Agricultural Marketing Service
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
Food and Nutrition Service
Food Safety and Inspection Service
Forest Service
Rural Business-Cooperative Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Army Department
National Nuclear Security Administration
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Geological Survey
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration
Internal Revenue Service
Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents electronic mailing list, go to
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Final rule.
FSIS is amending its regulations to exempt certain records maintained by its AssuranceNet (ANet) system of records from the notification and access provisions of the Privacy Act of 1974 (Privacy Act). FSIS is taking this action because ANet contains information directly associated with investigations conducted by FSIS for law enforcement purposes.
Valerie Neris, AssuranceNet System Owner/Manager, Litigation and Enforcement Programs Staff, Office of Investigation, Enforcement and Audit; Telephone (202) 550-3562.
FSIS is the public health regulatory agency in the USDA that is responsible for ensuring that the nation's commercial supply of meat, poultry, and egg products is safe, wholesome, and accurately labeled. FSIS uses ANet, a management control and performance monitoring system that gathers information from electronic and paper-based sources, to track, measure, and monitor the performance of its and its state partners' critical public health functions and to alert FSIS management to areas of vulnerability or concern. ANet tracks, measures, and monitors the performance of the key public health functions of inspection, verification, surveillance, enforcement, and sampling by FSIS and state meat and poultry inspection program employees. The data and tools of ANet are used to analyze the effectiveness of policies and procedures in meeting public health goals and objectives and to help ensure that methods, evaluations, and enforcement are standardized and traceable nationwide. The Agency also uses data analysis in and through ANet to discern trends; to develop objectives for regulatory food safety functions; to identify and focus on areas of high-risk; and to help determine strategies to combat threats to food safety and defense.
On March 22, 2022, FSIS published a system of records notice (SORN) for USDA/FSIS-0005, ANet (87 FR 16163). In the same
The comment period for the proposed rule ended on April 21, 2022. After carefully considering the comments, discussed below, FSIS is finalizing the proposal without changes.
FSIS received two comments from individuals on the proposed rule.
Executive Orders (E.O.s) 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). E.O. 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. This final rule has been designated as a “non-significant” regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under E.O. 12866. While this final rule may benefit law enforcement efforts, FSIS does not anticipate quantifiable costs or benefits accruing from this rule.
The FSIS Administrator certifies that, for the purposes of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
There are no new paperwork or recordkeeping requirements associated with this final rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. Under this rule: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) no administrative proceedings will be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Each USDA agency is required to comply with 7 CFR part 1b of the Departmental regulations, which supplements the National Environmental Policy Act regulations published by the Council on Environmental Quality. Under these regulations, actions of certain USDA agencies and agency units are categorically excluded from the preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) unless the agency head determines that an action may have a significant environmental effect (7 CFR 1b.4(b)). FSIS is among the agencies categorically excluded from the preparation of an EA or EIS (7 CFR 1b.4(b)(6)).
FSIS has determined that this final rule, which exempts certain records maintained by its ANet system of records from the notification and access provisions of the Privacy Act, will not create any extraordinary circumstances that will result in this normally excluded action having a significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, this action is appropriately subject to the categorical exclusion for FSIS programs and activities under 7 CFR 1b.4.
FSIS and the USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations,
This rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of E.O. 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments.” E.O. 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on policies that have tribal implications, including regulations, legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy statements or actions that 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.
FSIS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a tribe requests consultation, FSIS will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful consultation is provided where changes, additions, and modifications identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
In accordance with Federal civil rights law and USDA civil rights regulations and policies, USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form, AD-3027,
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Freedom of information, Privacy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, FSIS amends 9 CFR part 390 as follows:
5 U.S.C. 301, 552, 552a; 21 U.S.C. 451-472, 601-695; 7 CFR 1.3, 2.7.
(a) USDA/FSIS-0005, AssuranceNet system of records, is exempt from subsections (c)(3), (d)(1)-(4), (e)(1), (e)(4)(G)-(I), and (f) of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. 552a, to the extent it contains investigatory material compiled for law enforcement purposes in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(2). Exemptions from the particular subsections are justified for the following reasons:
(1) From subsection (c)(3) because the release of the disclosure accounting would permit the subject of an investigation to obtain valuable information concerning the nature of that investigation. This would permit record subjects to impede the investigation,
(2) From subsection (d)(1) because the records contained in this system relate to official Federal investigations and matters of law enforcement. Individual access to these records might compromise ongoing or impending investigations, reveal confidential informants, or constitute unwarranted invasions of the personal privacy of third parties who are involved in a certain investigation.
(3) From section (d)(2) because amendment of the records would interfere with ongoing law enforcement proceedings and impose an impossible administrative burden by requiring investigations to be continuously reinvestigated.
(4) From subsections (d)(3) and (4) because these subsections are inapplicable to the extent exemption is claimed from subsections (d)(1) and (2).
(5) From subsection (e)(1) because it is often impossible to determine in advance if investigatory information contained in this system is accurate, relevant, timely and complete, but, in the interests of effective law enforcement, it is necessary to retain this information to aid in establishing patterns of activity and provide investigative leads. Moreover, it would impede the specific investigative process if it were necessary to assure the relevance, accuracy, timeliness, and completeness of all information obtained.
(6) From subsections (e)(4)(G) and (H) since an exemption being claimed for subsection (d) makes these subsections inapplicable.
(7) From subsection (e)(4)(I) because the categories of sources of the records in this system have been published in the
(8) From subsection (f) to the extent that the system is exempt from other specific subsections of the Privacy Act.
(b) [Reserved]
Done in Washington, DC.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Temporary final rule.
The Coast Guard is establishing a temporary safety zone for certain navigable waters in the Laguna Madre. The safety zone is needed to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by a firework display launched from a stationary barge in the Laguna Madre, South Padre Island, Texas. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone or remaining in the zone when it is in effect is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi or a designated representative.
This rule is effective from 6 p.m. on February 14, 2024 through 1 a.m. on February 15, 2024.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions about this rule, call or email Lieutenant Commander Anthony Garofalo, Sector Corpus Christi Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 361-939-5130, email
The Coast Guard is issuing this temporary rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment pursuant to authority under section 4(a) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553(b)). This provision authorizes an agency to issue a rule without prior notice and opportunity to comment when the agency for good cause finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), the Coast Guard finds that good cause exists for not publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) with respect to this rule because it is impracticable. We must establish this safety zone to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards created by the fireworks display, and we lack sufficient time to provide a reasonable comment period and consider any comments submitted before issuing the rule.
Under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3), and for the same reason provided above, the Coast Guard finds that good cause also exists for making this rule effective less than 30 days after publication in the
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034. The Captain of the Port, Sector Corpus Christi (COTP) has determined that potential hazards associated with the fireworks displays occurring from 6 p.m. on February 14, 2024 through 1 a.m. on February 15, 2024 will be a safety concern for anyone in the waters of the Laguna Madre area within a 700 yard radius of the following point; 26°6′5.05″ N, 97°10′12.46″ W. The purpose of this rule is to ensure safety of vessels and persons on these navigable waters in the safety zone while the display of the fireworks takes place in the Laguna Madre.
This rule establishes a temporary safety zone beginning on the night of February 14, 2024, and continuing into the early morning of February 15, 2024. The safety zone will encompass certain navigable waters of the Laguna Madre, and is defined by a 700 yard radius around the launching platform, which will be located at the following point: 26°6′5.05″ N, 97°10′12.46″ W. No vessel or person is permitted to enter the temporary safety zone during the period when it is in effect without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative, who may be contacted on Channel 16 VHF-FM (156.8 MHz), or by telephone at 361-939-0450. The Coast Guard will issue Broadcast Notices to Mariners, Local Notices to Mariners, and/or Safety Marine Information Broadcasts, as appropriate.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, this rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the size, location, and duration of the safety zone. The temporary safety zone will be in effect for the short period of 7 hours, beginning the night of February 14, 2024, into the early morning of February 15, 2024. The zone is limited to the area with a 700 yard radius of the launching position in the navigable waters of the Laguna Madre. Prohibiting vessel traffic within that zone does not completely restrict the traffic within the waterway, and the rule allows mariners to request permission to enter the zone.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires Federal agencies to consider the potential impact of regulations on small entities during rulemaking. The term “small entities” comprises small businesses, not-for-profit organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not dominant in their fields, and governmental jurisdictions with populations of less than 50,000. The Coast Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the temporary safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A, above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule will not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please contact the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, and Environmental Planning, COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f) and have determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule is categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket.
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to contact the person listed in the
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(c)
(2) If permission is granted, all persons and vessels shall comply with the instructions of the COTP or designated representative.
(d)
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Final rule; final decision to grant exemption.
This final decision responds to petitions filed by several low volume manufacturers requesting exemption from the generally applicable corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for several model years (MYs). The low volume manufacturers and MYs are as follows: Aston Martin Lagonda Limited for MYs 2008-2023, Ferrari N.V. for MYs 2016-2018 and 2020, Koenigsegg Automotive AB for MYs 2015 and 2018-2023, McLaren Automotive for MYs 2012-2023, Mobility Ventures LLC for MYs 2014-2016, Pagani Automobili S.p.A for MYs 2014 and 2016-2023, and Spyker Automobielen B.V. for MYs 2008-2010. NHTSA is exempting these manufacturers from the generally applicable CAFE standards for the model years listed and establishing alternative standards for each manufacturer at the levels stated below, which the agency has determined to be maximum feasible for each of those manufacturers for the model years in question.
This rule is effective March 21, 2024.
For access to the dockets to read background documents or comments received, go to
Joseph Bayer, Chief of Fuel Economy Division, Office of Rulemaking, by phone at (202) 366-9540 or by fax at (202) 493-2290 or Hannah Fish, Attorney Advisor, Vehicle Standards and Harmonization, Office of the Chief Counsel, by phone at (202) 366-2992 or by fax at (202) 366-3820.
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007,
Congress provided in EPCA/EISA statutory authority for NHTSA to exempt a low volume manufacturer of passenger automobiles from the industry-wide passenger car standard if NHTSA concludes that the industry-wide passenger car standard is more stringent than the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that the manufacturer can achieve, and NHTSA establishes an alternative standard for that manufacturer's fleet of passenger cars at the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that the manufacturer can achieve.
49 CFR part 525 contains NHTSA's regulations implementing the requirements in 49 U.S.C. 32902. This part provides content and format requirements for low volume manufacturer petitions for exemption and specifies that those petitions must be submitted to NHTSA not later than 24 months before the beginning of the affected model year unless good cause for later submission is shown.
This final decision responds to petitions filed by Aston Martin Lagonda Limited (AML) for MYs 2008-2023, Ferrari N.V. (Ferrari) for MYs 2016-2018 and 2020, Koenigsegg Automotive AB (Koenigsegg) for MYs 2015 and 2018-2023, McLaren Automotive (McLaren) for MYs 2012-2023, Mobility Ventures LLC (Mobility Ventures) for MYs 2014-2016, Pagani Automobili S.p.A (Pagani) for MYs 2014 and 2016-2023,
NHTSA published a proposed decision on July 1, 2022 (87 FR 39439) that proposed to exempt several low volume manufacturers from the generally applicable CAFE standards for several model years. Some of these model years had already passed, meaning that any NHTSA action prescribing alternative standards for past model years would be retroactive. NHTSA recognized that an agency's ability to prescribe retroactive rules is very limited; however, NHTSA concluded that based on a history of previously granting low volume exemption petitions when the agency did not publish proposed and final determinations on those exemption petitions before the beginning of a model year,
NHTSA also detailed the agency's approach to evaluating exemption petitions for model years that had already passed. NHTSA concluded that in addition to evaluating the manufacturer's exemption petitions for past model years, it was appropriate to evaluate the manufacturer's actual CAFE values if NHTSA had those values (either from EPA-verified data or from preliminary data submitted by the manufacturer). For imminently future model years, NHTSA evaluated whether the alternative standard for which the manufacturer petitioned was maximum feasible, and if not, what, if any, technologically feasible and economically practicable changes the manufacturer could make in the time frame before model year production would need to commence. NHTSA looked to the regulations implementing EPCA's low volume manufacturer exemption provisions, which required low volume manufacturers to submit petitions for exemption “not later than 24 months before the beginning of the affected model year,” as a guidepost for determining whether a low volume manufacturer could potentially make any additional changes to its vehicles.
All low volume manufacturers considered in the proposed decision met the threshold statutory requirements for eligibility; that is, all manufacturers manufactured or will manufacture fewer than 10,000 vehicles in the applicable model years. Some petitions for some model years were submitted late, although the late filings were accompanied by good cause claims, per 49 CFR part 525.
When proposing maximum feasible average fuel economy levels, NHTSA must consider four factors: technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the Government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy. NHTSA detailed in the proposed rule how the agency's consideration of these factors with low volume manufacturers differs from consideration of these factors for full-line manufacturers, and also how consideration of these factors as applied to past model years differs from consideration for future model years.
Per NHTSA's regulations at 49 CFR 525.7, NHTSA evaluated several pieces of information in each manufacturer's petition to assist the agency in assessing technologically feasible and economically practicable improvements for the manufacturer's fleet. This information included a description of the technological means selected by the manufacturer for improving the average fuel economy of its automobiles to be
To evaluate the potential effect of alternative CAFE standards on the need of the United States to conserve energy, NHTSA described two historical approaches. For several years, the agency categorically concluded that if it had already determined that it would not be technologically feasible or economically practicable for the low volume manufacturer to achieve a higher fuel economy standard than requested, denying the exemption or setting a higher alternative standard would not have had any effect on the need of the United States to conserve energy.
To evaluate the effect of “other motor vehicle standards of the Government” on fuel economy, NHTSA examined the agency's safety standards as well as EPA's emissions standards, which include criteria pollutant and greenhouse gas (GHG, which include CO
NHTSA recognized that three manufacturers considered in the July 2022 proposal (Aston Martin, Ferrari, and McLaren) had received an alternative low volume GHG standard under the EPA small volume program for vehicles manufactured in MYs 2017-2021.
Several manufacturers cited various Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS) that could impact their CAFE values, including FMVSS No. 214, Side Impact Protection, FMVSS No. 216, Roof Crush Resistance, FMVSS No. 226, Occupant Ejection Mitigation, FMVSS No. 301, Fuel System Integrity, FMVSS No. 111, Rear Visibility (concerning rearview mirrors), and the Pedestrian Protection requirements as proposed in the UN ECE Global Technical Regulation (GTR) No. 9. Broadly, manufacturers stated that these safety standards could have potentially adverse impacts on vehicles' achieved fuel economy levels because of additional vehicle weight required, and because they reduce potential aerodynamic improvements. Manufacturers also cited EPA and California non-GHG emissions standards as requirements that would demand additional balancing of priorities.
Using an analysis of estimates from prior CAFE standards rules,
Accordingly, NHTSA had proposed alternative standards as follows: For MYs 2018 and prior, NHTSA proposed to use a combination of final fuel economy values received from EPA and some non-final fuel economy values received from manufacturers. NHTSA stated its belief that all manufacturers covered by the proposed decision submitted information sufficient for the agency to conclude that their achieved fuel economy levels for past model years were the maximum feasible fuel economy levels that they could have achieved for those model years.
For MYs 2019-2023, the proposed alternative standards considered both confidential business information (CBI) and non-CBI information submitted to the agency, including the manufacturer's requested alternative standard and predicted achieved fleet fuel economy value (if that value differed from the requested alternative standard). For imminently future model years (
NHTSA tentatively concluded that the proposed fuel economy levels appropriately balanced the CAFE exemption program with EPCA's directive to conserve energy and that standards that did not backslide for imminently future model years were maximum feasible.
NHTSA sought comment on the analysis that led the agency to propose
NHTSA received four comments to the proposal. One individual commenter opposed the proposed exemption, believing that the exemption should not apply to expensive vehicles.
The Alliance for Automotive Innovation (Auto Innovators) agreed with NHTSA's proposed approach to alternative standards through MY 2023. Auto Innovators stated that manufacturers affected by the proposal for past model year standards “have no ability to change the technologies installed on their vehicles, to alter U.S.-directed production, or to otherwise achieve compliance with the CAFE regulation other than through the purchase of credits from other manufacturers or the payment of civil penalties.”
Ferrari also supported the proposed alternative standards for affected model years and urged NHTSA to adopt the final standards as quickly as possible.
NHTSA considered these four comments. As discussed above, Congress provided in EPCA/EISA statutory authority for NHTSA to exempt a low volume manufacturer of passenger automobiles from the industry-wide passenger car standard if NHTSA concludes that the industry-wide passenger car standard is more stringent than the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that the manufacturer can achieve, and NHTSA establishes an alternative standard for that manufacturer's fleet of passenger cars at the maximum feasible average fuel economy level that the manufacturer can achieve. In addition, as stated in the NPRM, NHTSA does not consider the ability of a manufacturer to (through an increase in the price of the vehicle or otherwise) absorb civil penalty payments from having to meet a higher standard.
Considering the information presented in the proposed decision and comments received, NHTSA is setting alternative average fuel economy standards for these seven manufacturers for each model year at the levels identified in the proposed decision. NHTSA used several sources of data to determine these CAFE levels, including final and non-final fuel economy data, and CBI and non-CBI submitted by manufacturers. In addition, the standards do not backslide for imminently future model years. NHTSA believes that these alternative standards are maximum feasible for these manufacturers for these model years, that they are consistent with the purpose of EPCA/EISA, and that they appropriately balance the CAFE exemption program with EPCA's directive to conserve energy.
These alternative standards apply only to Aston Martin Lagonda Limited for MYs 2008-2023, Ferrari N.V. for MYs 2016-2018 and MY 2020, Koenigsegg Automotive AB for MYs 2015 and 2018-2023, McLaren Automotive for MYs 2012-2023, Mobility Ventures LLC for MYs 2014-2016, Pagani Automobili S.p.A for MYs 2014 and 2016-2023, and Spyker Automobielen B.V. for MYs 2008-2010. They do not apply to low volume manufacturers generally or to a class of automobiles of exempted manufacturers. Readers should remember that NHTSA does not set alternative standards for a given model year unless a manufacturer has requested them, and thus certain cells in the table above are blank.
NHTSA is also finalizing the correction to the reference to alternative fuel economy standards in 49 CFR 531.5(a), as paragraph (f) does not exist.
NHTSA has considered the potential impacts of this action under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 and the Department of Transportation's regulatory policies and procedures and has concluded that those orders do not apply because this action is not an agency statement of general applicability and future effect. This decision is not generally applicable, because the agency has proposed to set alternative average fuel economy standards for each manufacturer.
Pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
I certify this final decision will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This final decision exempts low volume manufacturers from the generally applicable passenger car CAFE standards and sets alternative standards for those low volume manufacturers at maximum feasible levels.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347) requires Federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of proposed major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human environment, as well as the impacts of alternatives to the proposed action.
In accordance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act (EISA) of 2007, and the procedures at 49 CFR part 525, the purpose of this action is to set alternative corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for low volume manufacturers that have petitioned the agency for an alternative standard at the maximum feasible fuel economy level that NHTSA believes each manufacturer can achieve in each model year. While the purpose of setting industry-wide fuel economy standards under EPCA/EISA is, among other things, energy conservation, Congress granted NHTSA the ability to provide an exemption to low volume manufacturers in part because it believed that the need of the United States to conserve energy would not be adversely affected by allowing the limited exemption.
When determining the maximum feasible fuel economy levels that manufacturers can achieve in each model year, EPCA/EISA requires that NHTSA consider four factors: technological feasibility, economic practicability, the effect of other motor vehicle standards of the government on fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve energy. NHTSA relies on information in each low volume manufacturer's petition for exemption to propose alternative average fuel economy standards at the maximum feasible level for each manufacturer. However, the unique nature of this action requires NHTSA to set maximum feasible standards for model years that have already passed. NHTSA's proposed action and range of alternatives considered below reflect these statutory and practical considerations.
The Draft EA considered a “no-action alternative” and two alternatives. The “no-action alternative” assumed that in the absence of NHTSA action on their petitions, manufacturers would meet their footprint-based CAFE standard for MYs 2013-2023.
The Draft EA described that NHTSA actions regulating motor vehicle fuel economy could have a range of environmental impacts, including on energy use, air quality, climate change, resource extraction and use, and on environmental justice communities, among others. Every time NHTSA sets industry-wide CAFE standards, the agency examines the environmental impact of the proposed standards and a range of alternatives on these resources in an environmental impact statement (EIS). The EIS uses estimates of fuel consumption that would result if the agency adopted different levels of fuel economy standards to quantitatively estimate the impacts on energy use, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. NHTSA also qualitatively discusses the lesser impacts on other resource areas, including land use and development, hazardous materials and regulated waste, historical and cultural resources, noise, and environmental justice.
NHTSA's Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (Final SEIS) for MY 2024-2026 passenger car and light truck fuel economy standards (hereinafter “Final SEIS”) provided the most up-to-date estimates of the impact of different levels of fuel economy standards on these resource areas and discussion of the environmental impacts, at the time that NHTSA was completing the Draft EA associated with this decision.
