renewing the coverage, CAT LLC determined to purchase these insurance policies from USI. The annual premiums for these policies were competitive for the coverage provided. The annual premiums were paid by CAT LLC to USI.
The professional and administration costs of $595,923 represent the fees paid to Anchin and Grant Thornton for financial services during FAM Period 3.
• Updated and maintained internal controls;
• Provided cash management and treasury functions;
• Faciliated bill payments;
• Provided monthly bookkeeping;
• Reviewed vendor invoices and documentation in support of cash disbursements;
• Provided accounting research and consultations on various accounting, financial reporting and tax matters;
• Addressed not-for-profit tax and accounting considerations;
• Prepared tax returns;
• Addressed various accounting, financial reporting and operating inquiries from Participants;
• Developed and maintained quarterly and annual operating and financial budgets, including budget to actual fluctuation analyses;
• Supported compliance with the CAT NMS Plan;
• Worked with and provided support to the Operating Committee and various CAT working groups;
• Prepared monthly, quarterly and annual financial statements;
• Supported the annual financial statement audits by an independent auditor;
• Reviewed historical costs from inception; and
• Provided accounting and financial information in support of SEC filings.
The public relations costs of $92,400 represent the fees paid to Peak Strategies during FAM Period 3. CAT LLC continued to employ Peak Strategies during FAM Period 3 based on, among other things, their expertise and history with the project. The fee rates for this firm were in line with market rates for these types of services. The fees for these services during FAM Period 3 were paid by CAT LLC to Peak Strategies. During FAM Period 3, Peak Strategies continued to provide professional communications services to CAT, including media relations consulting, strategy and execution. Specifically, the public relations firm provided services related to communications with the public regarding the CAT, including monitoring developments related to the CAT (
Historical CAT Costs 1 would not include two categories of CAT costs (“Excluded Costs”): (1) $48,874,937, which are all CAT costs incurred from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018; and (2) $14,749,362 of costs related to the termination of the relationship with the Initial Plan Processor. The Participants would remain responsible for 100% of these costs, which total $63,624,299. CAT LLC determined that it was reasonable to exclude these Excluded Costs from Historical CAT Costs 1 because the excluded costs relate to the delay in the start of reporting to the CAT and the conclusion of the relationship with the Initial Plan Processor.
First, Historical CAT Costs 1 would not include $14,749,362 of costs related to the conclusion of the relationship with the Initial Plan Processor. Such costs include costs related to the American Arbitration Association, the legal assistance of Pillsbury with regard to the arbitration with Thesys CAT, and the settlement costs related to the arbitration with Thesys CAT. The Participants would remain responsible for 100% of these $14,749,362 in costs.
Second, the Historical CAT Costs would exclude all CAT costs incurred from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018. CAT LLC determined to exclude all costs during this one-year period of $48,874,937 from fees charged to Industry Members due to the delay in the start of reporting to the CAT. The Participants would remain responsible for 100% of these $48,874,937 in costs. The following table breaks down these costs into the categories set forth in Section 11.3(b)(iii)(B)(II) of the CAT NMS Plan.
The following
CAT LLC did not incur technology costs related to the categories of cloud hosting services, operating fees, CAIS operating fees or change requests during the period from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018.
Capitalized developed technology costs for the period from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018 include capitalizable application development costs of $37,852,083 incurred in the development of the CAT by the Initial Plan Processor. Such costs include development costs incurred during the application development stage to meet various agreed-upon milestones regarding the CAT, as defined in the agreement between CAT LLC and the Initial Plan Processor. Such costs include costs related to Industry Member technical specifications for orders and transactions, the system security plan, testing and production for Participant CAT reporting, third-party security assessment and response, query portal, onboarding of the Chief Information Security Officer, and ingestion of FINRA TRF data and FINRA data related to halts and corporate actions.
The legal costs of $6,143,278 represent the fees paid to WilmerHale for legal services from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018. During this period, WilmerHale provided legal assistance to the CAT including with regard to the following:
• Provided legal support for the governance of the CAT, including governance support for the Operating Committee, Advisory Committee, Compliance Subcommittee, and CAT working groups;
• Assisted with the development of the CAT funding model and drafted related amendments of the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided assistance related to CAT security;
• Drafted exemptive requests, including requests related to PII;
• Assisted with the Implementation Plan required pursuant to Section 6.6(c)(i) of the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided interpretations of and related to the CAT NMS Plan;
• Provided advice with regard to regulator access to the CAT;
• Assisted with the Plan Processor transition;
• Provided assistance regarding communications with the industry regarding the CAT;
• Provided advice regarding Customer Account Information and PII;
• Provided support for litigation related to SEC exemptive orders; and
• Provided support with regard to discussions with the SEC and its staff, including with respect to addressing interpretative and implementation issues.
The consulting costs of $4,452,106 represent the fees paid to Deloitte for their role as project manager for the CAT from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018. During this period, Deloitte engaged in the following activities with respect to the CAT:
• Implemented program operations for the CAT project;
• Provided governance support to the Operating Committee, including support for Subcommittees and working groups of the Operating Committee (
• Assisted with cost and funding issue for the CAT, including the development of the CAT funding model and assistance with loans and the CAT bank account for CAT funding;
• Provided support for updating the SEC on the progress of the development of the CAT; and
• Provided active planning and coordination with and support for the Initial Plan Processor with regard to the development of the CAT, and reported to the Participants on the progress.
CAT LLC did not incur costs related to insurance during the period from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018.
The professional and administration costs of $340,145 represent the fees paid to Anchin, Exegy and RSM from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018.
• Developed, updated and maintained internal controls;
• Provided cash management and treasury functions;
• Facilitated bill payments;
• Provided monthly bookkeeping;
• Reviewed vendor invoices and documentation in support of cash disbursements;
• Provided accounting research and consultations on various accounting, financial reporting and tax matters;
• Addressed not-for-profit tax and accounting considerations;
• Prepared tax returns;
• Addressed various accounting, financial reporting and operating inquiries from Participants;
• Developed and maintained quarterly and annual operating and financial budgets, including budget to actual fluctuation analyses;
• Addressed accounting and financial matters relating to the transition from CAT NMS, LLC to Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC, including supporting the dissolution of CAT NMS, LLC;
• Supported compliance with the CAT NMS Plan;
• Worked with and provided support to the Operating Committee and various CAT working groups;
• Prepared monthly, quarterly and annual financial statements;
• Supported the annual financial statement audits by an independent auditor;
• Reviewed historical costs from inception; and
• Provided accounting and financial information in support of SEC filings.
The public relations costs of $87,325 represent the fees paid to Sloane from November 15, 2017 through November 15, 2018. From the commencement of its engagment in March 2018 through November 15, 2018, Sloane provided professional communications services to CAT, including media relations consulting, strategy and execution. Specifically, Sloane provided services related to communications with the public regarding the CAT, including monitoring developments related to the CAT (
Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee is required to reasonably establish the length of the Historical Recovery Period used in calculating each Historical Fee Rate based upon the amount of the Historical CAT Costs to be recovered by the Historical CAT Assessment, and to describe the reasons for its length.
The Operating Committee determined that the length of Historical Recovery Period 1 appropriately weighs the need for a reasonable Historical Fee Rate 1 that spreads the Historical CAT Costs over an appropriate amount of time and the need to repay the loans to the Participants in a timely fashion. The Operating Committee determined that 24 months for Historical Recovery Period 1 would establish a fee rate that is lower than other transaction-based fees, including fees assessed pursuant to Section 31.
The length of the Historical Recovery Period 1 and the reasons for its length are provided in this filing in accordance with the requirement in the CAT NMS Plan to provide such information in a fee filing for a Historical CAT Assessment.
The calculation of Historical Fee Rate 1 also requires the determination of the projected total executed equivalent share volume of transactions in Eligible Securities for Historical Recovery Period 1. Under the CAT NMS Plan, the Operating Committee is required to “reasonably determine the projected total executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for each Historical Recovery Period based on the executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for the prior twelve months.”
The total executed equivalent share volume of transactions in Eligible Securities for the period from December 2022 through November 2023 was 3,842,861,347,279.44 executed equivalent shares. The Operating Committee has determined to calculate the projected total executed equivalent share volume for the 24 months of Historical Recovery Period 1 by doubling the executed equivalent share volume for the prior 12 months. The Operating Committee determined that such an approach was reasonable as the CAT's annual executed equivalent share volume has remained relatively constant. For example, the executed equivalent share volume for 2021 was 3,963,697,612,395 executed equivalent shares, and the executed equivalent share volume for 2022 was 4,039,821,841,560.31 executed equivalent shares. Accordingly, the projected total executed equivalent share volume for Historical Recovery Period 1 is projected to be 7,685,722,694,558.88 executed equivalent shares.
The projected total executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for Historical Recovery Period 1 and a description of the calculation of the projection is provided in this filing in accordance with the requirement in the CAT NMS Plan to provide such information in a fee filing for a Historical CAT Assessment.
Historical Fee Rate 1 would be calculated by dividing Historical CAT Costs 1 by the reasonably projected total executed equivalent share volume of all transactions in Eligible Securities for Historical Recovery Period 1, as described in detail above.
Participants would not be required to pay any fees associated with Historical CAT Assessment 1 as the Participants previously have paid all Past CAT Costs. The CAT NMS Plan explains that:
Because Participants previously have paid Past CAT Costs via loans to the Company, Participants would not be required to pay any Historical CAT Assessment. In lieu of a Historical CAT Assessment, the Participants' one-third share of Historical CAT Costs and such other additional Past CAT Costs as reasonably determined by the Operating Committee will be paid by the cancellation of loans made to the Company on a pro rata basis based on the outstanding loan amounts due under the loans.
The CAT NMS Plan further states that “Historical CAT Assessments are designed to recover two-thirds of the Historical CAT Costs.”
CEBBs and CEBSs would be required to pay fees for Historical CAT Assessment 1 on a monthly basis for the period in which Historical CAT Assessment 1 is in effect.
The CAT NMS Plan states that, “[n]otwithstanding the length of the Historical Recovery Period used in calculating the Historical Fee Rate, each Historical CAT Assessment calculated using the Historical Fee Rate will remain in effect until all Historical CAT Costs for the Historical CAT Assessment are collected.”
To implement Historical CAT Assessment 1, a “Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees” section would be added to the Exchange's fee schedule, to include the proposed paragraphs described below.
The CAT NMS Plan states that:
Each month in which a Historical CAT Assessment is in effect, each CEBB and each CEBS shall pay a fee for each transaction in Eligible Securities executed by the CEBB or CEBS from the prior month as set forth in CAT Data, where the Historical CAT Assessment for each transaction will be calculated by multiplying the number of executed equivalent shares in the transaction by one-third and by the Historical Fee Rate reasonably determined pursuant to paragraph (b)(i) of this Section 11.3.
Accordingly, based on the factors discussed above, the Exchange proposes to add paragraph (a)(1) to the Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees section of its fee schedule. Proposed paragraph (a)(1) would state the following:
(A) Each CAT Executing Broker shall receive its first invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1 in April 2024, which shall set forth the Historical CAT Assessment 1 fees calculated based on transactions in March 2024, and shall receive an invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1 for each month thereafter in which Historical CAT Assessment 1 is in effect.
(B) Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC shall provide each CAT Executing Broker with an invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1 on a monthly basis. Each month, such invoices shall set forth a fee for each transaction in Eligible Securities executed by the CAT Executing Broker in its capacity as a CAT Executing Broker for the Buyer (“CEBB”) and/or the CAT Executing Broker for the Seller (“CEBS”) (as applicable) from the prior month as set forth in CAT Data. The fee for each such transaction will be calculated by multiplying the number of executed equivalent shares in the transaction by the fee rate of $0.000015 per executed equivalent share.