The Draft EA estimated the levels of changes in fuel consumption under the “no-action alternative” and two alternatives to provide a starting point to estimate a relative potential range of environmental impacts. To estimate the amount of additional fuel consumed by the exempted fleet over its operating lifetime,
To put this in perspective, NHTSA looked at the average amount of fuel consumed by an average passenger car subject to the industry-wide passenger car CAFE standard over its useful life, in this case a MY 2017 Toyota Camry. The estimated total gallons of fuel used if standards are set at the levels proposed in this action are roughly equivalent to the fuel used by approximately 8,534 MY 2017 Toyota Camrys. In other words, setting alternative standards at the levels proposed in this notice for the 15 model years covered by this notice would have the energy effect of a one-time addition of 171 MY 2017 Toyota Camrys per U.S. state. Compared to the pre-pandemic peak of approximately 17 million vehicles sold in the United States in a model year, the vehicles considered in this notice that cover fifteen model years contribute only a small amount to total U.S. transportation fuel use.
As with the impacts to energy use, NHTSA tentatively concluded that the proposed action would have a relatively minimal impact on air quality, and accordingly, air quality-related health effects, based on the relative percentage of fuel used by the vehicles considered in this action compared to total light-duty vehicle fuel use. As discussed in Chapter 4 of NHTSA's Final SEIS, nationwide criteria pollutant emissions from vehicle tailpipes are projected to decrease over time, even as VMT increases, due to increasingly stringent EPA regulation of criteria pollutant emissions and reductions in emissions from fuel production. NHTSA does not expect that trend to change based on the levels of fuel use projected for this action. In addition, some of the increases in criteria pollutant emissions projected in the Final SEIS are due to increases in upstream emissions from power plants from increased electric vehicle use. The vehicles considered in this action run primarily on gasoline; none of the vehicles with electrified powertrains draw energy from the electric grid. The same projected trends exist for toxic air pollutants; emissions are projected to decrease through 2050 based on increasingly stringent EPA regulations and reductions in emissions from fuel production, despite growth in total VMT. NHTSA does not expect that any of these trends would change based
To estimate the approximate effect that this action would have on greenhouse gas emissions, NHTSA first used EPA's Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator to convert the estimated additional gallons of gasoline that would be used under the alternatives to metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent emissions.
NHTSA did not perform independent climate modeling because the agency believes that it is reasonable to infer that if relatively small—but not trivial—climate impacts would result from large-scale changes in fuel use from changes in the industry-wide passenger car and light truck standards, as demonstrated in the Final SEIS and referenced in the Draft EA, estimating the impacts of the no-action alternative and alternatives presented in this notice would not present any additional meaningful information for decisionmakers and the public.
Some potential impacts of the proposed action could be mitigated through other means; as discussed above, EPA also sets alternative carbon dioxide emissions standards for some of the low volume manufacturers considered in this notice. Unlike the structure of EPCA/EISA, which allows civil penalty payment for each 0.1 of a mile a gallon by which the manufacturer falls short of the applicable average fuel economy standard,
Both alternatives considered in the Draft EA and now this Final EA result in increased fuel use compared to the no-action alternative; however, the preferred alternative does result in marginally less estimated fuel use than the “as requested” alternative. NHTSA does not believe that establishing alternative CAFE standards at the preferred alternative levels would contribute appreciably to any of the environmental impacts considered in this Final EA.
NHTSA invited public comments on the contents and tentative conclusions of the Draft EA. No public comments directly addressing the Draft EA were received. One individual commenter loosely commented in opposition to industry-wide fuel economy regulations based on, among other things, concern about the quality and integrity of data used in climate science.
NHTSA did not make any changes to the Final EA in response to this comment.
NHTSA coordinated with EPA to seek its feedback on the Draft EA, and EPA had no comments or suggested changes. NHTSA also coordinated with EPA for further input in drafting the Final EA.
NHTSA has reviewed the information presented in this Final EA and concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the human environment and that a “finding of no significant impact” is appropriate. This statement constitutes the agency's “finding of no significant impact,” and an environmental impact statement will not be prepared.
Energy conservation, Gasoline, Imports, Motor vehicles.
In consideration of the foregoing, 49 CFR part 531 is amended as follows:
49 U.S.C. 32902, delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.95.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(e) * * *
(4) Aston Martin Lagonda Limited
(15) Spyker Automobielen B.V.
(16) Ferrari
(17) Koenigsegg
(18) McLaren
(19) Mobility Ventures
(20) Pagani
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.95 and 49 CFR 501.4.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Temporary rule; closure.
NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for the Pacific cod sideboard limit by non-exempt American Fisheries Act (AFA) catcher vessels in the Central Regulatory Area of the Gulf of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary to prevent exceeding the annual 2024 Pacific cod sideboard limit established for non-exempt AFA catcher vessels in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
Effective 1200 hours, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), February 15, 2024, through 2400 hours, A.l.t., December 31, 2024.
Adam Zaleski, 907-586-7228.
NMFS manages the groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive economic zone according to the Fishery Management Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
The annual 2024 Pacific cod sideboard limit established for non-exempt AFA catcher vessels in the Central Regulatory Area is 708 metric tons (mt), as established by the final 2023 and 2024 harvest specifications for groundfish in the GOA (88 FR 13238, March 2, 2023).
In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iv), the Regional Administrator has determined that the annual 2024 Pacific cod sideboard limit established for non-exempt AFA catcher vessels in the Central Regulatory Area will soon be reached. Therefore, the Regional Administrator is establishing a directed fishing allowance of 0 mt and is setting aside the remaining 708 mt as bycatch to support other anticipated groundfish fisheries. In accordance with § 679.20(d)(1)(iii) and (iv), the Regional Administrator finds that this sideboard directed fishing allowance has been reached. Consequently, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for the annual 2024 Pacific cod sideboard limit for non-exempt AFA catcher vessels in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA.
While this closure is effective the maximum retainable amounts at § 679.20(e) and (f) apply at any time during a trip.
NMFS issues this action pursuant to section 305(d) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act. This action is required by 50 CFR part 679, which was issued pursuant to section 304(b), and is exempt from review under Executive Order 12866.
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B), there is good cause to waive prior notice and an opportunity for public comment on this action, as notice and comment would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest, as it would prevent NMFS from responding to the most recent fisheries data in a timely fashion and would delay the directed fishing closure of the annual 2024 Pacific cod sideboard limit for the non-exempt AFA catcher vessels in the Central Regulatory Area of the GOA. NMFS was unable to publish a notice providing time for public comment because the most recent, relevant data only became available as of February 12, 2024.
The Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA also finds good cause to waive the 30-day delay in the effective date of this action under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3). This finding is based upon the reasons provided above for waiver of prior notice and opportunity for public comment.
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notification of referendum.
This document directs that a referendum be conducted among eligible producers of peanuts to determine whether they favor continuance of the Agriculture Marketing Service's (AMS) regulations regarding a national peanut research and promotion program.
This referendum will be conducted from April 8, 2024, through April 19, 2024. Eligible persons will receive a ballot through mail and will cast a ballot either through express mail or electronic ballot. To be eligible to vote, each person who is an eligible producer, at the time of the referendum and during the representative period from January 1 through December 31, 2022, shall be entitled to cast a ballot in the referendum. Ballots delivered to AMS via express mail or electronic ballot must show proof of delivery by no later than 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time (ET) on April 19, 2024, to be counted.
Copies of the Peanut Promotion, Research, and Information Order (Order) may be obtained from: Referendum Agent, Market Development Division, Specialty Crops Program, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244, Telephone: (202) 720-8085; or contact Victoria M. Carpenter at (202) 400-1865 or Email:
Victoria M. Carpenter, Marketing Specialist, MDD, SCP, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Room 1406-S, Stop 0244, Washington, DC 20250-0244; Telephone: (202) 400-1865; or Email:
Pursuant to the Commodity Promotion, Research and Information Act of 1996 (7 U.S.C. 7411-7425) (Act), it is hereby directed that a referendum be conducted to ascertain whether continuance of the Order (7 CFR part 1216) is favored by eligible peanut producers covered under the program. The Order is authorized under the Act.
The representative period for establishing voter eligibility for the referendum is January 1 through December 31, 2022. Persons who are engaged in the production and sale of peanuts at the time of the referendum and during the representative period are eligible to vote. Persons who received an exemption from assessments pursuant to § 1216.56 for the entire representative period are ineligible to vote. AMS will provide the option for electronic balloting. The referendum will be conducted by mail and electronic ballot from April 8, 2024, through April 19, 2024. Further details will be provided in the ballot instructions.
Section 518 of the Act authorizes continuance referenda. Under § 1216.82(b) of the Order, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) must conduct a referendum every five years. The Secretary of Agriculture (Secretary) may also hold a referendum if 10 percent or more of all eligible peanut producers request that the Secretary do so, or at any time to determine whether persons subject to assessment favor continuance of the program. The last referendum was held in 2019. The Board voted to conduct the next referendum in April 2024. USDA would continue the Order if continuance is favored by a simple majority of the producers voting in the referendum and who, during the representative period January 1 through December 31, 2022, have been engaged in the production of peanuts.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. chapter 35), the referendum ballot has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and assigned OMB No. 0581-0093. There are approximately 6,702 producers who will be eligible to vote in the referendum. It will take an average of 15 minutes for each voter to read the voting instructions and complete the referendum ballot.
Victoria M. Carpenter, Marketing Specialist; Deanna Bakken, Marketing Specialist; and Alexandra Caryl, Branch Chief, Market Development Division, SCP, AMS, USDA, Stop 0244, Room 1406-S, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250-0244, are designated as the referendum agents to conduct this referendum. The referendum procedures at 7 CFR 1216.100 through 1216.107, which were issued pursuant to the Act, shall be used to conduct the referendum.
The referendum agent will mail or provide access electronically to the ballots to be cast in the referendum and voting instructions to all known, eligible producers prior to the first day of the voting period. Any eligible producer who does not receive a ballot should contact the referendum agent no later than three days before the end of the voting period. Ballots delivered via express mail or electronic ballot must show proof of delivery by no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on April 19, 2024, to be counted.
Administrative practice and procedure, Advertising, Information, Marketing agreements, Peanuts, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
7 U.S.C. 7411-7425; 7 U.S.C. 7401.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is proposing to amend the licensing, inspection, special project, and annual fees charged to its applicants and licensees. The proposed amendments are necessary to comply with the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act, which requires the NRC to recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its annual budget less certain amounts excluded from this fee recovery requirement.
Submit comments by March 21, 2024. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the NRC is only able to ensure consideration for comments received before this date. Because the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act requires the NRC to collect fees for fiscal year 2024 by September 30, 2024, the NRC must finalize any revisions to its fee schedules promptly, and thus is unable to grant any extension request of the comment period.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods; however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
•
•
•
You can read a plain language description of this proposed rule at
Anthony Rossi, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-7341; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0046 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 submission of comments 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 comments into ADAMS.
The NRC's fee regulations are primarily governed by two laws: (1) the Independent Offices Appropriation Act, 1952 (IOAA) (31 U.S.C. 9701); and (2) the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) (42 U.S.C. 2215). The IOAA authorizes and encourages Federal agencies to recover, to the fullest extent possible, costs attributable to services provided to identifiable recipients. Under NEIMA, the NRC must recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its annual budget, less the budget authority for excluded activities. Under section 102(b)(1)(B) of NEIMA, “excluded activities” include any fee-relief activity as identified by the Commission, generic homeland security activities, waste incidental to reprocessing activities, Nuclear Waste Fund activities, advanced reactor regulatory infrastructure activities, Inspector General services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, research and development at universities in areas relevant to the
Under NEIMA, the NRC must use its IOAA authority first to collect service fees for NRC work that provides specific benefits to identifiable recipients (such as licensing work, inspections, and special projects). The NRC's regulations in part 170 of title 10 of the
The NRC is issuing this FY 2024 proposed fee rule based on the FY 2024 budget request as further described in the NRC's FY 2024 Congressional Budget Justification (CBJ) (NUREG-1100, Volume 39) because a full-year appropriation has not yet been enacted for FY 2024. The NRC will adjust the fees described in this proposed rule to reflect the enacted budget authority for FY 2024. The FY 2024 budget request is $1,006.4 million and proposes the use of $27.1 million in carryover to offset the Nuclear Reactor Safety budget. As a result, the gross budget authority in the FY 2024 budget request and the total budget authority used in the FY 2024 proposed fee rule is $979.2 million, which would be an increase of $52.1 million from FY 2023. The increase is primarily to support salaries and benefits, in accordance with the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.
As explained previously, certain portions of the NRC's total budget authority are excluded from NEIMA's fee recovery requirement under section 102(b)(1)(B) of NEIMA. Based on the FY 2024 budget request, these exclusions total $156.0 million, which is an increase of $19.0 million from FY 2023. These excluded activities consist of $104.2 million for fee-relief activities, $34.2 million for advanced reactor regulatory infrastructure activities, $15.1 million for generic homeland security activities, $1.0 million for waste incidental to reprocessing activities, and $1.5 million for Inspector General services for the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board. Table I summarizes the excluded activities for the FY 2024 proposed fee rule. The FY 2023 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.
After accounting for the exclusions from the fee recovery requirement and net billing adjustments (
Since a full-year appropriation has not yet been enacted, the FY 2024 proposed fee rule is based on the FY 2024 budget request. As discussed in the FY 2024 budget request, this proposed rule assumes the utilization of
The NRC uses a professional hourly rate to assess fees under 10 CFR part 170 for specific services it provides. The professional hourly rate also helps determine flat fees (which are used for the review of certain types of license applications). This rate is applicable to all activities for which fees are assessed under §§ 170.21, “Schedule of fees for production and utilization facilities, review of standard referenced design approvals, special projects, inspections and import and export licenses,” and 170.31, “Schedule of fees for materials licenses and other regulatory services, including inspections, and import and export licenses.” The NRC's professional hourly rate is derived by adding budgeted resources for: (1) mission-direct program salaries and benefits; (2) mission-indirect program support; and (3) agency support (corporate support and the Inspector General (IG)). The NRC then subtracts certain offsetting receipts and divides this total by the mission-direct full-time equivalent (FTE) converted to hours (the mission-direct FTE converted to hours is the product of the mission-direct FTE multiplied by the estimated annual mission-direct FTE productive hours). The only budgeted resources excluded from the professional hourly rate are those for mission-direct contract resources, which are generally billed to licensees separately. The following shows the professional hourly rate calculation:
For FY 2024, the NRC is proposing to increase the professional hourly rate from $300 to $321. The 7.1 percent increase in the professional hourly rate is primarily due to a 7.3 percent increase in budgeted resources of approximately $56.6 million. The increase in budgeted resources is primarily due to the following: (1) an increase in mission-direct FTE to support new reactor licensing activities, the review of license renewal applications, an increased workload within the reactor decommissioning program; and (2) an increase in the fully-costed FTE rate compared to FY 2023 due to an increase in salaries and benefits to support Federal pay raises for NRC employees.
In addition, the NRC anticipates an increase in mission-direct FTE to support the increase in licensing and decommissioning activities. This anticipated increase in the number of mission-direct FTE compared to FY 2023 partially offsets the proposed increase in the professional hourly rate caused by the overall estimated increase in budgeted resources. The professional hourly rate is inversely related to the mission-direct FTE amount; therefore, as the number of mission-direct FTE increase, the professional hourly rate may decrease. Based on the FY 2024 budget request, the number of mission-direct FTE is expected to increase by approximately 58, primarily to support the following: (1) the review of new reactor licensing activities, including the review of standard design approvals, pre-application activities, and construction permits; (2) licensing and oversight activities for the reactor decommissioning program, which includes both power and non-power reactors in various stages of decommissioning; (3) the review of licensing actions related to enrichment and manufacturing of high assay low-enrichment uranium (HALEU) fuel and accident tolerant fuel (ATF); and (4) the review of one new fuel facility license application (TRISO-X, LLC) and one new medical isotope facility (Niowave).
The FY 2024 estimate for annual mission-direct FTE productive hours is 1,500 hours, which is a decrease from 1,551 hours in FY 2023. This estimate reflects the average number of hours that a mission-direct employee spends on mission-direct work annually. This estimate, therefore, excludes hours charged to annual leave, sick leave,
The NRC proposes to amend the flat application fees it charges in its schedule of fees in § 170.31 to reflect the revised professional hourly rate of $321. The NRC charges these fees to applicants for materials licenses and other regulatory services, as well as to holders of materials licenses. The NRC calculates these flat fees by multiplying the average professional staff hours needed to process the licensing actions by the professional hourly rate for FY 2024. As part of its calculations, the NRC analyzes the actual hours spent performing licensing actions and estimates the five-year average of professional staff hours that are needed to process licensing actions as part of its biennial review of fees. These actions are required by section 205(a) of the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (31 U.S.C. 902(a)(8)). The NRC performed this review for the FY 2023 proposed fee rule and will perform this review again for the FY 2025 proposed fee rule. The higher professional hourly rate of $321 is the primary reason for the increase in flat application fees (see the work papers).
In order to simplify billing, the NRC rounds these flat fees to a minimal degree. Specifically, the NRC rounds these flat fees (up or down) in such a way that ensures both convenience for its stakeholders and minimal effects due to rounding. Accordingly, fees under $1,000 are rounded to the nearest $10, fees between $1,000 and $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $100, and fees greater than $100,000 are rounded to the nearest $1,000.
The proposed flat fees are applicable for certain materials licensing actions (see fee categories 1.C. through 1.D., 2.B. through 2.F., 3.A. through 3.S., 4.B. through 5.A., 6.A. through 9.D., 10.B., 15.A. through 15.L., 15.R., and 16 of § 170.31). Applications filed on or after the effective date of the FY 2024 final fee rule will be subject to the revised fees in the final rule. Since international activities are excluded from the fee recovery requirement, fees are not assessed for import and export licensing actions under 10 CFR parts 170 and 171.
The NRC proposes to assess a generic low-level waste (LLW) surcharge of $3.820 million. Disposal of LLW occurs at commercially-operated LLW disposal facilities that are licensed by either the NRC or an Agreement State. Four existing LLW disposal facilities in the United States accept various types of LLW. All are located in Agreement States and, therefore, are regulated by an Agreement State, rather than the NRC. The NRC proposes to allocate this surcharge to its licensees based on data available in the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Manifest Information Management System. This database contains information on total LLW volumes disposed of by four generator classes: academic, industrial, medical, and utility. The ratio of waste volumes disposed of by these generator classes to total LLW volumes disposed over a period of time is used to estimate the portion of this surcharge that will be allocated to the power reactors, fuel facilities, and the materials users fee classes. The materials users fee class portion is adjusted to account for the large percentage of materials licensees that are licensed by the Agreement States rather than the NRC.
Table IV shows the allocation of the LLW surcharge and its allocation across the various fee classes.
In accordance with SECY-05-0164, “Annual Fee Calculation Method,” the NRC rebaselines its annual fees every year. “Rebaselining” entails analyzing the budget in detail and then allocating the FY 2024 budgeted resources to various classes or subclasses of licensees. It also includes updating the number of NRC licensees in its fee calculation methodology.
The NRC is proposing revisions to its annual fees in §§ 171.15 and 171.16 to recover approximately 100 percent of the FY 2024 budget request less the budget authority for excluded activities, the estimated amount to be recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees, and the assumed utilization of $27.1 million in carryover to offset the Nuclear Reactor Safety budget.
Table V shows the proposed rebaselined fees for FY 2024 for a sample of licensee categories. The FY 2023 amounts are provided for comparison purposes.
The work papers that support this proposed rule show in detail how the NRC allocates the budgeted resources for each class of licensees and calculates the fees.
Paragraphs a. through h. of this section describe the budgeted resources allocated to each class of licensees and the calculations of the rebaselined fees. For more information about detailed fee calculations for each class, please consult the accompanying work papers for this proposed rule.
The NRC proposes to collect $515.9 million in annual fees from the operating power reactors fee class in FY 2024, as shown in table VI. The FY 2023 operating power reactors fees are shown for comparison purposes.
In comparison to FY 2023, the FY 2024 proposed annual fee for the operating power reactors fee class is decreasing primarily due to the following: (1) an anticipated increase in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings; (2) an increase in the total number of operating power reactors from 93 to 94; and (3) the assumed utilization of $27.1 million in carryover to offset the Nuclear Reactor Safety budget. As discussed further below, the assumed utilization of carryover mitigates the proposed increase in the budgeted resources for the operating power reactors fee class.
The 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings increased primarily due to the following: (1) an anticipated increase in hours associated with the review of an increasing number of license renewal applications; and (2) an anticipated increase in new reactor licensing activities, including the review of standard design approvals, pre-application activities, and construction permits. This estimated increase is partially offset by an expected decline in the submission of topical reports. As explained above, because the NRC's fee recovery under 10 CFR part 170 will not equal approximately 100 percent of the agency's budget authority for the fiscal year, the NRC also assesses 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. Estimated 10 CFR part 170 billings, therefore, are inversely related to the projected annual fee for a fee class. The more the NRC estimates to collect in 10 CFR part 170 billings, the less it estimates to collect in annual fees.
The increase in the budgeted resources for the operating power reactors fee class is primarily due to the following: (1) an increase to support new reactor licensing activities, including the review of standard design approvals, pre-application activities, and construction permits; (2) an increase to support the review of license renewal applications; and (3) an increase in the fully-costed FTE rate compared to FY 2023 due to an increase in salaries and benefits. However, the effect of the increase on the proposed annual fee for the operating power reactors fee class is offset primarily due to the assumed use of $27.1 million in carryover to offset the Nuclear Reactor Safety budget as described in the FY 2024 budget request. The increase in budgeted resources is also mitigated by the following: (1) an expected decline in topical report submissions, guidance development, and process improvement activities; (2) a reduction in construction inspection activities due to the transition of the Vogtle Electric Generating Plant (Vogtle Unit 3) and the expected transition of Vogtle Unit 4 from construction into operation; and (3) a reduction in rulemaking activities.
The proposed annual fee is also affected by: (1) an increase in the 10 CFR part 171 billing adjustment due to the timing of invoices issued in FY 2023; and (2) an increase in the generic transportation surcharge due to an increase in the overall budgeted resources for certificates of compliance (CoCs) for the operating power reactors fee class.
The proposed fee-recoverable budgeted resources are divided equally among the 94 licensed operating power reactors, an increase of one operating power reactor compared to FY 2023 due the proposed assessment of annual fees for Vogtle Unit 4, resulting in a proposed annual fee of $5,488,000 per operating power reactor. Additionally, the NRC estimates that each licensed operating power reactor will be assessed the FY 2024 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning proposed annual fee of $330,000 (see Table VII and the discussion that follows). The NRC estimates that the combined FY 2024 proposed annual fee for each operating power reactor will be $5,818,000.
Section 102(b)(3)(B)(i) of NEIMA established a cap for the annual fees charged to operating reactor licensees; under this provision, the annual fee for an operating reactor licensee, to the maximum extent practicable, shall not exceed the annual fee amount per operating reactor licensee established in the FY 2015 final fee rule (80 FR 37432; June 30, 2015), adjusted for inflation. The NRC included an estimate of the operating power reactors fee class annual fee in Appendix C, “Estimated Operating Power Reactors Annual Fee,” of the FY 2024 CBJ to increase transparency for stakeholders. The NRC developed this estimate based on the staff's allocation of the FY 2024 CBJ to fee classes under 10 CFR part 170, and allocations within the operating power reactors fee class under 10 CFR part 171. The fee estimate included in the FY 2024 CBJ assumed 94 operating power reactors in FY 2024 and applied various data assumptions from the FY 2022 final fee rule. Based on these allocations and assumptions, the operating power reactors fee class annual fee included in the FY 2024 CBJ was estimated to be $5.3 million, approximately $0.6 million below the FY 2015 operating power reactors annual fee amount adjusted for inflation of $5.9 million. Although this proposed rule is based on the FY 2024 budget request, the assumptions made between budget formulation and the development of this proposed rule have changed such that the proposed annual fee for the operating power reactor fee class is $5.488, compared to the estimated $5.3 million in the CBJ. However, the FY 2024 proposed annual fee of $5,488,000 remains below the FY 2015 operating power reactors fee class annual fee amount, as adjusted for inflation.
In FY 2016, the NRC amended 10 CFR 171.15 to establish a variable annual fee structure for light-water reactor (LWR) small modular reactors (SMRs) (81 FR 32617; May 24, 2016). In FY 2023, the NRC further amended § 171.5 to: (1) expand the applicability of the SMR variable fee structure to include non-LWR SMRs; and (2) establish an additional minimum fee and variable rate applicable to SMRs with a licensed thermal power rating of less than or equal to 250 megawatts-thermal (MWt) (88 FR 39120; June 15, 2023). This revision to the SMR variable annual fee structure retained the bundled unit concept for SMRs and the approach for calculating fees for reactors, or bundled units, with licensed thermal power ratings greater than 250 MWt.
Currently, there are no operating SMRs; therefore, the NRC will not assess an annual fee in FY 2024 for this type of licensee.
The NRC proposes to collect $41.0 million in annual fees from 10 CFR part 50 and 10 CFR part 52 power reactor licensees, and from 10 CFR part 72 licensees that do not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license or a 10 CFR part 52 combined license, to recover the budgeted resources for the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class in FY 2024, as shown in table VII. The FY 2023 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fees are shown for comparison purposes.
In comparison to FY 2023, the FY 2024 proposed annual fee for the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class is increasing primarily due to a rise in the budgeted resources and an expected decrease in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings. The proposed annual fee is partially offset by an increase in the number of licensees increasing from 123 to 124.
The budgeted resources increased primarily to support the following: (1) an increase in FTEs to support licensing and oversight activities for the reactor decommissioning program, which includes both power and non-power reactors in various stages of decommissioning; and (2) an increase in the fully-costed FTE rate compared to FY 2023 due to an increase in salaries and benefits.
The proposed annual fee is also increasing due to the expected decrease in the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings, which in turn is primarily due to the following: (1) the completion of the safety and environmental review of the Holtec HI-STORE consolidated interim storage facility application; (2) the termination of the license for the La Crosse Boiling Water Reactor; and (3) a decrease in decommissioning licensing and inspection activities at multiple sites. This decrease is expected to be partially offset by the following: (1) an increase in hours to support the staff's review of a new fuel storage system; and (2) an increase to support the staff's review of applications for renewals, amendments, exemptions, and inspections for independent spent fuel storage installation and dry cask storage CoCs at multiple sites.
The proposed increase in the annual fee is also affected by these contributing factors: (1) an increase in the generic transportation surcharge due to an increase in the generic transportation budgeted resources for the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning fee class; and (2) an increase in the 10 CFR part 171 billing adjustment due to the timing of invoices in FY 2023.
The required annual fee recovery amount is divided equally among 124 licensees, an increase of one licensee compared to FY 2023 due to the proposed assessment of annual fees for Vogtle Unit 4, resulting in a proposed FY 2024 annual fee of $330,000 per licensee.
The NRC proposes to collect $24.9 million in annual fees from the fuel facilities fee class in FY 2024, as shown in table VIII. The FY 2023 fuel facilities fees are shown for comparison purposes.
In comparison to FY 2023, the FY 2024 proposed annual fee for the fuel facilities fee class is increasing primarily due to a rise in budgeted resources. This is partially offset by an expected increase in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings. As explained above, because the NRC's fee recovery under 10 CFR part 170 will not equal approximately 100 percent of the agency's budget authority for the fiscal year (less the budget authority for excluded activities), the NRC also assesses 10 CFR part 171 annual fees. Estimated 10 CFR part 170 billings, therefore, are inversely related to the proposed annual fee for a fee class. The more the NRC estimates to collect in 10 CFR part 170 billings, the less it estimates to collect in annual fees. While the NRC anticipates an increase in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings, this anticipated increase was not enough to offset the overall increase in budgetary resources in the FY 2024 budget request.
In the FY 2024 budget request, which this proposed rule is based on, the budgeted resources increased primarily to support the following: (1) the review of licensing actions related to enrichment and manufacturing of HALEU fuel and ATF; (2) the review of two fuel facility license applications; (3) the development and maintenance of licensing guidance; (4) emergency preparedness and physical security reviews for license amendments and renewals; (5) programmatic oversight activities in support for Category II fuel facilities and an anticipated new fuel facility; (6) associated fuel facilities rulemaking activities; and (7) an increase in the fully-costed FTE rate compared to FY 2023 due to an increase in salaries and benefits. The increase in budgetary resources is partially offset due to a decline in IT services.
The proposed increase in the annual fee is also affected by these contributing factors: (1) a rise in the generic transportation surcharge due to a new CoC within the fuel facilities fee class; and (2) a surcharge in the 10 CFR part 171 billing adjustment due to the timing of invoices in FY 2023.
The proposed annual fee is partially offset by an anticipated increase in the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings. The 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings are expected to increase primarily due to the following: (1) the continued review of the TRISO-X, LLC, fuel fabrication facility application; (2) the review of anticipated license amendment requests; and (3) the review of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's license renewal application for possession and use of its special nuclear material. Yet, this increase is offset by the following: (1) the completion of the review of Westinghouse Electric Company, LLC's license transfer application; (2) the near completion of the review of the Global Nuclear Fuel Americas, LLC, amendment for an increase in enrichment activities up to 8 weight percent uranium-235; (3) the delay of the submittal of Global Nuclear Fuel Americas, LLC, amendment for an increase in enrichment activities up to 20 weight percent uranium-235; and (4) the delay of a new fuel facility application.
The NRC will continue allocating annual fees to individual fuel facility licensees based on the effort/fee determination matrix developed in the FY 1999 final fee rule (64 FR 31448; June 10, 1999). To briefly recap, the matrix groups licensees within this fee class into various fee categories. The matrix lists processes that are conducted at licensed sites and assigns effort factors for the safety and safeguards activities associated with each process (these effort levels are reflected in table IX). The annual fees are then distributed across the fee class based on the regulatory effort assigned by the matrix. The effort factors in the matrix represent regulatory effort that is not recovered through 10 CFR part 170 fees (
NRC authorized the Centrus American Centrifuge Plant to begin its HALEU demonstration program operations at the Category II level on September 21, 2023. In the FY 2024 proposed fee rule, this change in operations caused the safeguard effort factors for “scrap/waste” to increase from 0 (no effort) to 1 (low effort), “enrichment” to increase from 5 (moderate effort) to 10 (high effort) and “sensitive information” to increase from 5 (moderate effort) to 10 (high effort), resulting in an increase of the safeguards efforts factors from 11 to 22 compared to the FY 2023 final fee rule.
In FY 2024, the total remaining amount of the proposed annual fees that the NRC estimates to be recovered, $24.9 million, is attributable to safety activities, safeguards activities, and the LLW surcharge. For FY 2024, the total budgeted resources proposed to be recovered as annual fees for safety activities are approximately $13.1 million. To calculate the annual fee, the NRC allocates this amount to each fee category based on its percentage of the total regulatory effort for safety activities. Similarly, the NRC allocates the budgeted resources that the NRC estimates to be recovered as annual fees for safeguards activities, $11.4 million, to each fee category based on its percentage of the total regulatory effort for safeguards activities. Finally, the fuel facilities fee class portion of the LLW surcharge—$0.4 million—is allocated to each fee category based on its percentage of the total regulatory effort for both safety and safeguards activities. The proposed annual fee per licensee is then calculated by dividing the estimated total allocated budgeted resources for the fee category by the number of licensees in that fee category. The proposed annual fee for each facility is summarized in table X.
The NRC proposes to collect $0.3 million in annual fees from the uranium recovery facilities fee class in FY 2024, as shown in table XI. The FY 2023 uranium recovery facilities fees are shown for comparison purposes.
In comparison to FY 2023, the FY 2024 proposed annual fee for the non-DOE licensee in the uranium recovery facilities fee class is increasing primarily due to a rise in budgeted resources attributed to licensing reviews associated with one licensed uranium recovery facility and two licensed, but not yet constructed, uranium recovery
The NRC regulates DOE's Title I and Title II activities under the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act (UMTRCA).
Further, for any non-DOE licensees, the NRC will continue using a matrix to determine the effort levels associated with conducting generic regulatory actions for the different licensees in the uranium recovery facilities fee class; this is similar to the NRC's approach for fuel facilities, described previously. The matrix methodology for uranium recovery licensees first identifies the licensee categories included within this fee class (excluding DOE). These categories are conventional uranium mills and heap leach facilities, uranium
The FY 2024 proposed annual fee for the remaining non-DOE licensee is calculated by allocating 100 percent of the budgeted resources, as summarized in table XIV.
The NRC proposes to collect $0.293 million in annual fees from the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class in FY 2024, as shown in table XV. The FY 2023 non-power production or utilization facilities fees are shown for comparison purposes.
In comparison to FY 2023, the FY 2024 proposed annual fee for the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class is increasing, as discussed in the following paragraphs.
In FY 2024, the budgeted resources decreased primarily due to a reduction in medical radioisotope production facilities workload primarily due to a delay with the SHINE Technologies LLC's (SHINE) operating license application for a medical radioisotope production facility and a delay in the construction schedule. The offset to the decline in budgetary resources is the rise in the fully-costed FTE rate compared to FY 2023 due to an increase in salaries and benefits.
The 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings associated with the current fleet of operating non-power production or utilization facilities licensees subject to annual fees have declined compared to FY 2023 due to a reduction in workload for license amendment activities associated with the anticipated shutdown of the General Electric Hitachi Vallecitos Nuclear Center in FY 2024. The 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings with respect to medical radioisotope production facilities and advanced research and test reactors have declined when compared with FY 2023 primarily due to the following: (1) a reduction in staff hours due to the delay with SHINE's operating license application and a delay in the construction schedule; and (2) the completion of the staff's safety review of the Kairos Power, LLC's (Kairos) application for a permit to construct the Hermes 1 test reactor. This decline in 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings is offset due to the following: (1) the staff's review of the Kairos Hermes 2 application for a permit to construct two test reactors; and (2) conducting pre-application meetings due to the anticipated submission of several license applications.
Furthermore, the proposed increase in the annual fee is also affected by these contributing factors: (1) an increase in the 10 CFR part 171 billing adjustment due to the timing of invoices in FY 2023; and (2) an increase in the generic transportation surcharge due to an increase in the generic transportation budgeted resources for the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class.
The annual fee recovery amount is divided equally among the three non-power production or utilization facilities licensees subject to annual fees and results in an FY 2024 proposed annual fee of $97,700 for each licensee.
In FY 2024, the NRC has allocated approximately $0.2 million in budgeted resources to this fee class; however, because all the budgeted resources will be recovered through service fees assessed under 10 CFR part 170, the NRC is not proposing to assess and collect annual fees in FY 2024 for this fee class.
The NRC proposes to collect $46.2 million in annual fees from materials users licensed under 10 CFR parts 30, 40, and 70 in FY 2023, as shown in table XVI. The FY 2023 materials users fees are shown for comparison purposes.
The formula for calculating 10 CFR part 171 annual fees for the various categories of materials users is described in detail in the work papers. Generally, the calculation results in a single annual fee that includes 10 CFR part 170 costs, such as amendments, renewals, inspections, and other licensing actions specific to individual fee categories.
The total annual fee recovery of $46.2 million for FY 2024 shown in table XVI
In comparison to FY 2023, the FY 2024 proposed annual fees are increasing for all fee categories within the materials users fee class, of which 25 fee categories are increasing by approximately 14 percent to 16 percent, and 27 fee categories are increasing by approximately 17 percent to 25 percent primarily due to an increase in the budgeted resources. The budgeted resources increased due to the following: (1) an increase in licensing and oversight workload, including the expected reviews of exempt distribution and sealed source device applications, updating licensing guidance, and the development of a regulatory guide on veterinary issues; (2) hiring actions to double encumber and train health physics staff to ensure an appropriate pipeline and knowledge management for future agency mission related activities; (3) support for rulemaking activities; (4) support for materials research activities; and (5) an increase in the fully-costed FTE rate compared to FY 2023 due to an increase in salaries and benefits.
In addition, the FY 2024 proposed annual fees are increasing due to the following: (1) an increase in generic transportation costs for materials users; (2) a decrease in the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings for new licensing applications; (3) a decrease of 53 materials users licensees from FY 2023; and (4) an increase in the 10 CFR part 171 billing adjustment due to the timing of invoices issued in FY 2023.
A constant multiplier is established to recover the total general costs (including allocated generic transportation costs) of $36.4 million. To derive the constant multiplier, the general cost amount is divided by the sum of all fee categories (application fee plus the inspection fee divided by inspection priority) then multiplied by the number of licensees. This calculation results in a constant multiplier of 1.26 for FY 2024. The average inspection cost is the average inspection hours for each fee category multiplied by the professional hourly rate of $321. The inspection priority is the interval between routine inspections, expressed in years. The inspection multiplier is established to recover the $9.7 million in inspection costs. To derive the inspection multiplier, the inspection costs amount is divided by the sum of all fee categories (inspection fee divided by inspection priority) then multiplied by the number of licensees. This calculation results in an inspection multiplier of 1.72 for FY 2024. The unique category costs are any special costs that the NRC has budgeted for a specific category of licenses. Please see the work papers for more detail about this classification.
The proposed annual fee being assessed to each licensee also takes into account a share of approximately $0.1 million in LLW surcharge costs allocated to the materials users fee class (see Table IV, “Allocation of LLW Surcharge, FY 2024,” of this document). The proposed annual fee for each fee category is shown in the proposed revision to § 171.16(d).
The NRC proposes to collect $2.2 million in annual fees to recover generic transportation budgeted resources in FY 2024, as shown in table XVII. The FY 2023 fees are shown for comparison purposes.
In comparison to FY 2023, the FY 2024 proposed annual fee for the transportation fee class is increasing primarily due to an increase in the budgeted resources. This increase is partially offset by: (1) a rise in the distribution of the generic transportation resources allocated to other fee classes; and (2) an increase in the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings.
In FY 2024, the budgeted resources increased primarily to support: (1) environmental reviews and licensing of transportation packages for ATF, the anticipated licensing review of one transportable microreactor application, other advanced reactors fuels, and microreactors; (2) rulemaking activities; and (3) a rise in the fully-costed FTE rate compared to FY 2023 due to an increase in salaries and benefits.
The increase in the proposed annual fee is partially offset by a rise in the distribution of generic transportation resources allocated to respective other fee classes resulting from additional number of CoCs for 2024.
Furthermore, the proposed annual fee is also partially offset by an increase in the 10 CFR part 170 estimated billings related to the review of new and amended packages.
Consistent with the policy established in the NRC's FY 2006 final fee rule (71 FR 30722; May 30, 2006), the NRC recovers generic transportation costs unrelated to DOE by including those costs in the annual fees for licensee fee classes. The NRC continues to assess a separate annual fee under § 171.16, fee category 18.A., for DOE transportation activities. The amount of the allocated generic resources is calculated by
This resource distribution to the licensee fee classes and DOE is shown in table XVIII. Note that for the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class, the NRC allocates the distribution to only those licensees that are subject to annual fees. Although five CoCs benefit the entire non-power production or utilization facilities fee class, only three out of 30 operating non-power production or utilization facilities licensees are subject to annual fees. Consequently, the number of CoCs used to determine the proportion of generic transportation resources allocated to annual fees for the non-power production or utilization facilities fee class has been adjusted to 0.5 so these licensees are charged a fair and equitable portion of the total fees (see the work papers).
The NRC assesses an annual fee to DOE based on the 10 CFR part 71 CoCs it holds. The NRC, therefore, does not allocate these DOE-related resources to other licensees' annual fees because these resources specifically support DOE.
The NRC is not proposing any policy changes for FY 2024.
The NRC is proposing 11 administrative changes in FY 2024:
1.
The NRC proposes to amend §§ 2.205(i), 15.35(c), 37.27(c)(2), 73.17(m)(1), 73.57(d)(3)(i), 110.64(e), 140.7(d), 170.12(f), and 171.19(a) to align with the U.S. Department of the Treasury's (Treasury) “No-Cash No-Check” policy. The Treasury encourages Federal agencies to use the most efficient, cost-effective, and best-suited collection and payment solutions. The Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service provides central collection and payment services to agencies to maintain the financial integrity and operational efficiency of the Federal Government. The Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service notified the NRC that the agency is expected to transition from paper-based collections to one or more offered electronic methods by September 30, 2024.
The “No-Cash No-Check” policy will improve timeliness of collections, thereby reducing interest/penalty/administrative fees associated with late payments, and reduce resources associated with processing paper checks. The available electronic payment options will enhance processing speed and accuracy, and adopting this policy will make consumer and business payments and remittances to agencies easier and more efficient. Accordingly, the NRC is proposing to amend §§ 2.205(i), 15.35(c), 37.27(c)(2), 73.17(m)(1), 73.57(d)(3)(i), 110.64(e), 140.7(d), 170.12(f), and 171.19(a) to revise available payment methods to remove paper forms of payment and provide that payments are to be made electronically using the methods accepted at
2.
The NRC proposes to amend table 1 in § 170.31add language to 7.A., 7.A.1, 7.A.2, 7.C, 7.C.1, and 7.C.2, to clarify with respect to 10 CFR part 170 fees that these categories also include the possession and use of source material for shielding when authorized on the same license.
3.
The NRC proposes to revise footnote 17 in table 2 paragraph (d) in § 171.16 to clarify that with respect to annual fees, medical licensees paying fees under 7.A, 7.A.1, 7.A.2, 7.B, 7.B.1, 7.B.2, 7.C, 7.C(1), or 7.C(2) are not subject to fees under 2.B. for possession and shielding authorized on the same license.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA),
Under NEIMA, the NRC is required to recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its annual budget for FY 2024 less the budget authority for excluded activities. The NRC established fee methodology guidelines for 10 CFR part 170 in 1978 and established additional fee methodology guidelines for 10 CFR part 171 in 1986. In subsequent rulemakings, the NRC has adjusted its fees without changing the underlying principles of its fee policy to ensure that the NRC continues to comply with the statutory requirements for cost recovery.