(C) Historical CAT Assessment 1 will remain in effect until $225,125,740 (two-thirds of Historical CAT Costs 1) are collected from CAT Executing Brokers collectively, which is estimated to be approximately two years, but could be for a longer or shorter period of time. Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC will provide notice when Historical CAT Assessment 1 will no longer be in effect.
(D) Each CAT Executing Broker shall be required to pay each invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1 in accordance with paragraph (b).
As noted in the Plan amendment for the CAT Funding Model, “as a practical matter, the fee filing for a Historical CAT Assessment would provide the exact fee per executed equivalent share to be paid for each Historical CAT Assessment, by multiplying the Historical Fee Rate by one-third and describing the relevant number of decimal places for the fee rate.
The proposed language in paragraph (a)(1)(A) of the fee schedule would describe when CAT Executing Brokers would receive their first monthly invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1. Specifically, CAT Executing Brokers would receive their first monthly invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1 in April 2024 and the fees set forth in
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(A) of the fee schedule also would describe the monthly cadence of the invoices for Historical CAT Assessment 1. Specifically, after the first invoices are provided to CAT Executing Brokers in April 2024, invoices will be sent to CAT Executing Brokers each month thereafter while Historical CAT Assessment 1 is in effect.
Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(B) of the fee schedule would describe the invoices for Historical CAT Assessment 1. Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(B) of the fee schedule would state that “Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC shall provide each CAT Executing Broker with an invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1 on a monthly basis.” Proposed paragraph (a)(1)(B) of the fee schedule also would describe the fees to be set forth in the invoices for Historical CAT Assessment 1. Specifically, it would state that “[e]ach month, such invoices shall set forth a fee for each transaction in Eligible Securities executed by the CAT Executing Broker in its capacity as a CAT Executing Broker for the Buyer (“CEBB”) and/or the CAT Executing Broker for the Seller (“CEBS”) (as applicable) from the prior month as set forth in CAT Data. The fee for each such transaction will be calculated by multiplying the number of executed equivalent shares in the transaction by the fee rate of $0.000015 per executed equivalent share.”
Furthermore, proposed paragraph (a)(1)(C) of the fee schedule would describe how long Historical CAT Assessment 1 would remain in effect. It would state that “Historical CAT Assessment 1 will remain in effect until $225,125,740 (two-thirds of Historical CAT Costs 1) are collected from CAT Executing Brokers collectively, which is estimated to be approximately two years, but could be for a longer or shorter period of time.” This proposed paragraph would further state that “Consolidated Audit Trail, LLC will be [
Historical CAT Assessment 1 will be assessed for all transactions executed in each month through the end of the month in which two-thirds of Historical CAT Costs 1 are assessed, and then CAT LLC will provide notice that Historical CAT Assessment 1 is no longer in effect. Since Historical CAT Assessment 1 is a monthly fee based on transaction volume from the prior month, Historical CAT Assessment 1 may collect more than two-thirds of Historical CAT Costs 1. To the extent that occurs, any excess money collected during the final month in which Historical CAT Assessment 1 is in effect will be used to offset future fees and/or to fund the reserve for the CAT.
Finally, proposed paragraph (a)(1)(D) of the fee schedule sets forth the requirement for the CAT Executing Brokers to pay the invoices for Historical CAT Assessment 1. It would state that “[e]ach CAT Executing Broker shall be required to pay each invoice for Historical CAT Assessment 1 in accordance with paragraph (b).”
The Exchange proposes to add paragraph (b)(1) to the “Consolidated Audit Trail Funding Fees” section of its fee schedule to describe the manner of payment of Industry Member CAT fees. The CAT NMS Plan requires the Operating Committee to establish a system for the collection of CAT fees.
The CAT NMS Plan further states that:
Participants shall require each Industry Member to pay all applicable fees authorized under this Article XI within thirty (30) days after receipt of an invoice or other notice indicating payment is due (unless a longer payment period is otherwise indicated). If an Industry Member fails to pay any such fee when due (as determined in accordance with the preceding sentence), such Industry Member shall pay interest on the outstanding balance from such due date until such fee is paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser of: (a) the Prime Rate plus 300 basis points; or (b) the maximum rate permitted by applicable law.
Accordingly, the Exchange proposes to add this requirement to the Exchange's fee schedule. Proposed paragraph (b)(2) of the fee schedule would state:
Each CAT Executing Broker shall pay the CAT fees required pursuant to paragraph (a) within thirty days after receipt of an invoice or other notice indicating payment is due (unless a longer payment period is otherwise indicated). If a CAT Executing Broker fails to pay any such CAT fee when due, such CAT Executing Broker shall pay interest on the outstanding balance from such due date until such fee is paid at a per annum rate equal to the lesser of (i) the Prime Rate plus 300 basis points, or (ii) the maximum rate permitted by applicable law.
The CAT NMS Plan states that:
Details regarding the calculation of a CAT Executing Broker's Historical CAT Assessment will be provided upon request to such CAT Executing Broker. At a minimum, such details would include each CAT Executing Broker's executed equivalent share volume and corresponding fee by (1) Listed Options, NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities, (2) by transactions executed on each exchange and transactions executed otherwise than on an exchange, and (3) by buy-side transactions and sell-side transactions.
Such information would provide CEBBs and CEBSs with the ability to understand the details regarding the calculation of their Historical CAT Assessment.