In this proposed rule, the NRC continues this longstanding approach. Therefore, the NRC did not identify any alternatives to the current fee structure guidelines and did not prepare a regulatory analysis for this proposed rule.
The NRC's backfitting provisions (which are found in the regulations at §§ 50.109, 70.76, 72.62, and 76.76) and issue finality provisions of 10 CFR part 52 do not apply to this proposed rule because these amendments do not require the modification of, or addition to: (1) systems, structures, components, or the design of a facility; (2) the design approval or manufacturing license for a facility; or (3) the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility. As a result, this proposed rule does not constitute “backfitting” as defined in 10 CFR Ch. I or otherwise affect the issue finality of a 10 CFR part 52 approval.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-274) requires Federal agencies to write documents in a clear, concise, and well-organized manner. The NRC wrote this document to be consistent with the Plain Writing Act, as well as the Presidential Memorandum, “Plain Language in Government Writing,” published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885). The NRC requests comment on this document with respect to the clarity and effectiveness of the language used.
The NRC has determined that this proposed rule is the type of action described in § 51.22(c)(1). Therefore, neither an environmental impact statement nor environmental assessment has been prepared for this proposed rule.
This proposed rule does not contain any new or amended collections of information subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501,
The NRC may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the document requesting or requiring the collection displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995, Public Law 104-113, requires that Federal agencies use technical standards that are developed or adopted by voluntary consensus standards bodies unless the use of such a standard is inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. In this proposed rule, the NRC proposes to amend the licensing, inspection, and annual fees charged to its licensees and applicants, as necessary, to recover, to the maximum extent practicable, approximately 100 percent of its annual budget for FY 2024 less the budget authority for excluded activities, as required by NEIMA. This action does not constitute the establishment of a standard that contains generally applicable requirements.
The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act requires all Federal agencies to prepare a written compliance guide for each rule for which the agency is required by 5 U.S.C. 604 to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis. The NRC, in compliance with the law, prepared the “Small Entity Compliance Guide” for the FY 2023 fee rule. The compliance guide was developed when the NRC completed the small entity biennial review for FY 2023. The NRC plans to continue to use this compliance guide for FY 2024 and has relabeled the compliance guide to reflect the current FY. This compliance guide is available as indicated in the “Availability of Documents” section of this document.
The NRC will conduct a public meeting to describe the FY 2024 proposed rule and answer questions from the public on the proposed rule. The NRC will publish a notice of the location, time, and agenda of the meeting on the NRC's public meeting website within 10 calendar days of the meeting. Stakeholders should monitor the NRC's public meeting website for information about the public meeting at:
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as indicated.
Administrative practice and procedure, Antitrust, Byproduct material, Classified information, Confidential business information, Freedom of information, Environmental protection, Hazardous waste, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sex discrimination, Source material, Special nuclear material, Waste treatment and disposal.
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Debt collection.
Byproduct material, Criminal penalties, Exports, Hazardous materials
Criminal penalties, Exports, Hazardous materials transportation, Imports, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures.
Administrative practice and procedure, Classified information, Criminal penalties, Exports, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scientific equipment.
Insurance, Intergovernmental relations, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Byproduct material, Import and export licenses, Intergovernmental relations, Non-payment penalties, Nuclear energy, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Source material, Special nuclear material.
Annual charges, Approvals, Byproduct material, Holders of certificates, Intergovernmental relations, Nonpayment penalties, Nuclear materials, Nuclear power plants and reactors, Registrations, Source material, Special nuclear material.
For the reasons set out in the preamble and under the authority of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended; the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, as amended; and 5 U.S.C. 552 and 553, the NRC is proposing the following amendments to 10 CFR parts 2, 15, 37, 73, 110, 140, 170 and 171:
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 29, 53, 62, 63, 81, 102, 103, 104, 105, 161, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 189, 191, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2039, 2073, 2092, 2093, 2111, 2132, 2133, 2134, 2135, 2201, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2239, 2241, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 206 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5846); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 114(f), 134, 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10134(f), 10154, 10155, 10161); Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552, 553, 554, 557, 558); National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note. Section 2.205(j) also issued under 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
(i) Except when payment is made after compromise or mitigation by the Department of Justice or as ordered by a court of the United States, following reference of the matter to the Attorney General for collection, payment of civil penalties imposed under section 234 of the Act are to be made payable to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, in U.S. funds. The payments are to be made by electronic fund transfer using the electronic payment methods accepted at
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 161, 186 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2236); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 5 U.S.C. 5514; 26 U.S.C. 6402; 31 U.S.C. 3701, 3713, 3716, 3719, 3720A; 42 U.S.C. 664; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note; 31 CFR parts 900 through 904; 31 CFR part 285; E.O. 12146, 44 FR 42657, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 409; E.O. 12988, 61 FR 4729, 3 CFR, 1996 Comp., p. 157.
(c)
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 53, 81, 103, 104, 147, 148, 149, 161, 182, 183, 223, 234, 274 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2073, 2111, 2133, 2134, 2167, 2168, 2169, 2201, 2232, 2233, 2273, 2282, 2021); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
(c) * * *
(2) Fees for the processing of fingerprint checks are due upon application. Licensees shall submit payment made payable to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The payments are to be made in U.S. funds using the electronic payment methods accepted at
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 53, 147, 149, 161, 161A, 170D, 170E, 170H, 170I, 223, 229, 234, 1701 (42 U.S.C. 2073, 2167, 2169, 2201, 2201a, 2210d, 2210e, 2210h, 2210i, 2273, 2278a, 2282, 2297f); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982, secs. 135, 141 (42 U.S.C. 10155, 10161); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
Section 73.37(b)(2) also issued under Sec. 301, Public Law 96-295, 94 Stat. 789 (42 U.S.C. 5841 note).
(m) * * *
(1) Fees for the processing of firearms background checks are due upon application. The fee for the processing of a firearms background check consists of a fingerprint fee and a NICS check fee. Licensees must submit payment with the application for the processing of fingerprints, and payment must be made payable to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The payments are to be made in U.S. funds using the electronic payment methods accepted at
(d) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Fees for the processing of fingerprint checks are due upon application. Licensees shall submit payment with the application for the processing of fingerprints, and payment must be made payable to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The payments are to be made in U.S. funds using the electronic payment methods accepted at
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 51, 53, 54, 57, 62, 63, 64, 65, 81, 82, 103, 104, 109, 111, 121, 122, 123, 124, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 161, 170H, 181, 182, 183, 184, 186, 187, 189, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2077, 2092, 2093, 2094, 2095, 2111, 2112, 2133, 2134, 2139, 2141, 2151, 2152, 2153, 2154, 2155, 2156, 2157, 2158, 2160c, 2160d, 2201, 2210h, 2231, 2232, 2233, 2234, 2236, 2237, 2239, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 552, 553); 42 U.S.C. 2139a, 2155a; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note. Section 110.1(b) also issued under 22 U.S.C. 2403; 22 U.S.C. 2778a; 50 App. U.S.C. 2401
(e) Except when the matter has been referred to the Attorney General for collection, payment of penalties shall be made in U.S. funds using the electronic payment methods accepted at
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 161, 170, 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2201, 2210, 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, secs. 201, 202 (42 U.S.C. 5841, 5842); 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
(d) Indemnity fee payments are to made payable to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The payments are to be made in U.S. funds using the electronic payment methods accepted at
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 161(w) (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2201(w)); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 U.S.C. 2215; 31 U.S.C. 901, 902, 9701; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
(f)
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, secs. 11, 161(w), 223, 234 (42 U.S.C. 2014, 2201(w), 2273, 2282); Energy Reorganization Act of 1974, sec. 201 (42 U.S.C. 5841); 42 U.S.C. 2215; 44 U.S.C. 3504 note.
(b)(1) The FY 2024 annual fee for each operating power reactor that must be collected by September 30, 2024, is $5,488,000.
(2) The FY 2024 annual fees are comprised of a base annual fee for power reactors licensed to operate, a base spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee and associated additional charges. The activities comprising the spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning base annual fee are shown in paragraphs (c)(2)(i) and (ii) of this section. The activities comprising the FY 2024 base annual fee for operating power reactors are as follows:
(c)(1) The FY 2024 annual fee for each power reactor holding a 10 CFR part 50 license or combined license issued under 10 CFR part 52 that is in a decommissioning or possession-only status and has spent fuel onsite, and for each independent spent fuel storage 10 CFR part 72 licensee who does not hold a 10 CFR part 50 license or a 10 CFR part 52 combined license, is $330,000.
(2) The FY 2024 annual fee is comprised of a base spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning annual fee (which is also included in the operating power reactor annual fee shown in paragraph (b) of this section). The activities comprising the FY 2024 spent fuel storage/reactor decommissioning rebaselined annual fee are:
(e) The FY 2024 annual fee for licensees authorized to operate one or more non-power production or utilization facilities under a single 10 CFR part 50 license, unless the reactor is exempted from fees under § 171.11(b), is $97,700.
(b) The FY 2024 annual fee is comprised of a base annual fee and associated additional charges. The base FY 2024 annual fee is the sum of budgeted costs for the following activities:
(c) A licensee who is required to pay an annual fee under this section, in addition to 10 CFR part 72 licenses, may qualify as a small entity. If a licensee qualifies as a small entity and provides the Commission with the proper certification along with its annual fee payment, the licensee may pay reduced annual fees as shown in table 1 to this paragraph (c). Failure to file a small entity certification in a timely manner could result in the receipt of a delinquent invoice requesting the outstanding balance due and/or denial of any refund that might otherwise be due. The small entity fees are as follows:
(d) The FY 2024 annual fees for materials licensees and holders of certificates, registrations, or approvals subject to fees under this section are shown in table 2 to this paragraph (d):
(a)
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all The Boeing Company Model 787-8,
The FAA must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 5, 2024.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
• You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195. It is also available at
Tak Kobayashi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3553; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Tak Kobayashi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3553; email
The FAA has received a report indicating that damage was found during overhaul on multiple inlets around the EAI duct within the inlet aft compartment. After investigation, it was found that the seals between the inner and outer ducts and between the outer duct and the aft compartment were missing. This led to EAI air leaking into the aft compartment exposing inlet components to high temperatures. This condition, if not addressed, could cause damage around the EAI duct, leading to reduced structural strength and departure of the inlet from the airplane, resulting in subsequent loss of continued safe flight and landing or injury to occupants from a departed inlet contacting the airplane.
The FAA is issuing this NPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design.
The FAA reviewed Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540023-00 RB, Issue 001, dated September 22, 2023; and Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540024-00 RB, Issue 001, dated September 22, 2023. This service information specifies procedures for incorporating (or verifying incorporation of) an updated dispatch deviation guide (DDG) for item 30-21-01-02 into the operator's existing MEL, checking records to determine whether the inlet has been dispatched under MEL item 30-21-01-02 or 30-21-01-07 before incorporation of the DDG 30-21-01-02 update, and applicable related investigative and corrective actions, including general visual inspection for signs of heat damage around the EAI duct, conductivity measurement and hardness test of areas with heat damage, replacement/installation of the periseal and aft seal, and repair or replacement of the engine inlet. These documents are distinct since they apply to different airplane configurations. This service information is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in the service information already described, except as specified under “Difference Between this Proposed AD and the Service Information” and except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. This proposed AD would
The applicability in this proposed AD is not limited to the airplanes identified in paragraph A., “Effectivity,” of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540023-00 RB or Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540024-00 RB, both Issue 001 and both dated September 22, 2023. This service information does not contain a complete list of all airplanes that may be affected by the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, the applicability of this proposed AD is all Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes.
The FAA considers that this proposed AD would be an interim action. An investigation is ongoing. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking then.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 110 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA estimates the following costs to do any investigative actions or repairs/replacements that would be required based on the results of the records check. The agency has no way of determining the number of airplanes that might need these actions:
The FAA has received no definitive data on which to base the cost estimates for the conductivity measurement, the hardness test, inlet replacement, and installation of a new periseal and aft seal, as specified in this proposed AD.
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by April 5, 2024.
None.
This AD applies to all The Boeing Company Model 787-8, 787-9, and 787-10 airplanes, certificated in any category.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 54, Nacelles/pylons.
This AD was prompted by a report of heat damage on multiple engine inlets around the
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified by paragraph (h) of this AD: At the applicable times specified in the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540023-00 RB or B787-81205-SB540024-00 RB, both Issue 001 and both dated September 22, 2023, as applicable, do all applicable actions identified in, and in accordance with, the Accomplishment Instructions of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540023-00 RB or B787-81205-SB540024-00 RB, both Issue 001 and both dated September 22, 2023, as applicable.
(1) Where the “Boeing Recommended Compliance Time” column in the tables under the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540023-00 RB, Issue 001, dated September 22, 2023, use the phrase “the Issue 001 date of Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540023 RB,” this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where the “Boeing Recommended Compliance Time” columns in the tables under the “Compliance” paragraph of Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540024-00 RB, Issue 001, dated September 22, 2023, use the phrase “the Issue 001 date of Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540024 RB,” this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(3) Where Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540023-00 RB, Issue 001, dated September 22, 2023, and Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540024-00 RB, Issue 001, dated September 22, 2023, specify contacting Boeing for repair instructions, this AD requires doing the repair before further flight, using a method approved in accordance with the procedures specified in paragraph (k) of this AD.
After accomplishment of all applicable actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD on an airplane, no person may install on that airplane any engine inlet that meets a condition specified in paragraph (i)(1) or (2) of this AD, unless the engine inlet has been inspected and applicable corrective actions taken as specified in Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540023-00 RB, Issue 001, dated September 22, 2023; or Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540024-00 RB, Issue 001, dated September 22, 2023.
(1) If the engine inlet was installed on an airplane that was dispatched under a dispatch deviation for the operator's existing minimum equipment list (MEL) item 30-21-01-02 or 30-21-01-07 prior to incorporation of Boeing 787 Dispatch Deviation Guide (DDG) 30-21-01-02, as required by this AD.
(2) If the engine inlet was installed on an airplane for which dispatch under a dispatch deviation for the operator's existing MEL item 30-21-01-02 or 30-21-01-07 prior to incorporation of Boeing 787 DDG 30-21-01-02, as required by this AD, cannot be determined.
(1) The Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or responsible Flight Standards Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the certification office, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (k) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the responsible Flight Standards Office.
(3) An AMOC that provides an acceptable level of safety may be used for any repair, modification, or alteration required by this AD if it is approved by The Boeing Company Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) that has been authorized by the Manager, AIR-520, Continued Operational Safety Branch, FAA, to make those findings. To be approved, the repair method, modification deviation, or alteration deviation must meet the certification basis of the airplane, and the approval must specifically refer to this AD.
For more information about this AD, contact Tak Kobayashi, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone 206-231-3553; email
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540023-00 RB, Issue 001, dated September 22, 2023.
(ii) Boeing Alert Requirements Bulletin B787-81205-SB540024-00 RB, Issue 001, dated September 22, 2023.
(3) For service information identified in this AD, contact Boeing Commercial Airplanes, Attention: Contractual & Data Services (C&DS), 2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110-SK57, Seal Beach, CA 90740-5600; telephone 562-797-1717; website
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM).
The FAA is revising a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) and an SNPRM that would have applied to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A11 airplanes. This action revises the SNPRM by adding airplanes. The FAA is proposing this airworthiness directive (AD) to address the unsafe condition on
The FAA must receive comments on this SNPRM by April 5, 2024.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For Transport Canada material that is proposed for incorporation by reference in this SNPRM, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
• For Airbus Canada Limited Partnership material that is proposed for incorporation by reference in this SNPRM, contact Airbus Canada Limited Partnership, 13100 Henri-Fabre Boulevard, Mirabel, Québec, J7N 3C6, Canada; telephone 450-476-7676; email
• You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
Steven Dzierzynski, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; email
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. The agency will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact received about this SNPRM.
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this SNPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this SNPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI as “PROPIN.” The FAA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the FOIA, and they will not be placed in the public docket of this SNPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Steven Dzierzynski, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; email
The FAA issued an NPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The NPRM published in the
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require inspecting for paint on the diverter strips on the nose radome, and replacing the nose radome, if necessary, as specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2022-04.
The FAA issued an SNPRM to amend 14 CFR part 39 by adding an AD that would apply to certain Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A11 airplanes. The SNPRM published in the
Since the FAA issued the SNPRM, the FAA determined that the applicability of the proposed AD should be revised. The FAA has determined that the affected nose radomes may be installed as rotable spares on the Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 airplane model, which is currently outside of the applicability of the NPRM and SNPRM, thereby subjecting those airplanes to the identified unsafe condition. Therefore, this proposed AD has been expanded to apply to Model BD-500-1A10 airplanes, as well as Model BD-500-1A11 airplanes, equipped with the specific part numbers and serial numbers previously
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA received comments from the Air Line Pilots Association, International (ALPA), who supported the SNPRM without change.
The FAA received additional comments from Delta Airlines. The following presents the comments received on the SNPRM and the FAA's response to each comment.
Delta requested the proposed applicability be changed to include Model BD-500-1A10 airplanes. Delta stated that the nose radome is a rotable component that is also compatible with Model BD-500-1A10 airplanes, as specified in the A220 Illustrated Parts Data Publication (IPDP), and may be moved from the original Model BD-500-1A11 airplane to a Model BD-500-1A10 airplane over time.
The FAA agrees with the request to include Model BD-500-1A10 airplanes to the applicability in this proposed AD after verifying with Transport Canada that this model aircraft is affected by the unsafe condition. The FAA has revised paragraph (c) of this proposed AD accordingly.
Delta requested the removal of the following part numbers from paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM): C01204101-003, C01204101-005, C01204101-011. Delta also requested that paragraph (i) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) be revised to include the following serial numbers: S456997, S570556, S626945, S866894, T099675, T471773, T595935. Delta stated that Airbus Canada confirmed only the radomes having part and serial numbers specified in paragraph (c) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM) are affected by the unsafe condition.
The FAA agrees with the request for the reasons provided, and has revised paragraph (i) of this proposed AD accordingly.
Delta requested the review and, if applicable, correction to the reference issuance date of SB BD500-538009, Issue 001 in paragraph (j) of the proposed AD (in the SNPRM). Delta stated that it believes the issuance date should be May 9, 2022.
The FAA agrees with Delta's request to correct the issuance date of SB BD500-538009, Issue 001 from April 8, 2022 to May 9, 2022, and has revised paragraph (j) of this proposed AD accordingly.
Transport Canada AD CF-2022-04 specifies procedures for inspecting for paint on the lightning diverter strips on the nose radome, and replacing the nose radome if the lightning diverter strips are painted.
The FAA also reviewed Airbus Canada Limited Partnership A220 Service Bulletin BD500-538009, Issue 002, dated June 2, 2022. This service information specifies procedures for inspecting for paint on the lightning diverter strips on the nose radome, and replacing and painting the nose radome if the lightning diverter strips are painted.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. The FAA is issuing this SNPRM after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
Certain changes described above expand the scope of the SNPRM. As a result, it is necessary to reopen the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to comment on this SNPRM.
This proposed AD would require accomplishing the actions specified in Transport Canada AD CF-2022-04 described previously, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD.
In the FAA's ongoing efforts to improve the efficiency of the AD process, the FAA developed a process to use some civil aviation authority (CAA) ADs as the primary source of information for compliance with requirements for corresponding FAA ADs. The FAA has been coordinating this process with manufacturers and CAAs. As a result, the FAA proposes to incorporate Transport Canada AD CF-2022-04 by reference in the FAA final rule. This proposed AD would, therefore, require compliance with Transport Canada AD CF-2022-04 in its entirety through that incorporation, except for any differences identified as exceptions in the regulatory text of this proposed AD. Service information required by Transport Canada AD CF-2022-04 for compliance will be available at
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 7 airplanes of U.S. registry. The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some or all of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by April 5, 2024.
None.
This AD applies to Airbus Canada Limited Partnership Model BD-500-1A10 and BD-500-1A11 airplanes, certificated in any category, with a nose radome having part number (P/N) C01204101-007 or P/N C01204101-009 and a serial number (S/N) S456997, S/N S570556, S/N S626945, S/N S866894, S/N T099675, S/N T471773, or S/N T595935.
Air Transport Association (ATA) of America Code 53, Fuselage.