In addition, CAT LLC will make certain aggregate statistics regarding Historical CAT Assessments publicly available. Specifically, the CAT NMS Plan states that, “[f]or each Historical CAT Assessment, at a minimum, CAT LLC will make publicly available the aggregate executed equivalent share volume and corresponding aggregate fee by (1) Listed Options, NMS Stocks and OTC Equity Securities, (2) by transactions executed on each exchange and transactions executed otherwise on an exchange, and (3) by buy-side
Furthermore, CAT LLC will make publicly available on the CAT website the total amount invoiced each month that Historical CAT Assessment 1 is in effect as well as the total amount invoiced for Historical CAT Assessment 1 for all months since its commencement. CAT LLC also will make publicly available on the CAT website the total costs to be collected from Industry Members for Historical CAT Assessment 1. By reviewing statistics regarding how much has been invoiced and how much remains to be invoiced for Historical CAT Assessment 1, Industry Members would have sufficient information to reasonably track how much longer Historical CAT Assessment 1 is likely to be in place.
To assist Industry Members with compliance with the commencement of Historical CAT Assessment 1, CAT LLC will make available to CAT Executing Brokers four months of mock invoices prior to the commencement of Historical CAT Assessment 1. Specifically, CAT Executing Brokers will receive mock invoices based on transaction data from November 2023, December 2023, January 2024 and February 2024. The mock invoices will be in the same form as the actual, payable invoices, including both the relevant transaction data and the corresponding fee. However, no payments will be required in response to such mock invoices; they are to be used solely to assist CAT Executing Brokers with the development of their processes for paying the CAT fees. Such data will provide CAT Executing Brokers with a preview of the transaction data used in creating the invoices for Historical CAT Assessment 1 fees, as the data will be the same as data provided in actual invoices. Such data preview is intended to facilitate the payment of Historical CAT Assessment 1.
The CAT NMS Plan states that “[n]o Participant will make a filing with the SEC pursuant to Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act regarding any Historical CAT Assessment until any applicable Financial Accountability Milestone described in Section 11.6 has been satisfied.”
In accordance with Section 11.6(b) of the CAT NMS Plan, Historical CAT Assessment 1 seeks to recover costs that are related to “all fees, costs, and expenses (including legal and consulting fees, costs, and expenses) incurred by or for the Company in connection with the development, implementation and operation of the CAT from the effective date of [Section 11.6 of the CAT NMS Plan] until such time as Full Implementation of CAT NMS Plan Requirements has been achieved”
The reporting by Industry Members (excluding Small Industry Members that are not OATS reporters) of both: (a) equities transaction data, excluding Customer Account Information, Customer-ID, and Customer Identifying Information; and (b) options transaction data, excluding Customer Account Information, Customer-ID and Customer Identifying Information.
Under Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, this Financial Accountability Milestone is considered complete as of the date identified in the Participants' Quarterly Progress Reports.
Under the FAM Period 1 requirement of Initial Industry Member Core Equity and Options Reporting, Industry Members—excluding Small Industry Members that are not OATS reporters—were required to report two categories of data to the CAT: equites transaction data and options transaction data (both excluding Customer Account Information, Customer-ID, and Customer Identifying Information) by July 31, 2020. Pursuant to exemptive relief provided by the Commission, the Commission authorized the Participants' Compliance Rules to allow core equity reporting for Industry Members (Phase 2a) to begin on June 22, 2020 and core options reporting for Industry Members (Phase 2b) to begin on July 20, 2020.
In adopting the FAMs, the Commission stated that the equities transaction reporting required for FAM Period 1 “is consistent with the functionality that the Participants describe on the CAT NMS Plan website as `Production Go-Live for Equities 2a file submission and data integrity validations.' ”
• All events and scenarios covered by OATS, which includes information related to the receipt or origination of
• Reportable Events for: (1) proprietary orders, including market maker orders, for Eligible Securities that are equities; (2) electronic quotes in listed equity Eligible Securities (
• Firm Designated IDs (“FDIDs”), which Industry Members must report to the CAT as required by Sections 6.3(d)(i)(A) and 6.4(d)(ii)(C) of the CAT NMS Plan.
• Industry Members would be required to report all street side representative orders, including both agency and proprietary orders and mark such orders as representative orders, except in certain limited exceptions as described in the Industry Member Technical Specifications;
• The link between the street side representative order and the order being represented when: (1) the representative order was originated specifically to represent a single order received either from a customer or another broker-dealer; and (2) there is (a) an existing direct electronic link in the Industry Member's system between the order being represented and the representative order and (b) any resulting executions are immediately and automatically applied to the represented order in the Industry Member's system;
• Manual and Electronic Capture Time for Manual Order Events;
• Special handling instructions for the original receipt or origination of an order during Phase 2a; and
• When routing an order, whether the order was routed as an intermarket sweep order (“ISO”).
In Phase 2a, Industry Members were not required to report modifications of a previously routed order in certain limited instances, nor were they required to report a cancellation of an order received from a Customer after the order has been executed.
The Quarterly Progress Report for the third quarter of 2020 states that “Interim Step: Production Go-Live for Equities 2a file submission and data integrity validation (Large Industry Members and Small OATS Reporters)” was completed on June 22, 2020. Accordingly, the FAM Period 1 requirement of reporting by Industry Members (excluding Small Industry Members that are not OATS reporters) of “equities transaction data, excluding Customer Account Information, Customer-ID, and Customer Identifying Information” was completed on June 22, 2020.
In adopting the FAMs, the Commission stated that the options transaction reporting required for FAM Period 1 is “consistent with the functionality that the Participants describe on the CAT NMS Plan website as `Production Go-Live for Options 2b file submission and data integrity validations.' ”
The Quarterly Progress Report for the third quarter of 2020 states that “Interim Step: Production Go-Live for Options 2b file submission and data integrity validations” was completed on July 20, 2020. Accordingly, the FAM Period 1 requirement of reporting by Industry Members (excluding Small Industry Members that are not OATS reporters) of “options transaction data, excluding Customer Account Information, Customer-ID and Customer Identifying Information” was completed on July 20, 2020.
As discussed above, the Historical CAT Costs 1 to be recovered via Historical CAT Assessment 1 would include fees, costs and expenses incurred by or for the Company in connection with the development, implementation and operation of the CAT during the period from June 22, 2020 through July 31, 2020. The total costs for this period, as discussed above, are $6,377,343. Participants would remain responsible for one-third of this cost (which they have previously paid), and Industry Members would be responsible for the remaining two-thirds, with CEBBs paying one-third ($2,125,781) and CEBSs paying one-third ($2,125,781).
Historical CAT Assessment 1 seeks to recover costs that are related to Post-Amendment Expenses incurred during FAM Period 2. FAM Period 2 began on August 1, 2020, and concluded on December 31, 2020, the date of the Full Implementation of Core Equity Reporting. Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “Full Implementation of Core Equity Reporting” as:
Under Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, this Financial Accountability Milestone is considered complete as of the date identified in the Participants' Quarterly Progress Reports. As indicated by the Participants' Quarterly Progress Report for the fourth quarter of 2020,
Specifically, the Full Implementation of Core Equity Reporting requires the satisfaction of two prongs. The first prong requires Participants to have fully implemented the first phase of equities transaction reporting for Industry Members (excluding Small Industry Members that are not OATS reporters) at an Error Rate of less than 5%. In addition, equities transaction data produced by the CAT at this stage must also be sufficiently interlinked so as to permit full analysis of an order's lifecycle across the national market, excluding full linkage of representative orders. As CAT LLC reported on its Quarterly Progress Reports, Phase 2a was fully implemented as of October 26, 2020, including intra-firm, inter-firm, national securities exchange, and trade reporting facilities linkages.
• “Production Go-Live for Equities 2a Intrafirm Linkage validations” was completed on 7/27/2020;
• “Production Go-Live for Firm to Firm Linkage validations for Equities 2a (Large Industry Members and Small OATS Reporters)” was completed on October 26, 2020; and
• “Production Go-Live for Equities 2a Exchange and TRF Linkage validations (Large Industry Members and Small OATS Reporters)” was completed on October 26, 2020.
Furthermore, as CAT LLC reported on its Quarterly Progress Report for the fourth quarter of 2020, the average overall error rate for Phase 2a Industry Member Data was less than 5% as of December 31, 2020. The average overall error rate was calculated by dividing the compliance errors by processed records.
The second prong of this FAM requires that the equities transaction data collected by the CAT at this stage be made available to regulators through two basic query tools required by the CAT NMS Plan—a targeted query tool that will enable regulators to retrieve data via an online query screen with a variety of predefined selection criteria, and a user-defined direct query tool that will provide regulators with the ability to query data using all available attributes and data sources.
The Commission has determined that the Participants have sufficiently complied with the conditions set forth in the 2020 Orders and with the technical requirements for Quarterly Progress Reports set forth in Section 6.6(c) of the CAT NMS Plan for purposes of determining compliance with this FAM.
As discussed above, Historical CAT Costs 1 to be recovered via Historical CAT Assessment 1 would include fees, costs and expenses incurred by or for the Company in connection with the development, implementation and operation of the CAT during the period from August 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020. The total costs for this period, as discussed above, are $42,976,478. Participants would remain responsible for one-third of this cost (which they have previously paid), and Industry Members would be responsible for the remain two-thirds, with CEBBs paying one-third ($14,325,492.70) and CEBSs paying one-third ($14,325,492.70).
Historical CAT Assessment 1 seeks to recover costs that are related to Post-Amendment Expenses incurred during FAM Period 3. FAM Period 3 began on January 1, 2021, and concluded on December 31, 2021, the date of the Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality. Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan defines “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” as:
Under Section 1.1 of the CAT NMS Plan, this Financial Accountability Milestone is considered complete as of the date identified in the Participants' Quarterly Progress Reports. As indicated by the Participants' Quarterly Progress Report for the fourth quarter of 2021,
Specifically, the “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” requires the satisfaction of five prongs. The first prong requires that reporting to
In addition to Phase 2a and Phase 2b Industry Member Data, the second and third prongs of “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” require Industry Member reporting of Phase 2c Industry Member Data and Phase 2d Industry Member Data. The Phase 2c Industry Member Data is described in detail in the SEC's Phased Reporting Exemptive Relief Order. That Order states that “Phase 2c Industry Member Data” is Industry Member Data related to Eligible Securities that are equities other than Phase 2a Industry Member Data, Phase 2d Industry Member Data, or Phase 2e Industry Member Data. Specifically, the Phase 2c Industry Member Data includes Industry Member Data that is related to Eligible Securities that are equities and that is related to: (1) Allocation Reports as required to be recorded and reported to the Central Repository pursuant to Section 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan; (2) quotes in unlisted Eligible Securities sent to an IDQS operated by a CAT Reporter (reportable by the Industry Member sending the quotes) (except for quotes reportable in Phase 2d, as discussed below); (3) electronic quotes in listed equity Eligible Securities (
Phase 2c Industry Member Data also includes electronic quotes that are provided by or received in a CAT Reporter's order/quote handling or execution systems in Eligible Securities that are equities and are provided by an Industry Member to other market participants off a national securities exchange under the following conditions: (1) an equity bid or offer is displayed publicly or has been communicated (a) for listed securities to the Alternative Display Facility (ADF) operated by FINRA; or (b) for unlisted equity securities to an “interdealer quotation system,” as defined in FINRA Rule 6420(c); or (2) an equity bid or offer which is accessible electronically by customers or other market participants and is immediately actionable for execution or routing;
The Phase 2d Industry Member Data is described in detail in the SEC's Phased Reporting Exemptive Relief Order. “Phase 2d Industry Member Data” is Industry Member Data that is related to Eligible Securities that are options other than Phase 2b Industry Member Data, Industry Member Data that is related to Eligible Securities that are equities other than Phase 2a Industry Member Data or Phase 2c Industry Member Data, and Industry Member Data other than Phase 2e Industry Member Data. Phase 2d Industry Member Data includes with respect to the Eligible Securities that are options: (1) simple manual orders; (2) electronic and manual paired orders; (3) all complex orders with linkages to all CAT-reportable legs; (4) LTIDs (if applicable) for accounts with Reportable Events for Phase 2d; (5) date account opened or Account Effective Date (as applicable) for accounts with an LTID and flag indicating the Firm Designated ID type as account or relationship for such accounts; (6) Allocation Reports as required to be recorded and reported to the Central Repository pursuant to Section 6.4(d)(ii)(A)(1) of the CAT NMS Plan; (7) the modification or cancellation of an internal route of an order; and (8) linkage between a combined order and the original customer orders. Phase 2d Industry Member Data also would include electronic quotes that are provided by or received in a CAT Reporter's order/quote handling or execution systems in Eligible Securities that are options and are provided by an Industry Member to other market participants off a national securities exchange under the following conditions: a listed option bid or offer which is accessible electronically by customers or other market participants and is immediately actionable (
Phase 2d Industry Member Data also includes with respect to Eligible Securities that are options or equities (1) receipt time of cancellation and modification instructions through Order Cancel Request and Order Modification Request events; (2) modifications of previously routed orders in certain instances; and (3) OTC Equity Securities quotes sent by an Industry Member to an IDQS operated by an Industry Member CAT Reporter that does not match and execute orders. In addition, subject to any exemptive or other relief, Phase 2d Industry Member Data will include verbal or manual quotes on an exchange floor or in the over-the-
The Quarterly Progress Report for the fourth quarter of 2021 states that “Phase 2a was fully implemented as of October 26, 2020;” “Phase 2b was fully implemented as of January 4, 2021;” “Phase 2c was implemented as of April 26, 2021;” and “Phase 2d was fully implemented as of December 13, 2021.”