This AD was prompted by a report that the nose radome lightning diverter strips on certain aircraft were painted in production; paint on the diverter strips can compromise the nose radome lightning protection. The FAA is issuing this AD to address reduced effectiveness of the diverter strips, which can lead to the puncture of the nose radome by lightning and potential arc attachment to antennas, structures, and other equipment in the area of the nose radome. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in damage to the localizer or glideslope antennas, and consequent loss of instrument landing system localizer inputs or deviation information.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2022-04 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada AD CF-2022-04 specifies removing and installing a nose radome using certain aircraft maintenance publication data modules, this AD also allows accomplishing those actions in accordance with Airbus Canada Limited Partnership A220 Service Bulletin BD500-538009, Issue 002, dated June 2, 2022, with the exception that the painting of the nose radome can be accomplished prior to installation, and that the following nose radome assembly part numbers may be used: P/N C01204101-003, P/N C01204101-005, P/N C01204101-007, P/N C01204101-009, and P/N C01204101-011.
As of the effective date of this AD, no person may install, on any airplane, a nose radome having part number (P/N) C01204101-007 or P/N C01204101-009 and a serial number (S/N) S456997, S/N S570556, S/N S626945, S/N S866894, S/N T099675, S/N T471773, or S/N T595935 unless the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD have been accomplished on the nose radome.
This paragraph provides credit for actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, if those actions were performed before the effective date of this AD using Airbus Canada Limited Partnership A220 Service Bulletin BD500-538009, Issue 001, dated May 9, 2022.
The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Steven Dzierzynski, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; telephone 516-228-7300; email
(2) Service information identified in this AD that is not incorporated by reference is available at the addresses specified in paragraphs (m)(4) and (5) of this AD.
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless this AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Airbus Canada Limited Partnership A220 Service Bulletin BD500-538009, Issue 002, dated June 2, 2022.
(ii) Transport Canada AD CF-2022-04, dated February 14, 2022.
(3) For Transport Canada AD CF-2022-04, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; telephone 888-663-3639; email
(4) For Airbus Canada Limited Partnership material incorporated by reference in this AD, contact Airbus Canada Limited Partnership, 13100 Henri-Fabre Boulevard, Mirabel, Québec, J7N 3C6, Canada; telephone 450-476-7676; email
(5) You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call 206-231-3195.
(6) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
The FAA proposes to adopt a new airworthiness directive (AD) for certain Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 407 helicopters. This proposed AD was prompted by a report that a certain part-numbered fuel system standpipe assembly (standpipe) may have sharp edges at the interval weld joints due to a quality escape during the manufacturing process. This proposed AD would require inspecting certain fuel system parts and, depending on the inspection results, taking corrective actions and performing a fuel quantity gauging system calibration. Depending on the results of the fuel quantity gauging system calibration, this proposed AD would require performing additional corrective action and repeating the fuel quantity gauging system calibration. The FAA is proposing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
The FAA must receive comments on this NPRM by April 5, 2024.
You may send comments, using the procedures found in 14 CFR 11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
• For service information identified in this NPRM, contact Bell Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J 1R4, Canada; phone 1-450-437-2862 or 1-800-363-8023; fax 1-450-433-0272; email
• You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N 321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
Michael Hughlett, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-5889; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposal. Send your comments to an address listed under
Except for Confidential Business Information (CBI) as described in the following paragraph, and other information as described in 14 CFR 11.35, the FAA will post all comments received, without change, to
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to this NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to this NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission containing CBI
Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, issued Transport Canada AD CF-2023-11, dated February 23, 3023 (Transport Canada AD CF-2023-11), to correct an unsafe condition on Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 407 helicopters, serial numbers 54832 through 54931, 54933 through 54939, and 54942 through 54954. Transport Canada advises that, due to a quality escape, standpipe part number (P/N) 407-062-032-103 may have been delivered with sharp edges at the internal weld joints.
Accordingly, Transport Canada AD CF-2023-11 requires a one-time inspection of standpipe P/N 407-062-032-103 for sharp edges, and depending on the inspection results, reworking the standpipe. Transport Canada AD CF-2023-11 also requires inspecting certain parts of the fuel quantity harness assembly (harness assembly) for damage. Depending on the inspection results, Transport Canada AD CF-2023-11 requires contacting Bell for disposition results of the harness assembly and replacing any unserviceable harness assembly.
You may examine the Transport Canada AD in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed Bell Alert Service Bulletin 407-21-124, dated February 1, 2022, which specifies procedures for a one-time visual inspection of the internal joint welds of standpipe P/N 407-062-032-103. If there are any sharp edges, this service information specifies rework procedures, which include deburring the sharp edges, removing all residue, and applying a chemical film. This service information also specifies procedures to remove and inspect the harness assembly connectors for any damage to the electrical pins and inspect the insulation tubing and wires for any cracks and chafing.
Additionally, this service information specifies if any damage is found, contacting product support engineering and submitting certain information. Finally, this service information specifies instructions for various fuel procedures and checks.
The FAA also reviewed Fuel Quantity Gauging System, DMC-407-A-95-65-10-01A-273A-A, Issue 002, dated June 2, 2022, of Bell Model 407 Maintenance Manual, BHT-407-MM, Issue No. 014, dated December 12, 2023, which specifies procedures for a fuel quantity gauging system calibration procedure and inspecting the fuel quantity display information.
This material is reasonably available because the interested parties have access to it through their normal course of business or by the means identified in
These helicopters have been approved by the aviation authority of Canada and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with Canada, Transport Canada has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in its AD. The FAA is proposing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop on other helicopters of the same type design.
This proposed AD would require, with the standpipe removed, inspecting its interior for any sharp edges on each internal weld joint. If there are any sharp edges on any weld joint, this proposed AD would require deburring the edges, ensuring not to exceed a certain depth into the tube. This proposed AD would then require removing all sanding residue and applying a chemical film to any bare metal surfaces. This proposed AD would also require, with the harness assembly removed, inspecting the harness assembly connectors for any mechanical damage and corrosion to the electrical pins, and inspecting the insulation tubing and wires of the harness assembly for any crack and chafing. Depending on these results, this proposed AD would require replacing the harness assembly.
If the harness assembly was required to be replaced as a result of the proposed AD requirements, this proposed AD would require performing a fuel quantity gauging system calibration. Depending on the calibration results, this proposed AD would require replacing the harness assembly and repeating the fuel quantity gauging system calibration.
Transport Canada AD CF-2023-11 requires contacting Bell for disposition instructions if damage is found on the harness assembly, whereas this proposed AD would require removing an affected harness assembly from service and replacing it with an airworthy harness assembly.
The FAA estimates that this AD, if adopted as proposed, would affect 51 helicopters of U.S. Registry. Labor rates are estimated at $85 per work-hour. Based on these numbers, the FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this proposed AD.
Inspecting the interior of the standpipe would take approximately 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $4,335 for the U.S. fleet.
Inspecting the harness assembly connectors, insulation tubing, and wiring would take approximately 1 work-hour for an estimated cost of $85 per helicopter and $4,335 for the U.S. fleet.
If required, deburring, cleaning, and applying a chemical film to each affected weld joint would take approximately 0.5 work-hour for an estimated cost of $43 per weld joint.
If required, replacing an affected harness assembly would take approximately 1 work-hour and parts would cost approximately $1,071 for an estimated cost of $1,156 per harness replacement.
If required, performing a fuel quantity gauging system calibration would take approximately 10 work-hours for an estimated cost of $850 per procedure.
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, some of the costs of this proposed AD may be covered under warranty, thereby reducing the cost impact on affected operators.
Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.
The FAA is issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements. Under
The FAA determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Would not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Would not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA must receive comments on this airworthiness directive (AD) by April 5, 2024.
None.
This AD applies to Bell Textron Canada Limited Model 407 helicopters, serial numbers 54832 through 54931 inclusive, 54933 through 54939 inclusive, and 54942 through 54954 inclusive, certificated in any category, with a fuel system standpipe assembly (standpipe) part number 407-062-032-103 installed.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code: 2897, Fuel system wiring.
This AD was prompted by a report that certain standpipes may have sharp edges at the interval weld joints due to a quality escape during the manufacturing process. The FAA is issuing this AD to detect sharp edges in the standpipe. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in fuel quantity system wiring damage, loss of erratic fuel quantity indication, or fuel tank ignition.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Within 300 hours time-in-service (TIS) or 6 months after the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, accomplish the actions required by paragraphs (g)(1)(i) and (ii) of this AD.
(i) With the standpipe removed from the aft fuel cell, inspect the interior of the standpipe for any sharp edges on each internal weld joint, as shown in Figure 1 of Bell Alert Service Bulletin 407-21-124, dated February 1, 2022. If there is a sharp edge on any internal weld joint, before further flight, deburr the edges of each affected weld joint using an aluminum oxide abrasive cloth or paper, or equivalent, ensuring not to exceed 0.015 in (0.38 mm) depth into the tube material at a 45-degree angle to the weld joint. Then, using a clean cloth dampened with isopropyl alcohol or equivalent, remove all sanding residue from the weld joint and apply a chemical film material to any bare metal surfaces.
(ii) With the fuel quantity harness assembly (harness assembly) removed, inspect the harness assembly connectors for any mechanical damage and corrosion to the electrical pins and inspect the insulation tubing and wires for any cracks and chafing. For the purposes of this AD, mechanical damage is indicated by deterioration of the connections or pins.
(A) If there is any corrosion or mechanical damage, before further flight, remove the harness assembly from service and replace it with an airworthy harness assembly.
(B) If there is a crack or any chafing, before further flight, remove the harness assembly from service and replace it with an airworthy harness assembly.
(2) If the harness assembly was required to be replaced as a result of the inspection required by paragraph (g)(1)(ii) of this AD or by this paragraph, before further flight, with the standpipe and harness assembly installed, perform a fuel quantity gauging system calibration in accordance with paragraphs 4 through 18 of Fuel Quantity Gauging System, DMC-407-A-95-65-10-01A-273A-A, Issue 002, dated June 2, 2022, of Bell Model 407 Maintenance Manual, BHT-407-MM, Issue No. 014, dated December 12, 2023. As a result of the fuel quantity gauging system calibration, if a fuel level does not indicate the correct reading or displays no reading, before further flight, remove the harness assembly from service and replace it with an airworthy harness assembly; and repeat the actions required by this paragraph for the newly installed harness assembly.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (i)(1) of this AD. Information may be emailed to:
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office. The following provisions also apply to this AD.
(1) For more information about this AD, contact Michael Hughlett, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (817) 222-5889; email:
(2) Refer to Transport Canada AD CF-2023-11, dated February 23, 2023, for related information. This Transport Canada AD may be found in the AD docket at
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Bell Alert Service Bulletin 407-21-124, dated February 1, 2022.
(ii) Fuel Quantity Gauging System, DMC-407-A-95-65-10-01A-273A-A, Issue 002, dated June 2, 2022, of Bell Model 407 Maintenance Manual, BHT-407-MM, Issue No. 014, dated December 12, 2023.
(3) For Bell service information identified in this AD, contact Bell Textron Canada Limited, 12,800 Rue de l'Avenir, Mirabel, Quebec J7J 1R4, Canada; phone 1-450-437-2862 or 1-800-363-8023; fax 1-450-433-0272; email
(4) You may view this service information at the FAA, Office of the Regional Counsel, Southwest Region, 10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N 321, Fort Worth, TX 76177. For
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice of proposed rulemaking; notice of hearing.
This document provides a notice of public hearing on proposed regulations that would amend the regulations relating to the energy credit for the taxable year in which eligible energy property is placed in service.
The public hearing on these proposed regulations has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 20, 2024, at 10 a.m. ET and Wednesday, February 21, 2024, at 10 a.m. ET.
Tuesday, February 20, 2024, the public hearing is being held in the Auditorium, at the Internal Revenue Service Building, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. Due to security procedures, visitors must enter at the Constitution Avenue entrance. In addition, all visitors must present a valid photo identification to enter the building. Because of access restrictions, visitors will not be admitted beyond the immediate entrance area more than 30 minutes before the hearing starts. Participants may alternatively attend the public hearing by telephone.
On Wednesday, February 21, 2024, the public hearing will be held by telephone only.
Concerning the proposed regulations, the Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Passthroughs and Special Industries), (202) 317-6835 (not a toll-free number); concerning submissions of comments, the hearing and/or to be placed on the building access list to attend the public hearing, call Vivian Hayes (202-317-6901) (not a toll-free number) or by email to
The subject of the public hearing is the notice of proposed rulemaking (REG-132569-17) that was published in the
Persons who wished to present oral comments at the public hearing were required to submit written and electronic comments and an outline of the topics to be discussed as well as the time to be devoted to each topic by January 22, 2024. This due date for requests to testify has not been extended. Persons who made timely requests to testify will receive the telephone number and access codes for the public hearing.
An agenda showing the scheduling of the speakers will be available free of charge at the hearing, and via the Federal eRulemaking Portal (
Individuals who want to attend the public hearing in person without testifying must also send an email to
Individuals who want to attend the public hearing by telephone without testifying must also send an email to
Hearings will be made accessible to people with disabilities. To request special assistance during a hearing please contact
Any questions regarding speaking at or attending a public hearing may also be emailed to
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule; extension of public comment period.
On January 26, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule titled “Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems”. The EPA is extending the comment period for this proposed rule.
The comment period for the proposed rule published on January 26, 2024, at 89 FR 5318, is extended. Comments must be received on or before March 26, 2024.
You may send your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2023-0434, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jennifer Bohman, Climate Change Division, Office of Atmospheric Programs (MC-6207A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 343-9548; email address:
On January 26, 2024, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a proposed rule titled “Waste Emissions Charge for Petroleum and Natural Gas Systems” (89 FR 5318). The public comment for this proposed rule was scheduled to end on March 11, 2024. The EPA is extending that deadline to March 26, 2024. This extension will provide the general public additional time for participation and comment.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a request from the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) for
Written comments must be received on or before March 21, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-R02-OAR-2023-0636 at
Fausto Taveras, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 2, Air Programs Branch, 290 Broadway, New York, New York 10007-1866, at (212) 637-3378, or by email at
The
On May 21, 2021, the EPA published a final rule in the
On May 8, 2023, NJDEP submitted to the EPA a formal written request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce the Federal Plan for MSW landfills located in New Jersey. The goal of the request was to acquire the delegation of authority to implement and enforce the Federal Plan for existing MSW landfills located in New Jersey, in accordance with CAA section 112(l) and 40 CFR 63.91. The letter also provided the following enclosures:
•
•
•
•
•
Within New Jersey's formal request for delegation of authority to implement and enforce the Federal Plan, the State provides that all of the Federal Plan requirements in 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO will be incorporated in each affected designated facility's Title V operating permit or preconstruction permit (PCP), when issued. The NJDEP approves, and issues permits and certificates under the authority of N.J.S.A. 26:2C-9.2. NJDEP asserts that all Title V operating permits (issued N.J.A.C. 7:27-22) and PCPs (issued under N.J.A.C. 7:27-8) for affected MSW landfill facilities with have matching, or stricter, emission limits than are stipulated under the Federal Plan at 40 CFR 62.16714 and 62.16716.
After consideration of these materials, the EPA determined that the request letter and attached documents adequately fulfilled the State delegation criteria outlined in Federal Plan's final rulemaking notice, Section VI-D. Delegation of the Federal Plan and Retained Authorities.
The Memorandum of Agreement Concerning the Delegation of Authority of the Federal Plan for Existing Municipal Solid Waste Landfills to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection by the United States Environmental Protection Agency includes the delegation conditions established, the authorities which NJDEP assumes and EPA retains, a policy statement defining the responsibilities of both parties, program implementation procedures, reporting and transmittal of information requirements, and contact information. Moreover, the MoA states that it is effective upon authorized signature by both NJDEP and EPA and that it shall have an effective date of the last date on which it is signed. The mechanism to transfer authority is explicitly identified to be upon signature of both parties. The MoA also states that EPA will publish an action in the
The MoA was signed by the NJDEP Assistant Commissioner on November 21, 2023, and became effective upon signature of the EPA Region 2 Regional Administrator on November 28, 2023. The Federal Plan is codified at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO. The text of EPA's and NJDEP MoA, effective November
The EPA has evaluated New Jersey's submittal for consistency with the CAA, EPA regulations, and EPA policy. New Jersey has met all the requirements of EPA's guidance for obtaining the delegation of authority to implement and enforce the Federal Plan. New Jersey entered into a MoA with the EPA, and it became effective on November 28, 2023. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve New Jersey's request dated May 8, 2023, for the delegation of authority of the Federal Plans for existing sources of MSW Landfills. The EPA will continue to retain enforcement authority along with NJDEP, and the EPA will continue to retain certain specific authorities reserved to EPA in the Federal Plan and as indicated in the MoA (
The EPA is proposing to amend regulatory text at 40 CFR part 62, subpart FF—New Jersey, to promulgate the approved delegation of authority to the NJDEP for implementing and enforcing the Federal Plan Requirements for Municipal Solid Waste Landfills That Commenced Construction On or Before July 17, 2014 and Have Not Been Modified or Reconstructed Since July 17, 2014 at 40 CFR part 62, subpart OOO.
The EPA is soliciting public comment on this proposed revision to the regulatory text or on relevant matters overall. These comments will be considered before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to this proposed action by following the instructions listed in the
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a State Plan submittal that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. CAA sections 111(d) and 129(b); 40 CFR part 60, subparts B and Cf; and 40 CFR part 62, subpart A; and 40 CFR 62.04. Thus, in reviewing state plan submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
In addition, this proposed rulemaking action, pertaining to New Jersey's submission, is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have Tribal implications and will not impose any substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, Feb. 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
The NJDEP did not evaluate environmental justice considerations as part of its formal request; the CAA and applicable implementing regulations neither prohibit nor require such an evaluation. EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this action. Due to the nature of the action being taken here, this action is expected to have a neutral to positive impact on the air quality of the affected area. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving environmental justice for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Landfills, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Waste treatment and disposal.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA); Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of advisory committee meeting.
This notice announces a public meeting of the Technical Pipeline Safety Standards Committee, also known as the Gas Pipeline
PHMSA will hold a public meeting from March 25, 2024, to March 29, 2024. The GPAC will meet each day from 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. ET (start and end times are subject to change) to discuss the NPRMs. However, the meeting may end early if the GPAC completes its review of the proposed rules. Members of the public who wish to attend are asked to register no later than March 18, 2024. PHMSA requests that individuals who require accommodations because of a disability notify Tewabe Asebe by email at
The meeting will be held in person at the Westin Crystal City, 1800 Richmond Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. However, PHMSA will provide a Microsoft Teams link on the meeting web page at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Tewabe Asebe, Office of Pipeline Safety, by phone at 202-366-5523 or by email at
The GPAC will meet from March 25, 2024, to March 29, 2024, to discuss “Gas Pipeline Leak Detection and Repair” NPRM that PHMSA published in the
From November 27, 2023, to December 1, 2023, the GPAC met and discussed part of the Gas Pipeline Leak Detection and Repair NPRM and provided to PHMSA recommendations on a number of the proposed requirements. The transcript of the meeting is posted on the meeting website at:
In the “Class Location Change Requirements” NPRM, PHMSA proposes to revise the Federal Pipeline Safety Regulations to amend the requirements for gas transmission pipeline segments that experience a change in class location. Under the existing regulations, pipeline segments located in areas where the population density has significantly increased must perform one of the following actions: reduce the pressure of the pipeline segment; pressure test the pipeline segment to higher standards; or replace the pipeline segment. This proposed rule would add an alternative set of requirements operators could use—based on implementation of integrity management principles and pipe eligibility criteria—to manage certain pipeline segments where the class location has changed from a Class 1 location to a Class 3 location. Through required periodic assessments, repair criteria, and other additional preventive and mitigative measures, PHMSA expects this alternative approach will provide long-term safety benefits consistent with the current natural gas pipeline safety rules while also providing cost savings for pipeline operators. PHMSA requested public comments with a submission deadline of December 14, 2020.
Following the GPAC meeting, PHMSA will evaluate the GPAC's recommendations and publish final rules that address the comments received and relevant information from the GPAC meeting report.
The GPAC is a statutorily mandated advisory committee that provides the Secretary of Transportation and PHMSA with recommendations on proposed standards for the transportation of gas by pipeline. The committee was established in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 60115 and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) of 1972 (Pub. L. 92-463) to review PHMSA's regulatory initiatives and determine their technical feasibility, reasonableness, cost-effectiveness, and practicability. The committee consists of 15 members, with membership evenly divided among Federal and State governments, regulated industry, and the general public.
The meeting will be open to the public. Members of the public who wish to attend must register on the meeting website and include their names and affiliations. PHMSA will provide members of the public reasonable opportunity to make a statement during this meeting. However, commenters may be limited to 3 minutes each to accommodate the business of the committee, and trade organizations are asked to have no more than one speaker per organization. PHMSA will provide a Microsoft Teams link on the meeting web page at
PHMSA is not always able to publish a notice in the
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
FMCSA proposes to amend the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) to incorporate by reference the most recent edition of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Inc. (AAMVA) Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) State Procedures Manual (SPM), Version c.0. This would require all State driver's licensing agencies (SDLAs) to use this edition of the manual to provide guidance on the information systems procedures of the commercial driver's license (CDL) program. Such information includes, but is not limited to, CDL standards, State compliance with CDL programs, qualifications of drivers, and credentials and security threats assessments.