• “Production Go-Live for Equities 2c reporting requirements (Large Industry Members)” was completed on April 26, 2021;
• “LTID Account Information Reporting Go-Live for Phases 2a, 2b and 2c (Large Industry Members)” was completed on April 26, 2021;
• “FCAT Plan Processor creates linkages of the lifecycle of order events based on the received data through Phase 2d Production Go-Live for Options 2d reporting requirements (Large Industry Members)” was completed on December 13, 2021;
• “Production Go-Live for Options 2d reporting requirements (Large Industry Members)” was completed on December 13, 2021;
• “Production Go-Live for Options 2b reporting requirements (Small OATS Reporters and Small Non-OATS Reporters)” was completed on December 13, 2021;
• “Production Go-Live for Equities 2c reporting requirements (Small OATS Reporters and Small Non-OATS Reporters)” was completed on December 13, 2021;
• “Production Go-Live for Options 2d reporting requirements (Small OATS Reporters and Small Non-OATS Reporters)” was completed on December 13, 2021;
• “LTID Account Information Reporting Go-Live for Phases 2d (Large Industry Members)” was completed on December 13, 2021; and
• “LTID Account Information Reporting Go-Live for Phases 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d (Small Industry Members)” was completed on December 13, 2021.
The third prong of “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” also imposes an Error Rate requirement of 5% or less. The Quarterly Progress Report for the fourth quarter of 2021 states the average overall error rate was less than 5% as of December 31, 2021. The average overall error rate was calculated by dividing the compliance errors by processed records.
The fourth prong of “Full Availability and Regulatory Utilization of Transactional Database Functionality” requires that the data collected by the CAT at this stage be made available to regulators through an online targeted query tool and a user-defined direct query tool. As CAT LLC reported on its Quarterly Progress Report for the fourth quarter of 2021, the query tool functionality incorporating the data from Phases 2a, 2b, 2c and 2d was available to the Participants and to the Commission as of December 31, 2021.
The fifth prong requires the requirements of Section 6.10(a) of the CAT NMS Plan to have been met. Section 6.10(a) of the CAT NMS Plan requires the Participants to use the tools described in Appendix D to “develop and implement a surveillance system, or enhance existing surveillance systems, reasonably designed to make use of the consolidated information contained in the Central Repository.” The Exchange implemented a surveillance system, or enhanced existing surveillance systems, reasonably designed to make use of the consolidated information contained in the Central Repository as of December 31, 2021 in accordance with Section 6.10(a) of the CAT NMS Plan.
The Commission has determined that the Participants have sufficiently complied with the conditions set forth in the 2020 Orders and with the technical requirements for Quarterly Progress Reports set forth in Section 6.6(c) of the CAT NMS Plan for purposes of determining compliance with this FAM.
As discussed above, Historical CAT Costs 1 to be recovered via Historical CAT Assessment 1 would include fees, costs and expenses incurred by or for the Company in connection with the development, implementation and operation of the CAT during the period from January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021. The total costs for this period, as discussed above, are $144,415,268. Participants would remain responsible for one-third of this cost (which they have previously paid), and Industry Members would be responsible for the remain two-thirds, with CEBBs paying one-third ($48,138,422.70) and CBSs paying one-third ($48,138,422.70).
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of the Exchange Act. The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Act because it implements provisions of the Plan and is designed to assist the
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees paid by the CEBBs and CEBSs are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory. First, the Historical CAT Assessment 1 fees to be collected are directly associated with the costs of establishing and maintaining the CAT, where such costs include Plan Processor costs and costs related to technology, legal, consulting, insurance, professional and administration, and public relations costs. The Exchange has already incurred such development and implementation costs and the proposed Historical CAT Assessment 1 fees, therefore, would allow the Exchange to collect certain of such costs in a fair and reasonable manner from Industry Members, as contemplated by the CAT NMS Plan.
The proposed Historical CAT Assessment 1 fees would be charged to Industry Members in support of the maintenance of a consolidated audit trail for regulatory purposes. The proposed fees, therefore, are consistent with the Commission's view that regulatory fees be used for regulatory purposes and not to support the Exchange's business operations. The proposed fees would not cover Exchange services unrelated to the CAT. In addition, any surplus would be used as a reserve to offset future fees. Given the direct relationship between CAT fees and CAT costs, the Exchange believes that the proposed fees are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory.