Comments must be received on or before March 21, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2023-0269 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Viewing incorporation by reference material: You may inspect the material proposed for incorporation by reference at U.S. Department of Transportation Library, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The telephone number is (202) 366-1812. Copies of the material are available as indicated in the “Executive Summary” section of this preamble.
Ms. Rebecca Rehberg, CDL Division, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (850) 728-2034,
FMCSA organizes this NPRM as follows:
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this NPRM (FMCSA-2023-0269), indicate the specific section of this document to which your comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
CBI is commercial or financial information that is both customarily and actually treated as private by its owner. Under the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from public disclosure. If your comments responsive to the NPRM contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, and that is relevant or responsive to the NPRM, it is important that you clearly designate the submitted comments as CBI. Please mark each page of your submission that constitutes CBI as “PROPIN” to indicate it contains proprietary information. FMCSA will treat such marked submissions as confidential under the Freedom of Information Act, and they will not be placed in the public docket of the NPRM. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Evaluation Division, Office of Policy, FMCSA, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001 or via email at
To view any documents mentioned as being available in the docket, go to
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its regulatory process. DOT posts these comments, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
In this NPRM, FMCSA proposes to incorporate by reference version c.0 of the Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) State Procedures Manual (SPM), which the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Inc. (AAMVA) released in September 2023. In 2014, FMCSA incorporated by reference version 5.3.2.1 of the CDLIS SPM, which AAMVA released in August 2013 (79 FR 59450 (Oct. 14, 2014)). Version c.0 of the CDLIS SPM has replaced the 2013 version. The CDLIS SPM (version c.0) provides guidance on the information system procedures of the CDL program. This change reflects a routine update of the referenced SPM (version c.0) to include changes introduced to exchange driver history record information (EEE) procedures and drug and alcohol clearinghouse (DACH II or Clearinghouse) information exclusively electronically. This NPRM discusses all updates to the currently incorporated 2013 edition of the SPM (version c.0). FMCSA is providing the public an opportunity to comment on the incorporation by reference of version c.0 of the SPM.
The material is available, and will continue to be available, for inspection at the Department of Transportation
Twenty-six updates distinguish the September 2023 edition of the SPM (version c.0) from the August 2013 edition. The incorporation by reference of the September 2023 edition does not impose new regulatory requirements and consequently would neither impose costs nor result in quantifiable benefits.
Section 206 of the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-554, title II, 98 Stat. 2832, 2834, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31136) directed the Secretary of Transportation (the Secretary) to regulate commercial motor vehicles (CMVs) and the drivers and motor carriers that operate them. The Secretary was also directed to issue regulations governing the physical condition of drivers.
The Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1986 (CMVSA) (Pub. L. 99-570, title XII, 100 Stat. 3207-170, codified at 49 U.S.C. chapter 313) required the Secretary, after consultation with the States, to prescribe regulations on minimum uniform standards for State issuance of CDLs. CMVSA also specified information States must include on each CDL (49 U.S.C. 31308). Congress delegated the authorities set forth in the Motor Carrier Safety Act of 1984 and the CMVSA to FMCSA's Administrator (see 49 U.S.C. 113(f)(1); see also section 1.87(e)-(f)).
FMCSA, in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31308, has authority to prescribe procedures and requirements the States must adhere to in issuing CDLs and commercial learner's permits (CLPs). To avoid loss of Federal-aid highway funds, 49 U.S.C. 31314 requires each State to comply substantially with 49 U.S.C. 31311(a), which prescribes the requirements for State participation in the CDL program. To ensure that the States are able to exchange information about CDL holders efficiently and effectively through CDLIS, as required by 49 U.S.C. 31311(a)(5) through (9), (15), (18) through (19), and (21), this proposal would require States issuing CDLs and CLPs to follow all the procedures described in version c.0 of the CDLIS SPM when posting, transmitting, and receiving all information on a CDL driver's CDLIS driver record.
FMCSA is required by statute to maintain an information system that serves as the clearinghouse depository of information about the licensing, identification, and disqualification of operators of CMVs (49 U.S.C. 31309). CDLIS is the information system that serves that function.
In 1988, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) entered into a designation agreement with AAMVA's affiliate AAMVAnet,
In August 2005, section 4123 of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users authorized FMCSA to establish a modernization plan for CDLIS (Pub. L. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144, 1734, codified in part at 49 U.S.C. 31309(e)
On May 2, 2006, FMCSA published the CDLIS Modernization Plan in the
On June 9, 2008, FMCSA and AAMVA entered into a new cooperative agreement regarding the operation, maintenance, and modernization of CDLIS. While FMCSA authorizes AAMVA to maintain and operate CDLIS, FMCSA does not own CDLIS, and it is not a Federal system of records. FMCSA and AAMVA work closely together to monitor State compliance with the CDLIS specifications, as set forth in the 2006 CDLIS Modernization Plan, and States' annual grant agreements. FMCSA has awarded AAMVA Federal financial assistance grants to maintain an active Help Desk for the jurisdictions, conduct regularly occurring CDLIS training courses for the
The goals of the 2008 agreement, to which any amendments must be made in writing and signed by all parties,
Version c.0 of the CDLIS SPM outlines the standard administrative practices required of the fifty States and the District of Columbia, known as “the jurisdictions,” when participating in CDLIS. The thirteen Canadian provinces and territories and the Mexican General Directorship of Federal Motor Carrier Transportation (DGAF) will also adopt version c.0 of the CDLIS SPM. Version c.0 of the SPM supersedes previous versions of the CDLIS SPM.
The primary audiences for this SPM (version c.0) are the jurisdictions involved in CDL programs, and their counterparts in Canada and Mexico, including administrative employees involved in driver licensing and computer technology staff supporting CDLIS transactions. The SPM (version c.0) contains background information about the laws mandating CDLIS and discusses types of CDLIS users. The SPM (version c.0) also includes descriptions, excerpted from the CDLIS System Specifications (version c.0), of the nationwide computerized data-exchange transactions used to electronically record and report driver information. Further, the SPM (version c.0) provides guidance on administrative driver licensing procedures that involve CDLIS, including issuing, renewing, transferring, withdrawing, and reinstating a driver's license, and posting convictions. The SPM (version c.0) does not address CDL or CLP program requirements outside the scope of CDLIS.
The CDLIS SPM (version c.0) addresses changes that were made as part of the modernization effort to make CDLIS more efficient in handling the increasing number of driver records and data transactions. These changes provide guidance on the information system procedures of the CDL program. In addition, version c.0 includes updates to support changes made to CDLIS as a result of the DACH II rule, published in October 2021 (81 FR 87686), and revises procedures to support changes made to CDLIS as a result of the EEE rule, published in July 2023 (86 FR 38937). Any references in the SPM (version c.0) to the U.S. Code or CFR should be confirmed by users.
The following is a summary of the updates introduced in version c.0 of the SPM:
AAMVA released a new version of the CDLIS SPM (version c.0) to introduce updates to CDLIS,
The SPM includes multiple versions; however, this proposed rule will focus solely on the contents of latest version (c.0), which are discussed in more detail below. Twenty-six changes in the 2023 edition of the SPM (version c.0) distinguish it from the August 2013 edition. Of the 26 updates, 24 stem from the DACH II final rule and 2 stem from the EEE final rule.
The purpose of DACH II is to improve highway safety by ensuring that CLP or CDL holders with drug and alcohol program violations do not operate a CMV until they complete the return to duty process (RTD) and can lawfully resume driving. DACH II also ensures that all SDLAs
The first through fourth updates are related to the CDLIS system and the newly introduced electronic transactions.
1. An update to the DACH II State Pointer Exchange Services (SPEXS) system was introduced to CDLIS-only participants, as well as CDLIS and State-to-State (S2S) participants.
2. As a result of the SPEXS update described above, two new transaction codes (CD40) and (CD41) were added to the CDLIS Solution table, which assigns and defines all existing codes in the SPEXS system to accomplish a specific business function. Each transaction facilitates the exchange of data by sending a message (in the form of a one-way transmission) carrying driver information from one CDLIS node to another in the AAMVA network. These new transactions will improve the functionality of driver record searches in CDLIS. The first transaction (CD40) enables information to be communicated from the central site (CS)
3. A new transaction code (CD40) was added to table 2 of the CDLIS transactions in the SPEXS system to obtain Clearinghouse driver status updates. The driver status update transaction is used to notify the SOR of a change in driver status by obtaining information from the Clearinghouse records. The SPEXS system facilitates the transmission of information in the
In certain cases, an error message is triggered for this type of transaction. This may originate from the CS to the Clearinghouse, or from the SOR to the CS, if a validation error occurs. An error could be triggered if the SOR cannot locate the CDL or CLP record or is no longer the current SOR, if the driver in question is reposed or deceased, and if the requested driver is not a CDL or CLP holder. The SPM (version c.0) also included a diagram (Figure 20) to aid in visualizing the driver status update process for the CD40 transaction.
4. A second transaction code (CD41) was introduced to table 2 of the CDLIS transactions in the SPEXS system to enable the SOI to request a driver's current status from the Clearinghouse. A change in the driver's status is caused either by an unresolved drug and alcohol violation or an erroneous violation. In this process, the SOI sends a status inquiry to the CS to obtain information on the driver's status. The CS then forwards the SOI's request to the Clearinghouse, and the latter sends a response to CS. The CS validates and forwards the Clearinghouse notification to the SOI. When receiving information from the CS, the SOI (if it is the SOR) interprets the information to determine whether a CDL or CLP needs to be downgraded, upgraded, or reinstated based on the Federal minimum requirements and the State's laws and policies, as applicable. If the SOI is not the SOR, the SOR interprets the information from the CS to determine if the applicant has a Clearinghouse violation, which would prohibit the issuance of a CDL or CLP.
In certain cases, an error message is triggered for this type of transaction. This may originate from the CS to the Clearinghouse or from the CS to the SOI, if a validation error occurs. An error would be triggered if the driver status inquiry message does not pass the validations performed by the CS, if the Clearinghouse notification does not pass the validations performed by the CS, or if any system errors are encountered (such as message delivery errors, timeout, or software issues). The SPM (version c.0) incorporated a diagram (Figure 21) to aid in visualizing the driver status update process for the CD41 transaction.
Items 5 through 24 are related to the processes for the jurisdictions to conduct Clearinghouse checks on an individual prior to issuing a CDL or CLP and the steps they must follow based on the results of those checks.
5. A new bullet item was added to the “Procedures for Issuing a CDL or CLP” section of the SPM (version c.0) to establish procedures relating to issuing a duplicate CDL or CLP. The purpose of this addition is to establish a procedure for SDLAs to adopt when issuing a duplicate. This new procedure aims to reduce the risk of fraud by requiring that the jurisdiction issuing a duplicate CLP or CDL check the driver's image on file when they appear in-person.
6. A new section (divided into two subsections) was added to establish Clearinghouse checks, as a requirement for the jurisdictions prior to issuing a CDL or CLP. In the first subsection, a reference to § 383.73 was included, which requires Clearinghouse checks be made prior to the issuance of a CDL or CLP.
The second subsection introduced a new column to table 4 titled “CDLIS Checks Prior to Issuance” to ensure a Clearinghouse check to confirm the applicant's eligibility is completed prior to the issuance of a CDL or CLP. Additionally, Note 3 was added to table 4 regarding CDL reinstatement applications. The note specifies that, prior to reinstatement, the jurisdictions must have processes in place to ensure the driver is not prohibited from operating a CMV due to a Clearinghouse violation. It also outlines the ways in which the jurisdictions can accomplish this process by providing options to either perform a Clearinghouse check or to maintain internal records of notifications received from the Clearinghouse.
7. A new section was added on the Clearinghouse check requirements. First, this section describes the purpose of the DACH II final rule and references the requirements associated with conducting a Clearinghouse check to comply with the rule's provisions. This section also addresses the circumstances in which States and the jurisdictions must complete checks or obtain a record using the Clearinghouse prior to issuing a CDL or CLP.
This section also addresses the processes for the jurisdictions to downgrade the driver's license when notified
Lastly, this section includes a note on data records for drivers who are in prohibited status due to a Clearinghouse violation starting January 6, 2020 (the original compliance date for initial Clearinghouse requirements) and directs the jurisdictions to adopt a process to retrieve that data. The process provided lists two viable options to retrieve data either via the FMCSA web portal or by contacting FMCSA or AAMVA directly. The jurisdictions will have 60 days from the compliance date
8. A new section was added to describe the procedures for SDLAs to connect to the Clearinghouse, as well as brief descriptions for each option. The jurisdictions may either choose to connect to the Clearinghouse using the FMCSA direct-connect option
9. An update was made to determine eligibility for a CDL or CLP by the addition of a Clearinghouse check. A bullet was added to the list of eligibility criteria
10. A new section was added to clarify the course of action SDLAs must take in evaluating the results received from the Clearinghouse on a driver's status, or when the jurisdiction queries the Clearinghouse. Pursuant to § 383.73, the jurisdictions are required to access and use information from the Clearinghouse and to check the driver's status by querying the Clearinghouse prior to issuing, renewing, transferring, or upgrading a CDL or CLP.
Five subsections were added to describe a list of reasons why a Clearinghouse status may change and how SDLAs evaluate the information provided by the Clearinghouse. The five sections include more detail on the Clearinghouse data elements, identifying and matching a driver in the Clearinghouse, acting on a driver with prohibited status, acting on a driver with a not prohibited status, and Clearinghouse downgrade, which are explained below.
11. The Clearinghouse data elements subsection identifies information that a jurisdiction must use, including the driver's identifying information (such as the driver's full name, date of birth, CDL or CLP number, etc.) and status in the Clearinghouse system (if the driver is prohibited and, if so, the date that status went into effect). A full list of all Clearinghouse elements, their description and usage are outlined in table 10 titled “Clearinghouse Data Elements” in the SPM (version c.0).
12. The second subsection was added to provide guidelines for the jurisdictions to identify a driver's matching record in the Clearinghouse, and to compare Clearinghouse information against information from other checks (including CDLIS and the Problem Driver Pointer System
Additional procedures for States were introduced to evaluate which record to act upon when multiple records are found on the same driver. For instance, if more than one CDLIS record is found, the SOR must take necessary action on the CDLIS record with the most recent issue date. If one record is CDLIS and another record is non-CDLIS (kept outside of the CDLIS system), the SOR must take necessary action on the CDLIS record as applicable. If one or more non-CDLIS records indicating no history or record of a prior CDL or CLP are found, the SOR may take necessary action on the driver's CDL or CLP status, as applicable. If no record exists in the Clearinghouse, no violations will prohibit a driver from operating a CMV.
13. The third subsection addresses actions the jurisdictions must take against a driver with a prohibited status after they are alerted either via Clearinghouse notification or as a result of a Clearinghouse query. This process will prevent prohibited drivers from operating a CMV. This subsection lists three options for the jurisdictions to follow: denial of the driver's request resulting in non-issuance of a CDL or CLP, removal of CDL or CLP privileges from the driver's license, or downgrade of the driver's CDL or CLP.
14. The fourth subsection addresses actions the jurisdictions must take when the Clearinghouse indicates a driver is not prohibited from operating a CMV. Pursuant to the DACH II final rule, a driver is considered “not prohibited” when the driver is no longer prohibited from operating a CMV. This occurs after the driver completes the RTD requirements or if the driver was erroneously identified as prohibited. In the latter case, the Clearinghouse notifies the jurisdiction that the driver's status was based on erroneous information. After receiving a notification, the jurisdiction will not initiate a downgrade process if one has not been started. If the jurisdiction has already initiated the downgrade process, it must terminate it and clear the driver's record of any reference to the erroneously identified violation. Finally, if the jurisdiction has already completed the downgrade process, the jurisdiction must expeditiously reinstate the driver's privileges and expunge the driver's record of any reference to the erroneously identified violation. The jurisdictions must follow a similar process when a query indicates the driver is not prohibited from operating a CMV.
15. The final subsection addresses additional procedures to downgrade the commercial driving privilege due to Clearinghouse violations. In this case, the jurisdictions are subject to a Federal requirement to change the commercial status of the CDLIS driver record from LIC to a minimum of ELG for CDL holders, and similarly change the permit status from LIC to a minimum of ELG for CLP holders.
This subsection also addresses scenarios when a SOR may take additional action, such as in-State withdrawal, based on the State's laws and/or policies. In this case, the SOR must downgrade the driver's status to “NOT” (not a CDL or CLP) and use the State's code indicating withdrawal. In-State withdrawals must not be transmitted to the CDLIS driver history record (DHR), which is maintained on the jurisdiction's system.
The subsection also outlines the process for SDLAs performing in-State withdrawals to respond to an S2S status request (referred to as an SG message), history request (referred to as an SB message) or change of record request (referred to as an SD message). Transactions for status requests from S2S to the SOR are coded CD30,
The first procedure applies to an S2S Status Request (CD03, SG message). In the CDLIS S2S Status Request, the SOR must report the driver status to the SOI via SG message. This request enables the SOI to obtain status information on a CDL holder directly from the SOR without inquiring through CDLIS. The typical use of this transaction is to obtain the status information for a driver who was one of several returned as matches on a search inquiry. Since status requests are not sent when a search inquiry results in more than one match, the S2S status request gives the inquirer a tool for obtaining the status for any or all of the matched drivers. This request may also be used to verify the status of a CDL or CLP when an out of State license is presented to a jurisdiction. The inquirer may request the status for only one driver at a time with this request. Upon receipt, the SOR validates the driver's identification
The second procedure applies to an S2S history request (CD04, SB message). In the CDLIS S2S history request the SOR or old State of record (OSOR) must report the entire driver history to the SOI or new State of record (NSOR). An S2S history request enables an inquirer to obtain the DHR on a CDL holder directly from the SOR without inquiring through CDLIS. Typically, a jurisdiction uses this transaction when a driver is considered for a change if State of record (CSOR). First, the inquirer verifies the driver's existence in the CDLIS CS, license status, and SOR using search inquiry, verification inquiry,
The third procedure applies to a CSOR Request (CD08, SD message). In the S2S CSOR request processed in CDLIS, the SOR or OSOR must report the entire driver history to the SOI or NSOR. The CSOR transaction is used to transfer a DHR from an OSOR to a NSOR, and to reflect this change in the Master Pointer Record (MPR).
The NSOR sends a CSOR update message to CDLIS upon receipt of the CSOR update message, and CDLIS will validate the driver identification information in the message. If the NSOR is changing the driver's name, date of birth, and/or social security number, CDLIS checks to see if any drivers can be considered possible duplicates for the new driver. If so, CDLIS issues notifications of possible duplicate driver to all SORs affected, including the SOR that submitted the CSOR update message. CDLIS retrieves the driver's MPR, updates it by noting the initiator of the CSOR transaction as the NSOR and the recipient of the CSOR request as the OSOR. After CDLIS returns a confirmation to the NSOR, it sends a DHR request to the OSOR. Upon receipt of the DHR request, the OSOR: validates the message data, retrieves the DHR, and adds the NSOR's jurisdiction code and driver's license number to its DHR. This enables the OSOR to respond to status and history requests from the NSOR until such time as the CSOR is complete, and to return driver history information to the NSOR.
The CDLIS Common Validation Processor (CVP) is a function of CDLIS which performs edits on the history information before forwarding it to the NSOR. Upon receipt of the response message from the OSOR via the CDLIS CVP, the NSOR performs any required additional validations not already performed by the CDLIS CVP. Within 96 hours of receipt of the information, the NSOR creates the DHR and posts the history, and sends a confirmation to CDLIS. Upon receipt of the confirmation from the NSOR, CDLIS validates the information, verifies that the information matches the updated MPR, and sends confirmations to both the NSOR and OSOR validating the CSOR is complete.
A process is also set in place for the change of record requests from the OSOR to the NSOR. Both SORs have specific responsibilities while a CSOR is being processed. The transaction is initiated when the OSOR receives an SD message from the CDLIS CS. When the CSOR is processing, the OSOR must not respond to status or history requests for that driver, except those received from the NSOR. The OSOR must respond with an error to all other inquiring the jurisdictions and clearly annotate that the driver record is no longer associated with the SOR. The OSOR must also annotate the driver's record to indicate the NSOR's jurisdiction code and driver license number. After the NSOR receives the “Confirm CSOR in-Progress” (CG) message, the CDLIS CS sets an internal flag that the CSOR is in progress. The NSOR then becomes the driver's SOR and must respond to all status and history requests for that driver.
16. New procedures were introduced for the NSOR and OSOR during and after the CSOR process outlining the appropriate course of action when the OSOR performs an in-State withdrawal due to a Clearinghouse violation and a CSOR is taking place. An in-State withdrawal is performed when an SDLA initiates a withdrawal of a driver's CDL or CLP due to a Clearinghouse violation against a jurisdiction's State laws and/or policies.
The first procedure applies to the OSOR when the following applies in the DHR: the driver's commercial status is designated as “NOT,” the DHR only consists of an open in-State withdrawal due to a Clearinghouse violation, and the driver's record does not have any other open convictions and/or withdrawals. In this case, the OSOR must have in-State procedures in place to reinstate the driver's commercial status to ELG upon receipt of the CSOR history request (SD message).
The second procedure applies to the OSOR when the DHR with the driver's commercial status is designated as “NOT,” and the DHR consists of an open in-State withdrawal along with other convictions and/or withdrawals. In this case, the OSOR must have in-State procedures in place to reinstate only the Clearinghouse in-State withdrawal and follow existing Federal and State guidelines for convictions and withdrawals.
The third update is applicable when the driver has obtained a NSOR. In this case, the NSOR must respond to all status and history requests for that driver. Procedures are also set in place for the NSOR when a Clearinghouse violation is found. In this case, the NSOR must follow the procedures described in update 12 to determine whether the driver is eligible for a CDL or CLP.
17. New procedures were added to enable SDLAs to respond to an S2S status request, S2S history request, and CSOR request. This procedure also requires that the SDLAs must not transmit Clearinghouse withdrawals on the CDLIS DHR. In the S2S status request, the SOR must report the driver status to the SOI, as specified in CD03. In the S2S history request and CSOR requests, the SOR or OSOR must report the entire driver history to the SOI or SOR as specified in CD04 and CD08 transactions. A SOR must send the entire AAMVA Code Dictionary (ACD)
When the SOR receives an S2S SG message for the driver, the SOR must respond with the current CDL status and must not include any details of Clearinghouse in-State withdrawal in the CDLIS DHR.
When the SOR receives an S2S SB message, for the driver, the SOR must respond with the current CDL status and history but must not include any details of Clearinghouse in-State withdrawal in the CDLIS DHR.
When a SOR receives a CSOR request, or SD message for the driver, States must refer to the procedures outlining OSOR and NSOR responsibilities outlined in update 15.
18. An update to the procedures set out for SDLAs to follow when a driver applies for reinstatement was included in the SPM (version c.0). Additionally, AAMVA incorporated FMCSA's guidance requiring SDLAs to have a process in place to ensure the driver is not prohibited from operating a CMV due to a Clearinghouse violation prior to reinstatement. To comply with this requirement, the jurisdictions may perform a Clearinghouse check or maintain records of notifications received from the Clearinghouse.
19. Procedures were also added for the jurisdictions to perform a Clearinghouse query on the driver prior to issuing, reinstating, renewing, upgrading, or transferring a CDL or CLP. When an individual applies for a CDL or CLP, the jurisdictions must initiate a search inquiry in CDLIS, the National Driver Registry,
Additional procedures also apply to when a driver applies for reinstatement of a CDL or CLP. This may occur when a SOR withdraws the driver's CDL or CLP and the driver applies for reinstatement at the end of the withdrawal period. After being reinstated, the driver needs to apply for a new license, and the jurisdiction must follow procedures to complete a search inquiry (as described above) and refer to the added documentation (the PDPS State Procedures Manual) for more detail about conducting the 10-year history check.
The jurisdictions must also conduct a check following the same procedures when a driver applies for a renewal of their CDL or CLP, using the additional PDPS documentation to conduct and record the 10-year history check. The same process applies to drivers changing the jurisdictions if they have not completed the 10-year history check.
Additional procedures were updated to establish rules for managing and maintaining driver records in the MPR and DHR. In accordance with Federal regulations, a DHR and associated MPR are required for three types of U.S. drivers. The first type of driver is a current CDL or CLP holder, the second is an individual who has previously held (but no longer holds) a CDL or CLP (and data retention requirements
1—1 year has passed since CDL or CLP expiration;
2—The driver is reported deceased or the driver's license has been downgraded to non-commercial; or
3—All DHR retention requirements are met.
The SOR will delete a MPR based on whichever period is greater. The ACD provides additional detail on retention requirements for convictions
20. Procedures were added for performing a Clearinghouse query when a driver applies for the initial issuance or renewal of a hazardous materials endorsement. In such cases, the jurisdictions must submit search requests and are provided with the latest version of the SPEXS System Specification document as a guide to aid them in conducting a verification query using the CDLIS CS. The jurisdictions are also provided guidance on how to proceed based on the driver's search results in the Clearinghouse, as described in the previous SPM (version c.0) updates.
21. Procedures were added for the jurisdictions to perform a Clearinghouse check to determine the driver's eligibility prior to transferring a CDL. This includes conducting a search inquiry on a driver and determining a course of action based on the results of the Clearinghouse check, as described in the previous SPM (version c.0) updates. The SPEXS System Specification manual provides additional information on conducting a search in CDLIS.
22. A new section was added to include procedures to evaluate if matching records exist for an applicant in the Clearinghouse, and whether those are in fact associated with the applicant. If a Clearinghouse query “returns a record,” this indicates a violation prohibiting the driver from operating a CMV may or may not be found. If a record is found, the CDL or CLP applicant is considered a “match.” In this case, the jurisdictions must follow guidance for evaluating Clearinghouse results, as described in previous SPM (version c.0) updates. Additionally, the jurisdictions must confirm that the record is associated with the applicant. The jurisdictions are also provided guidance for maintaining the driver's record if the individual moves to another jurisdiction. If a record is not found, the applicant is “not returned as a match.”
23. An update was also added for the jurisdictions when no match is found for a driver in the Clearinghouse, CDLIS, or PDPS. If a violation record is not found in the Clearinghouse, the applicant is “not returned as a match.” In that case, a jurisdiction can issue a CDL. In addition, the jurisdiction must add the driver to CDLIS within a 10-day period beginning the date of license issuance, per §§ 383.73(h) and 384.207(a). The jurisdictions are provided guidance on using the SPEXS system to aid in utilizing CDLIS.
If no matches are returned form the verification inquiry in CDLIS, there is no error in CDLIS. The fact that the driver is requesting renewal indicates the driver should have an MPR on the CDLIS CS. The jurisdictions must contact the AAMVA operations help desk for assistance in determining why this situation occurred. No matches from PDPS indicates there are no
If the search inquiry or verification inquiry transactions return no matches from CDLIS for the driver, there is an error in CDLIS. The fact that the driver is requesting a CSOR indicates that the driver should have an MPR on the CDLIS CS. The jurisdictions must contact AAMVA operations help desk for assistance in resolving this situation.
24. Procedures were added for SDLAs to follow when a State performs an in-State withdrawal due to a Clearinghouse violation based on lack of compliance with the State's law or policies. This section includes three main procedures. The first procedure applies to the OSOR when the DHR only consists of an open-state withdrawal due to a Clearinghouse violation. The second procedure applies to the OSOR when the DHR includes an open in-State withdrawal due to a Clearinghouse violation along with other open convictions and/or withdrawals. The final procedure applies to the NSOR if a Clearinghouse violation is found.
In the third instance mentioned above, the SOR must use a State native code, which is only used for State violations, to perform the Clearinghouse in-State withdrawal. This type of withdrawal must not be transmitted in the CDLIS DHR. The jurisdictions performing these withdrawals must downgrade the CDL by removing the commercial driving privilege by changing the commercial status on the CDLIS driver record from LIC to a minimum of ELG for CDL holders, and similarly changing the permit status from LIC to a minimum to ELG for CLP holders.
The items below describing updates number 25 and 26 were made pursuant to the EEE final rule and will take effect beginning August 22, 2024. The EEE final rule codifies the statutory requirement for SDLAs to implement a system and practices for the exclusively electronic exchange of DHR information through CDLIS. This includes the posting of convictions, withdrawals, and disqualifications.
25. Updates were made to the procedures requiring the State of conviction (SOC)
26. The procedures requiring the OSOR to work with the NSOR to ensure the timely posing of convictions and withdrawals when received outside CDLIS were updated within the 10-day timeframe described above. If an OSOR receives an out-of-State conviction or withdrawal
Section 206 of MCSA (Pub. L. 98-554, title II, 98 Stat. 2832, 2834, codified at 49 U.S.C. 31136) directed the Secretary to regulate CMVs and the drivers and motor carriers that operate them. FMCSA is further required by statute to maintain an information system that serves as the clearinghouse and depository of information about the licensing, identification, and disqualification of operators of CMVs (49 U.S.C. 31309). CDLIS is the information system that serves that function.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to incorporate by reference version c.0 of the AAMVA SPM outlining guidance on the use of CDLIS. The provisions within the SPM (version c.0) are intended to operate holistically in addressing a range of issues necessary to ensure compliance with the information system procedures of the commercial driver's license program. However, FMCSA recognizes that certain provisions focus on unique topics. FMCSA finds that the various provisions within the SPM (version c.0) would be severable and able to operate functionally if one or more provisions were rendered null or otherwise eliminated. The remaining provision or provisions within the SPM (version c.0) would continue to operate functionally if any one or more provisions were invalidated and any other provision(s) remained. In the event a court were to invalidate one or more of the SPM's unique provisions, the remaining provisions should stand.
Section 384.107. The Agency would revise paragraph (b) to incorporate by reference version c.0 of the CDLIS SPM.
Section 384.301. The Agency would add, as a conforming amendment, a new paragraph (p) specifying that the State must comply with the requirements of this rule by August 22, 2024.
FMCSA has considered the impact of this NPRM under E.O. 12866 (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993), Regulatory Planning and Review, E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011), Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review, and E.O. 14094 (88 FR 21879, Apr. 11, 2023) Modernizing Regulatory Review. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs within the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) determined that this NPRM is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866, as supplemented by E.O. 13563 and amended by E.O. 14094 and does not require an assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that order. Accordingly, OMB has not reviewed it under that E.O.
This proposed rule updates the “American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, Inc. Commercial Driver's License Information System State Procedures Manual, Version c.0” manual. Specifically, it includes changes introduced to the FMCSRs as a result of the EEE and DACH II final rules. The proposed rule solely defines processes and procedures which ensure that other regulations are uniformly implemented and imposes no new regulatory requirements. The rule would impose no new costs, and any benefits that
This rulemaking is not a
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
When an Agency issues a proposed rule, the RFA requires the Agency to “prepare an initial regulatory flexibility analysis” that will describe the impact of the proposed rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 604(a)). Section 605 of the RFA allows an agency to certify a rule, instead of preparing an analysis, if the rule is not expected to have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rulemaking incorporates by reference the September 2023 edition of the AAMVA CDLIS SPM (version c.0). The changes to the 2023 edition of the AAMVA CDLIS SPM (version c.0) from the 2013 edition are intended to ensure clarity in the presentation of the SDLA conditions and are generally editorial or ministerial. As noted above, FMCSA does not expect the changes made in the 2023 edition of the AAMVA CDLIS SPM (version c.0) to impose new costs or to result in quantifiable benefits, as it imposes no new regulatory requirements. The editorial and ministerial changes that would result from this proposed rule apply to SDLA processes and procedures; SDLAs are not small entities. Consequently, I certify that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
In accordance with section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121, 110 Stat. 857), FMCSA wants to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule so they can better evaluate its effects on themselves and participate in the rulemaking initiative. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please consult the person listed under
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce or otherwise determine compliance with Federal regulations to the Small Business Administration's Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman (Office of the National Ombudsman, see
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) (UMRA) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. The Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or Tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $192 million (which is the value equivalent of $100 million in 1995, adjusted for inflation to 2022 levels) or more in any 1 year. Though this NPRM would not result in such an expenditure, and the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply as a result.
This proposed rule contains no new information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under section 1(a) of E.O. 13132 if it has “substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.”
FMCSA has determined that this rulemaking would not have substantial direct costs on or for States, nor would it limit the policymaking discretion of States. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or regulation. Therefore, this rulemaking does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Impact Statement.
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005,
The Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) applies only to Federal agencies and any non-Federal agency that receives records contained in a system of records from a Federal agency for use in a matching program.
The E-Government Act of 2002,
In addition, the Agency submitted a Privacy Threshold Assessment (PTA) to evaluate the risks and effects the proposed rulemaking might have on collecting, storing, and sharing personally identifiable information. The PTA was adjudicated by DOT's Chief Privacy Officer on Jan. 4, 2024.
This rulemaking does not have Tribal implications under E.O. 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian Tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian Tribes, or on
FMCSA analyzed this proposed rule pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321
As required by 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rulemaking can be found in the Abstract section of the Department's Unified Agenda entry for this rulemaking at
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Drug Abuse, Highway safety, Incorporation by reference, and Motor carriers.
In consideration of the foregoing, FMCSA proposes to amend 49 CFR part 384 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 31136, 31301,
(a)
(b) The American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA), 4401 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 700, Arlington, VA 22203; (703) 522-1300;
(1) “Commercial Driver's License Information System (CDLIS) State Procedures Manual,” Version c.0, September 2023; approved for §§ 384.225(f) and 384.231(d).
(2) [Reserved]
(p) A State must come into substantial compliance with the requirements of subpart B of this part, which is effective as of [EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE], as soon as practicable, but not later than August 22, 2024.
Issued under authority delegated in 49 CFR 1.87.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability of an amendment to a fishery management plan; request for comments.
The Pacific Fishery Management Council has submitted Amendment 21 to the Coastal Pelagic Species (CPS) Fishery Management Plan (FMP) for review by the Secretary of Commerce. If approved, Amendment 21 would make a number of non-substantive, administrative changes to the CPS FMP including defining acronyms upon first use, adding hyperlinks, removing repetitive language, and rearranging sections for clarity and logical sequence. These changes, colloquially referred to as “housekeeping” changes, would not change the management of the fishery. This proposed amendment is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the CPS FMP, and other applicable laws. NMFS will consider public comments in deciding whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 21.
Comments on the notice of availability must be received by April 22, 2024 to be considered in the decision whether to approve, disapprove, or partially approve Amendment 21.
You may submit comments on this document, identified by NOAA-NMFS-2023-0134, by the following method:
•
This rule is accessible via the internet on the Office of the Federal Register website at
Katie Davis, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, (323) 372-2126,
The coastal pelagic species (CPS) fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the West Coast is managed under the CPS Fishery Management Plan (FMP). The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed the CPS FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each regional fishery management council to submit any amendment to an FMP to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an amendment to an FMP, immediately publish notification in the
At its April 2022 meeting, the Council initiated the preparation of an administrative amendment for the CPS FMP, the intention of which was to conduct an editorial revision of the document for clarity and consistency. The amendment was colloquially referred to as a “housekeeping” amendment. During the development of Amendment 20 on management categories (
A complete list of the proposed changes in Amendment 21 to the CPS FMP is available on the Council website at
This Amendment would edit the CPS FMP for clarity and content, and make no changes to the management of CPS fisheries.
16 U.S.C. 1801
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
Notice of availability.
We are advising the public that we have prepared a final environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact relative to permitting the release of the insect
Dr. Robert S. Pfannenstiel, Ph.D., Senior Entomologist, Biological Control, Pests, Pathogens and Biocontrol Permitting, Plant Health Programs, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 133, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-2198; email:
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) is issuing permits for the release of the insect
The olive psyllid is native to southern Europe. It was first detected in North America in 2007. By the time this psyllid was found on olives in southern California, it was widespread in the region. This pest feeds exclusively on the flower blossoms and growing tissue of olives, causing reductions in fruit set, with reductions in fruit yield as high as 60 percent reported in some parts of the Mediterranean Basin.
Permitting the release of
On March 31, 2022, we published in the
In this document, we are advising the public of our finding of no significant impact (FONSI) regarding the field release of the insect,
The final EA and FONSI may be viewed on the
The final EA and FONSI have been prepared in accordance with: (1) The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321
Food and Nutrition Service, USDA.
Notice.
This notice announces the Department's annual adjustments to the Income Eligibility Guidelines to be used in determining eligibility for free and reduced price meals, free milk, and Summer Electronic Benefit Transfer benefits for the period from July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025. These guidelines are used by schools, institutions, and facilities participating in the National School Lunch Program (and Commodity School Program), School Breakfast Program, Special Milk Program for Children, Child and Adult Care Food Program, and Summer Food Service Program. Beginning in 2024, they will also be used by States and Indian Tribal Organizations that administer the Summer Electronic Benefits Transfer for
Applicable July 1, 2024.
Penny Burke, Program Monitoring and Operational Support Division, Child Nutrition Programs, Food and Nutrition Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1320 Braddock Place, Suite 401, Alexandria, Virginia 22314, 303-844-0357.
This action is not a rule as defined by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) and thus is exempt from the provisions of that Act.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507), no recordkeeping or reporting requirements have been included that are subject to approval from the Office of Management and Budget.
This notice has been determined to be not significant and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget in conformance with Executive Order 12866. The affected programs are listed in the Assistance Listings (
Pursuant to sections 9(b)(1), 13A(h)(2), and 17(c)(4) of the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act (42 U.S.C. 1758(b)(1), 42 U.S.C. 1762(h)(2), and 42 U.S.C. 1766(c)(4)), and sections 3(a)(6) and 4(e)(1)(A) of the Child Nutrition Act of 1966 (42 U.S.C. 1772(a)(6) and 1773(e)(1)(A)), the Department annually issues the Income Eligibility Guidelines for free and reduced price meals for the National School Lunch Program (7 CFR part 210), the Commodity School Program (7 CFR part 210), School Breakfast Program (7 CFR part 220), Summer Food Service Program (7 CFR part 225), Child and Adult Care Food Program (7 CFR part 226), free milk in the Special Milk Program for Children (7 CFR part 215), and program benefits in the Summer EBT Program (7 CFR part 292). These eligibility guidelines are based on the Federal income poverty guidelines and are stated by household size. The guidelines are used to determine eligibility for free and reduced price meals, free milk, and Summer EBT benefits in accordance with applicable program rules.
In accordance with the Department's policy as provided in the Food and Nutrition Service publication Eligibility Manual for School Meals, “income,” as the term is used in this notice, means income before any deductions such as income taxes, Social Security taxes, insurance premiums, charitable contributions, and bonds. It includes the following: (1) monetary compensation for services, including wages, salary, commissions or fees; (2) net income from nonfarm self-employment; (3) net income from farm self-employment; (4) Social Security; (5) dividends or interest on savings or bonds or income from estates or trusts; (6) net rental income; (7) public assistance or welfare payments; (8) unemployment compensation; (9) government civilian employee or military retirement, or pensions or veterans payments; (10) private pensions or annuities; (11) alimony or child support payments; (12) regular contributions from persons not living in the household; (13) net royalties; and (14) other cash income. Other cash income would include cash amounts received or withdrawn from any source including savings, investments, trust accounts and other resources that would be available to pay the price of a child's meal.
“Income”, as the term is used in this notice, does
The following are the Income Eligibility Guidelines to be effective from July 1, 2024 through June 30, 2025. The Department's guidelines for free meals and milk and reduced price meals were obtained by multiplying the year 2024 Federal income poverty guidelines by 1.30 and 1.85, respectively, and by rounding the result upward to the next whole dollar.
This notice displays only the annual Federal poverty guidelines issued by the Department of Health and Human Services because the monthly and weekly Federal poverty guidelines are not used to determine the Income Eligibility Guidelines. The chart details the free and reduced price eligibility criteria for monthly income, income received twice monthly (24 payments per year), income received every two weeks (26 payments per year) and weekly income.
Income calculations are made based on the following formulas: monthly income is calculated by dividing the annual income by 12; twice monthly income is computed by dividing annual income by 24; income received every two weeks is calculated by dividing annual income by 26; and weekly income is computed by dividing annual income by 52. All numbers are rounded upward to the next whole dollar. The numbers reflected in this notice for a family of four in the 48 contiguous States, the District of Columbia, Guam and the Territories represent an increase of 4.0 percent over last year's level for a family of the same size.
Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of meeting.
The Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail Advisory Council will hold public meetings according to the details shown below. The Council is authorized under the National Trails System Act (the Act) and operates in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The purpose of the Council is to advise and make recommendations to the Secretary of Agriculture, through the Chief of the Forest Service, on matters relating to the Pacific Northwest National Scenic Trail (PNT) as described in the Act.
A virtual meeting will be held March 5, 2024, 10:00 a.m.-2:00 p.m., Pacific Standard Time (PST).
All council meetings are subject to cancellation. For status of the meeting prior to attendance, please contact the person listed under
This meeting will be held virtually. The public may join virtually via the Zoom app or the internet using the link posted on the PNT Advisory Council Meetings web page:
Jeff Kitchens, Designated Federal Officer (DFO), by email at
The purpose of the meeting is to:
1. Approve meeting minutes;
2. Discuss implementation of the comprehensive plan for the PNT; and
3. Discuss and identify future PNT Advisory Council activity.
The agenda will include time for individuals to make oral statements of three minutes or less. Individuals wishing to make an oral statement should make a request in writing at least three days prior to the meeting date to be scheduled on the agenda. Written comments may be submitted to the Forest Service up to 14 days after the meeting date listed under
Please contact the person listed under
USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Equal opportunity practices in accordance with USDA's policies will be followed in all appointments to the Council. To ensure that the recommendations of the Council have taken into account the needs of the diverse groups served by USDA, membership shall include to the extent possible, individuals with demonstrated ability to represent minorities, women, and persons with disabilities. USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Rural Business-Cooperative Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Business-Cooperative Service (RBCS or the Agency), a Rural Development (RD) agency of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), announces that it is accepting applications under the Rural Energy for America (REAP) Technical Assistance Grant (TAG) Program for fiscal year (FY) 2024. These grant funds will be made to qualified types of Applicants (“Applicants”) to provide technical assistance to Agricultural Producers and Rural Small Businesses applying to REAP (“REAP Applicants”), with priority for applications that: assist Agricultural Producers and Tribal entities, provide assistance to projects located in a Disadvantaged Community or a Distressed Community, support projects using Underutilized Renewable Energy Technologies (“Underutilized Technologies”), and/or support grant applications of $20,000 or less. This Program has $16,000,000 available for FY 2024 utilizing funding provided under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022. All Applicants are responsible for any expenses incurred in developing their applications.