As further discussed below, the SEC approved the CAT Funding Model, finding it was reasonable and that it equitably allocates fees among Participants and Industry Members. The Exchange believes that the proposed fees adopted pursuant to the CAT Funding Model approved by the SEC are reasonable, equitably allocated and not unfairly discriminatory.
Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan states that “[t]he Participants shall file with the SEC under Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act any such fees on Industry Members that the Operating Committee approves.” Per Section 11.1(b) of the CAT NMS Plan, the Exchange has filed this fee filing to implement the Industry Member CAT fees included in the CAT Funding Model. The Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act because it is consistent with, and implements, the CAT Funding Model in the CAT NMS Plan, and is designed to assist the Exchange and its Industry Members in meeting regulatory obligations pursuant to the CAT NMS Plan. In approving the CAT NMS Plan, the SEC noted that the Plan “is necessary and appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors and the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, to remove impediments to, and perfect the mechanism of a national market system, or is otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.”
The SEC has determined that the CAT Funding Model is reasonable and satisfies the requirements of the Exchange Act. Specifically, the SEC has concluded that the method for determining Historical CAT Assessments as set forth in Section 11.3 of the CAT NMS Plan, including the formula for calculating the Historical Fee Rate, the identification of the parties responsible for payment and the transactions subject to the fee rate for the Historical CAT Assessment, is reasonable and satisfies the Exchange Act.
The formula for calculating a Historical Fee Rate requires the amount of Historical CAT Costs to be recovered. Specifically, Section 11.3(b)(iii)(B)(II) of the CAT NMS Plan requires a fee filing to provide:
In accordance with this requirement, the Exchange has set forth the amount and type of Historical CAT Costs 1 for each of these categories of costs above.
Section 11.3(b)(iii)(B)(II) of the CAT NMS Plan also requires that the fee filing provide “sufficient detail to demonstrate that the Historical CAT Costs are reasonable and appropriate.” As discussed below, the Exchange believes that the amounts set forth in this filing for each of these cost categories is “reasonable and appropriate.” Each of the costs included in Historical CAT Costs 1 are reasonable and appropriate because the costs are consistent with standard industry practice, based on the need to comply with the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan, incurred subject to negotiations performed on an arm's length basis, and/or are consistent with the needs of any legal entity, particularly one with no employees.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the Commission recognized that it is appropriate to recover costs related to cloud hosting services as a part of
To comply with the requirements of the Plan, the breadth of the cloud activities related to the CAT is substantial. The cloud services not only include the production environment for the CAT, but they also include two industry testing environments, support environments for quality assurance and stress testing and disaster recovery capabilities. Moreover, the cloud storage costs are driven by the requirements of the Plan, which requires the storage of multiple versions of the data, from the original submitted version of the data through various processing steps, to the final version of the data.
Data volume is a significant driver of costs for cloud hosting services. When the Commission adopted the CAT NMS Plan in 2016, it estimated that the CAT would need to receive 58 billion records per day
In addition to the effect of the data volume on the cloud hosting costs, the processing timelines set forth in the Plan contribute to the cloud hosting costs. Although CAT LLC has proactively sought to manage cloud hosting costs while complying with the Plan, including through requests to the Commission for exemptive relief and an amendment to the CAT NMS Plan, stringent CAT NMS Plan requirements do not allow for any material flexibility in cloud architecture design choices, processing timelines (
The costs for cloud hosting services also reflect the need for specialized cloud hosting services given the data volume and unique processing needs of the CAT. The data volume as well as the data processing needs of the CAT necessitate the use of cloud hosting services. The equipment, power and services required for an on-premises data model, the alternative to cloud hosting services, would be cost prohibitive. Moreover, as CAT was being developed, there were limited cloud hosting providers that could satisfy all the necessary CAT requirements, including the operational and security criteria. Over time more providers offering cloud hosting services that would satisfy these criteria have entered the market. CAT LLC will continue to evaluate alternative cloud hosting services, recognizing that the time and cost to move to an alternative cloud provider would be substantial.
The reasonableness of the cloud hosting services costs is further supported by key cost discipline mechanisms for the CAT—a cost-based funding structure, cost transparency, cost management efforts (including regular efforts to lower compute and storage costs where permitted by the Plan) and oversight. Together, these mechanisms help ensure the ongoing reasonableness of the CAT's costs and the level of fees assessed to support those costs.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover costs related to operating fees as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover costs related to CAIS operating fees as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover costs related to change request fees as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover costs related to capitalized developed technology costs as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
These costs involve the activity of both the Initial Plan Processor and FCAT, as the successor Plan Processor.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover costs related to legal fees as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover consulting costs as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover insurance costs as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover professional and administration costs as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
CAT LLC determined to hire a financial advisory firm, Anchin, to assist with financial matters for the CAT. CAT LLC interviewed Anchin as well as other potential financial advisory firms to assist with the CAT project, considering a variety of factors in its analysis, including the firm's relevant expertise and fees.
CAT LLC also determined to engage an independent accounting firm, Grant Thornton, to complete the audit of CAT LLC's financial statements, in accordance with the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. CAT LLC interviewed this firm as well as another potential accounting firm to audit CAT LLC's financial statements, considering a variety of factors in its analysis, including the relevant expertise and fees of each of the firms. CAT LLC determined that Grant Thornton was well-qualified for the role given the balanace of these considerations.
The professional and administrative costs also include costs related to the receipt of certain market data from Exegy. After performing an analysis of the available market data vendors to confirm that the data provided met the SIP Data requirements of the CAT NMS Plan and comparing the costs of the vendors providing the required SIP Data, CAT LLC determined to purchase market data from Exegy. Exegy provided the data elements required by the CAT NMS Plan, and the fees were reasonable and in line with market rates for the market data received.
The professional and administrative costs also include costs related to a third party security assessment of the CAT performed by RSM. The assessment was designed to verify and validate the effective design, implementation and operation of the controls specified by NIST Special Publication 800-53, Revision 4 and related standards and guidelines. Such a security assessment is in line with industry practice and important given the data included in the CAT. CAT LLC determined to engage RSM to perform the security assessment, after considering a variety of factors in its analysis, including the firm's relevant expertise and fees. The fees were reasonable and in line with market rates for such an assessment.
In approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC recognized that it is appropriate to recover public relations costs as a part of Historical CAT Assessments.
The total executed equivalent share volume of transactions in Eligible Securities for the period from December 2022 through November 2023 was 3,842,861,347,279.44 executed equivalent shares. CAT LLC determined the total executed equivalent share volume for the prior twelve months by counting executed equivalent shares in the same manner as it will count executed equivalent shares for CAT billing purposes.
CAT LLC has determined to establish a Historical Recovery Period of 24 months for Historical CAT Assessment 1 and that such length is reasonable. CAT LLC determined that the length of Historical Recovery Period 1 appropriately weighs the need for a reasonable Historical Fee Rate 1 that spreads the Historical CAT Costs over an appropriate amount of time and the need to repay the loans notes to the Participants in a timely fashion. CAT
CAT LLC has determined to calculate the projected total executed equivalent share volume for the 24 months of Historical Recovery Period 1 by doubling the executed equivalent share volume for the prior 12 months. CAT LLC determined that such an approach was reasonable as the CAT's annual executed equivalent share volume has remained relatively constant in recent years. For example, the executed equivalent share volume for 2021 was 3,963,697,612,395 executed equivalent shares, and the executed equivalent share volume for 2022 was 4,039,821,841,560.31 executed equivalent shares. Accordingly, the projected total executed equivalent share volume for Historical Recovery Period 1 is 7,685,722,694,558.88 executed equivalent shares.
As noted in the Plan amendment for the CAT Funding Model, as a practical matter, the fee filing for a Historical CAT Assessment would provide the exact fee per executed equivalent share to be paid for each Historical CAT Assessment, by multiplying the Historical Fee Rate by one-third and describing the relevant number of decimal places for the fee rate.
The Exchange believes that imposing Historical CAT Assessment 1 with a fee rate of $0.000015 per executed equivalent share is reasonable because it provides for a revenue stream for the Company that is aligned with Historical CAT Costs 1 and such costs would be spread out over an appropriate recovery period, as discussed above. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the level of the fee rate is reasonable, as it is comparable to other transaction-based fees. Indeed, Historical CAT Assessment 1 is significantly lower than fees assessed pursuant to Section 31 (
Historical CAT Assessment 1 provides for an equitable allocation of fees, as it equitably allocates CAT costs between and among the Participants and Industry Members. The SEC approved the CAT Funding Model, finding that each aspect of the CAT Funding Model satisfied the requirements of the Exchange Act, including the formula for calculating Historical CAT Assessments as well as the Industry Members to be charged the Historical CAT Assessments.
Historical CAT Assessment 1 provides for an equitable allocation of fees as it complies with the requirements regarding the calculation of Historical CAT Assessments as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. For example, as described above, the calculation of Historical CAT Assessment 1 complies with the formula set forth in Section 11.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan. In addition, Historical CAT Assessment 1 would be charged to CEBBs and CEBSs in accordance with Section 11.3(b) of the CAT NMS Plan. Furthermore, the Participants would continue to remain responsible for their designated share of Past CAT Costs through the cancellation of loans made by the Participants to CAT LLC.
In addition, as discussed above, each of the inputs into the calculation of Historical CAT Assessment 1—Historical CAT Costs 1 (including Excluded Costs), the count for the executed equivalent share volume for the prior 12 months, the length of the Historical Recovery Period, and the projected executed equivalent share volume for the Historical Recovery Period—are reasonable. Moreover, these inputs lead to a reasonable fee rate for Historical CAT Assessment 1 that is lower than other fee rates for transaction-based fees. A reasonable fee rate allocated in accordance with the requirements of the CAT Funding Model provides for an equitable allocation of fees.
Historical CAT Assessment 1 is not an unfairly discriminatory fee. The SEC approved the CAT Funding Model, finding that each aspect of the CAT Funding Model satisfied the requirements of the Exchange Act. In reaching this conclusion, the SEC analyzed the potential effect of Historical CAT Assessments calculated pursuant to the CAT Funding Model on affected categories of market participants, including Participants (including exchanges and FINRA), Industry Members (including subcategories of Industry Members, such as alternative trading systems, CAT Executing Brokers and market makers), and investors generally, and considered market effects related to equities and options, among other things. Historical CAT Assessment 1 complies with the requirements regarding the calculation of Historical CAT Assessments as set forth in the CAT NMS Plan. In addition,
Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed fees established pursuant to the CAT Funding Model promote just and equitable principles of trade, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest, and are provided in a transparent manner and specificity in the fee schedule. The Exchange also believes that the proposed fees are reasonable because they would provide ease of calculation, ease of billing and other administrative functions, and predictability of a fee based on fixed rate per executed equivalent share. Such factors are crucial to estimating a reliable revenue stream for CAT LLC and for permitting Exchange members to reasonably predict their payment obligations for budgeting purposes.
Section 6(b)(8) of the Act
In addition, all Participants (including exchanges and FINRA) are proposing to introduce Historical CAT Assessment 1 on behalf of CAT LLC to implement the requirements of the CAT NMS Plan. Therefore, this is not a competitive fee filing, and, therefore, it does not raise competition issues between and among the Participants.
Furthermore, in approving the CAT Funding Model, the SEC analyzed the potential competitive impact of the CAT Funding Model, including competitive issues related to market services, trading services and regulatory services, efficiency concerns, and capital formation.
As discussed above, each of the inputs into the calculation of Historical CAT Assessment 1 is reasonable and the resulting fee rate for Historical CAT Assessment 1 calculated in accordance with the CAT Funding Model is reasonable. Therefore, Historical CAT Assessment 1 would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the Exchange Act.
Not applicable.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the 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 change 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.