Completed applications for grants must be submitted electronically via
This funding announcement will be announced on
Entities wishing to apply for assistance may download the application documents and requirements provided in this notice from
For further information on submitting program applications under this notice, please contact the RDSO in the state where the Applicant's headquarters is located. A list of RDSO contacts is provided at the following link:
1.
2.
3.
For purposes of this Notice only, Underutilized Renewable Energy Technologies (“Underutilized
For awareness, the number of employees calculation used to determine the size of a business concern in the definition of Small Business is being updated to 24 months versus 12 months, to align with recent changes made by the Small Business Administration.
4.
The following States will make $250,000 available for the REAP TAG Program: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Florida/United States Virgin Islands, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Delaware, Maryland, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming.
The following States will make $500,000 available for the REAP TAG Program: Alaska, Connecticut, Kansas, Massachusetts, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
No REAP TAG funds will be available in Hawaii and Western Pacific, Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, or Minnesota. Instead, these States will receive equivalent assistance in the form of additional staffing resources outside of this funding announcement. Applications filed in these States will not be eligible for funding.
All remaining unobligated funds at the end of FY 2024 will be used for the Underutilized Technologies Fund established in the
1.
(a) Eligible Applicants are:
(1) A unit of State, Tribal, or local government or an instrumentality of a State, Tribal, or local government;
(2) A land-grant college or university, or other Institution of Higher Education;
(3) A rural electric cooperative;
(4) A Public Power Entity;
(5) A Council, as defined under the Resource Conservation and Development Program, at 16 U.S.C. 3451.
(6) A Not-for-profit entity;
(b) The Applicant must have sufficient capacity to perform the activities proposed in the application to ensure success as determined by the Agency. The Agency will make this assessment based on the information provided in the application and any additional requests for clarifying information.
(c) The Applicant must have the legal authority necessary to apply for and carry out the purpose of the grant.
2.
3.
(a)
(1) Assisting Agricultural Producers or Rural Small Businesses to apply for assistance under REAP for Energy Efficiency Improvements, or Renewable Energy Systems.
(2) Providing information on how to improve the energy efficiency of the operations and to use Renewable Energy technologies and resources in their operations.
(3) Conducting and promoting Energy Assessments and energy audits as
(4) Preparing a technical report in accordance with 7 CFR 4280.110(g).
(5) Assisting with filing for System Award Management (SAM and Unique Entity Identifier (UEI)) registrations.
(6) Assisting with completing a REAP grant application in accordance with 7 CFR 4280.116.
(7) Assisting with planning construction and performance development in accordance with 7 CFR 4280.125.
(8) Assisting with completion of environmental reports and/or documentation required for submittal of applications.
(9) Assisting Tribal entities to determine applicant and project eligibility.
(b)
(1) Projects where funding is not targeted directly to assisting Agricultural Producers or Rural Small Businesses.
(2) Projects which propose to provide Energy Audits or Renewable Energy Development Assistance for residential purposes.
(c)
(1) Salaries, including fringe benefits;
(2) Travel expenses;
(3) Office supplies (
(4) Indirect cost of up to a maximum of 5 percent for administering the grant, regardless of existing negotiated cost rates.
(d)
(1) Payment for any construction-related activities;
(2) Purchase or lease of equipment;
(3) Payment of any judgment or debt owed to the United States;
(4) Any goods or services provided by a Person or entity who has a conflict of interest as provided in 7 CFR 4280.106;
(5) Any costs of preparing the application package for funding under this notice;
(6) Funding of political or lobbying activities; and
(7) Payment or waiver of student tuition.
(e)
1.
2.
(a) Form SF-424, Application for Federal Assistance (For Non-Construction).
(b) Form SF 424A, Budget Information—Non-Construction Programs.
(c) Certification that the Applicant is a legal entity in good standing (as applicable) and operating in accordance with the laws of the State(s) or Tribe where the Applicant has a place of business.
(d) The Applicant must identify whether the Applicant has a known relationship or association with an Agency employee. If there is a known relationship, the Applicant must identify each Agency employee with whom the Applicant has a known relationship.
(e) A proposed scope of work to include the items listed in paragraphs (1) to (10) of this section. The proposed scope of work must be typed, single-spaced, in 11-point font, not to exceed 12 8.5 x 11″ pages.
(1) A brief summary, including a project title, describing the proposed project;
(2) Goals of the proposed project;
(3) Geographic scope or service area of the proposed project and the method and rationale used to select the service area;
(4) Identification of the specific needs for the service area and the target audience to be served. List or describe the types of technical assistance and proposed services to be provided. State the number of Agricultural Producers and/or Rural Small Businesses to be served and identified, including name and contact information, if available, as well as the method and rationale used to select the Agricultural Producers and/or Rural Small Businesses;
(5) Timeline describing the proposed tasks to be accomplished and the schedule for implementation of each task. Include whether organizational staff, consultants, or contractors will be used to perform each task;
(6) Marketing strategies to include a discussion on how the Applicant will be marketing and providing outreach activities to the proposed service area ensuring that Agricultural Producers and/or Rural Small Businesses are served;
(7) Applicant's experience as follows:
(i) The Applicant's experience in completing similar activities, such as Renewable Energy Site Assessments, Energy Assessments or Audits, and Renewable Energy Technical Assistance provided directly to Agricultural Producers and Rural Small Businesses or Tribal entities, including the number of similar projects the Applicant has performed and the number of years the Applicant has been performing a similar service. Include personnel on staff or to be contracted to provide the service and their experience with similar projects.
(ii) The amount of experience in administering similar activities as applicable to the purpose of the proposed project. Provide commentary if the Applicant has any existing programs that can demonstrate the achievement of energy savings or energy generation with Agricultural Producers and/or Rural Small Businesses the Applicant has served. If the Applicant has received one or more accolades within the last 5 years in recognition of its Renewable Energy, energy savings, or energy-based technical assistance, please describe the achievement(s).
(iii) The Applicant's experience working with Agricultural Producers, Tribal entities, and/or disadvantaged or distressed communities.
(8) Latest financial information to show the Applicant's financial viability to carry out the proposed work. A current audit report is preferred; however, Applicants not subject to 2 CFR 200, subpart F may submit a current (less than 90 days from date of application) balance sheet, income statement, and statement of cash flows in lieu of an audit report.
(9) Itemized budget including contracted services and itemized staff salaries and benefits; and estimated breakdown of costs, including those to be funded by the Applicant as well as other sources. Sufficient detail should be provided to permit the approval official to determine reasonableness, applicability, and allowability.
(10) Summarize the Applicant's capacity to perform the proposed technical assistance activities including a summary of all other programs and activities the Applicant will also perform during the proposed project performance period.
(f) Documentation on each of the scoring criteria listed in Section E.1. of this notice. Documentation in support of scoring criteria must be typed, single-spaced, in an 11-point font, not to exceed 12 8.5 x 11″ pages. Acceptable file types include .doc, .docx, .pdf, .jpg, .jpeg, .png, .gif, .xls, .xlsx, .txt, .ppt, and .pptx. If the Applicant would like to submit another file type, please contact the RDSO first for approval.
3.
(a) At the time of application, each Applicant must have an active registration in the System for Award Management (SAM) in accordance with 2 CFR part 25.
(b) Applicants must maintain an active SAM registration, with current, accurate and complete information, at all times during which it has an active Federal award or an application under consideration by a Federal awarding agency.
(c) Applicant must ensure they complete the Financial Assistance General Certifications and Representations in SAM.
(d) Applicants must provide a valid Unique Entity Identifier (UEI) on the SF 424 form submitted as part of a complete application.
(e) The Agency will not make an award until the Applicant has complied with all SAM requirements including providing the UEI. If an Applicant has not fully complied with the requirements by the time the Agency is ready to make an award, the Agency may determine that the Applicant is not qualified to receive a federal award and use that determination as a basis for making a Federal award to another Applicant.
4.
(a)
(b)
Electronic submissions via
(c)
5.
1.
(a)
(1) Applicants should note prior projects or experience related to energy efficiency, Renewable Energy Systems, federal funding, and the provision of technical assistance. Up to 15 points will be awarded based on years of successful implementation as well as the type and quality of the work by the Applicant.
(i) More than 10 years of successful implementation, 15 points will be awarded;
(ii) More than 5 years to less than 10 years of successful implementation, 10 points will be awarded;
(iii) More than 3 to less than 5 years of successful implementation, 5 points will be awarded;
(iv) More than 1 to less than 3 years of successful implementation, 3 points will be awarded; or
(v) Applicants with less than 1 year of experience, 0 points will be awarded.
(2) Applicants should note prior projects or experience working with the types of REAP Applicants it seeks to support (
(b)
(1) Work plan clearly articulates a well thought out approach to accomplishing objectives & clearly identifies who will be served by the project and demonstrates knowledge of and experience working with those served; (Tribal entities, Rural Small businesses and Agricultural Producers)—0 to 15 points will be awarded; and
(2) Goals & objectives are clearly defined, tied to the need as defined in the work plan, and are measurable in terms of new applications generated—0 to 15 points will be awarded.
(c)
(1) Projects requesting $20,000 or less in REAP funds.
(2) Projects located in a Disadvantaged Community or a Distressed Community. A Disadvantaged Community will be determined by the Agency by using the Council on Environmental Quality's Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (which is incorporated into the USDA look-up map) which identifies communities burdened by climate change and environmental injustice. Additionally, all communities within the boundaries of Federally Recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Villages will also be determined to be Disadvantaged Communities by the Agency. A Distressed Community will be determined by the Agency by using the Economic Innovation Group's Distressed Communities Index (which is incorporated into the USDA look-up map), which uses several socio-economic measures to identify communities with low economic well-being. To determine if your project is
(3) Projects submitted by Tribes and/or proposing to serve primarily Tribal entities.
(4) Projects submitted by Agricultural Producers.
(5) Projects seeking funding for Underutilized Technologies, as defined in Section A.3 of this notice.
(d)
(e)
2.
Funding of projects is subject to the Applicant's satisfactory submission of the additional items required by Section F and the USDA RD Letter of Conditions.
1.
2.
In addition, all recipients of Federal financial assistance are required to report information about executive compensation (see, 2 CFR part 170 (
The following additional requirements apply to Applicants selected for this program:
(a) Form RD 1940-1, “Request for Obligation of Funds.”
(b) Form RD 1942-46, “Letter of Intent to Meet Conditions.”
(c) Form SF-LLL, “Disclosure of Lobbying Activities,” if applicable.
(d) Form SF 270, “Request for Advance or Reimbursement.”
(e) Form RD 400-4, “Assurance Agreement” must be completed by the Applicant.
(f) Form RD 400-1, “Equal Opportunity Agreement.”
(g) Grantees must collect and maintain data provided by REAP Applicants on race, sex, and national origin. Race and ethnicity data will be collected in accordance with OMB
(h) The Applicant must comply with title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Executive Order 12250, Executive Order 13166 Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and 7 CFR part 1901, subpart E.
3.
4.
(a)
(1) Federal Financial Report, Form SF-425, and a project performance report will be required on a semiannual basis (due 30 working days after end of the semiannual period). For the purposes of this grant, semiannual periods end on March 31st and September 30th. The project performance reports shall include the elements prescribed in the Financial Assistance Agreement, including, as appropriate, but not limited to:
(i) A description of the activities that the funds reflected in the financial status report were used for including the number of recipients (Agricultural Producers and Rural Small Businesses) assisted, and the type of assistance provided, a list of recipients with each recipient's North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code, the location of each recipient, and Renewable Energy technology that would be used or Energy Efficiency Improvement if the projects were implemented. Also provide the number of and identify the recipients who submitted REAP grant applications and the recipients receiving REAP grant awards (noting those with disadvantaged or distressed community status and underutilized technology status).
(ii) A comparison of actual accomplishments to the objectives for that period;
(iii) Reasons why established objectives were not met, if applicable;
(iv) Problems, delays, or adverse conditions which will affect attainment of overall program objectives, prevent meeting time schedules or objectives, or preclude the attainment of objectives during established time periods. This disclosure shall be accomplished by a Statement of the action taken or planned to resolve the situation;
(v) Objectives and timetables established for the next reporting period;
(vi) A demographic summary of the of the agricultural producers and business owners receiving the technical assistance.
(2) A final project and financial status report within 90 days after the expiration or termination of the grant.
(3) Outcome project performance report. One year after project completion, awardees must provide a project performance report describing their outcomes as related to REAP TAG Program goals as identified in your Financial Assistance Agreement. The final report will also address the following:
(i) The most challenging or unexpected aspects of this grant.
(ii) What advice you would give to other organizations applying for this grant.
(iii) The strengths and limitations of this grant.
(iv) If you had the opportunity, what would you have done differently?
(v) Are there any post-grant plans for this Project?
The report is due 60 days after the first full year following the year in which the expansion project was completed.
For general questions about this announcement, please contact your RDSO as provided in the
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027,
(1)
(2)
(3)
USDA is an equal opportunity provider, employer, and lender.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Minnesota Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom at 1:00 p.m. CT on Tuesday, April 2, 2024. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Committee's report,
Tuesday, April 2, 2024, from 1:00 p.m.-2:15 p.m. Central Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
Ana Victoria Fortes, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Minnesota Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom at 1:00 p.m. CT on Wednesday, April 10, 2024. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Committee's report,
Wednesday, April 10, 2024, from 1:00 p.m.-2:15 p.m. Central Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
Ana Victoria Fortes, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Liliana Schiller, Support Services Specialist, at
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Minnesota Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom at 2:00 p.m. CT on Friday, May 3, 2024. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Committee's report,
Friday, May 3, 2024, from 2:00 p.m.-3:15 p.m. Central Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
Ana Victoria Fortes, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Minnesota Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom at 2:00 p.m. CT on Friday, May 17, 2024. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Committee's report,
Friday, May 17, 2024, from 2:00 p.m.-3:15 p.m. Central Time.
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
Ana Victoria Fortes, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Liliana Schiller, Support Services Specialist, at
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Guam Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a virtual business meeting via Zoom at 9:00 a.m. ChST on Thursday, March 14, 2024 (6:00 p.m. ET on Wednesday, March 13, 2024). The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Committee's project,
Thursday, March 14, 2024, from 9:00 a.m.-10:30 a.m. ChST (Wednesday, March 13, 2024, from 6:00 p.m.-7:30 p.m. ET).
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
Kayla Fajota, DFO, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to David Mussatt at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meeting will be available via
Commission on Civil Rights.
Notice of public meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act, that the Minnesota Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights will hold a public meeting via Zoom at 1:00 p.m. CT on Tuesday, March 12, 2024. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss the Committee's report,
Tuesday, March 12, 2024, from 1:00 p.m.-2:15 p.m. Central Time
The meeting will be held via Zoom Webinar.
Ana Victoria Fortes, Designated Federal Officer, at
This committee meeting is available to the public through the registration link above. Any interested member of the public may listen to the meeting. An open comment period will be provided to allow members of the public to make a statement as time allows. Per the Federal Advisory Committee Act, public minutes of the meeting will include a list of persons who are present at the meeting. If joining via phone, callers can expect to incur regular charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, according to their wireless plan. The Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Callers will incur no charge for calls they initiate over land-line connections to the toll-free telephone number. Closed captioning will be available for individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or who have certain cognitive or learning impairments. To request additional accommodations, please email Liliana Schiller, Support Services Specialist, at
Members of the public are entitled to submit written comments; the comments must be received in the regional office within 30 days following the meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Ana Victoria Fortes at
Records generated from this meeting may be inspected and reproduced at the Regional Programs Coordination Unit Office, as they become available, both before and after the meeting. Records of the meetings will be available via
Valbruna Slater Stainless Inc. submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Fort Wayne, Indiana within Subzone 182A. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on February 12, 2024.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/
The proposed finished products include stainless steel ingots and nickel ingots (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 3.0%).
The proposed foreign-status materials and components include stainless steel ingots and nickel ingots (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 3.0%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232) or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 232 and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign status (19 CFR 146.41).
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders on drawn stainless steel sinks from the People's Republic of China (China) would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and countervailable subsidies, and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of these AD and CVD orders.
Applicable February 7, 2024.
Sean Grossnickle, 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) 482-3818.
On April 11, 2013, Commerce published in the
On February 7, 2024, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the
The merchandise covered by the
Excluded from the scope of the
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
These five-year (sunset) reviews and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act, and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that Norma (India) Ltd. (Norma) and R.N. Gupta & Co. Ltd. (RNG) received countervailable subsidies during the period of review (POR), January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021.
Applicable February 20, 2024.
Preston N. Cox or Scarlet K. Jaldin, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5041 or (202) 482-4275, respectively.
On August 17, 2023, Commerce published the
The merchandise covered by the
All issues raised by the GOI in its case brief are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of topics discussed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is provided in Appendix I. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our analysis of comments from interested parties and the information on the record, there have been no changes made from the
Commerce conducted this administrative review in accordance with section 751(a)(l)(A) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act). For each of the subsidy programs found to be countervailable, we find that there is a subsidy,
We made no changes to the methodology used in the
As a result of this review, we determine that the following net countervailable subsidy rates exist for the period January 1, 2021, through December 31, 2021:
Normally, Commerce discloses its calculations and analysis performed in connection with the final results to interested parties within five days of its public announcement, or if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b). However, because we have made no changes to the calculations used in reaching the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(1) of the Act, Commerce intends to instruct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts shown for each company listed above on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of these final results of this administrative review. For all non-reviewed firms, we will instruct CBP to continue to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties at the all-others rate or the most recent company-specific rate applicable to the company or the non-selected companies rate, as appropriate. These cash deposit instructions, effective upon the publication of these final results, shall remain in effect until further notice.
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review for the above-listed companies at the applicable
This notice also serves as a final reminder to parties subject to an 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 the return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
These final results are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 351.221(b)(5).
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
On behalf of the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC)'s Subcommittee on Aquaculture (SCA), NMFS announces the availability of the draft Overview of the
Comments on this notice must be received by April 5, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
You may download the draft Overview of the NADP and the draft Economic Development Plan at
•
Deputy Director, Office of Aquaculture, NOAA Fisheries—David O'Brien,
The U.S. national policy on aquaculture states that Congress declares that aquaculture has the potential for reducing the U.S. trade deficit in fisheries products, for augmenting existing commercial and recreational fisheries, and for producing other renewable resources, thereby assisting the United States in meeting its future food needs and contributing to the solution of the world resource problems. It is, therefore, in the national interest, and it is the national policy, to encourage the development of aquaculture in the United States. (National Aquaculture Act of 1980, (Pub. L. 96-362, 94 Stat. 1198, 16 U.S.C. 2801,
The SCA, previously known as the Interagency Working Group on Aquaculture and the Joint Subcommittee on Aquaculture, is a statutory subcommittee that operates under the Committee on Environment of the NSTC under the Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President. It is co-chaired by the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Department of the Interior, and the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Members include the Department of Agriculture, Department of Commerce, Army Corps of Engineers, Department of the Interior, Food and Drug Administration, Department of State, Environmental Protection Agency, and the Office of Management and Budget. The SCA serves as the Federal interagency coordinating group to increase the overall effectiveness and productivity of Federal aquaculture research, regulation, technology transfer, and assistance programs. This interagency coordinating group has been functioning since before the National Aquaculture Act was signed into law in 1980.
Originally published in 1983, NADP encouraged domestic aquaculture development. While the National Aquaculture Act called for periodic updating, a comprehensive update to the 1983 NADP has not yet been completed. Nearly four decades have passed since the NADP, and the original NADP does not capture the progress the Federal Government and the U.S. aquaculture community have made to adopt and promote sustainable aquaculture growth and uses nor guidance for next steps for the Federal Government in that evolution.
During the past several years, the SCA has invited public input and then published strategic plans covering scientific and technological advances and outlining efficiencies for the Federal regulatory framework for aquaculture in the United States. Using the same process of public engagement, the Economic Development Task Force of the SCA prepared the draft Economic Development Plan using input from industry and other stakeholders and in collaboration with relevant experts from numerous Federal agencies.
The draft Economic Development Plan outlines actions that Federal agencies can take within their existing statutory authorities and budgetary resources to support a robust, resilient, globally competitive, and environmentally sustainable domestic aquaculture sector. The Economic Development Plan is intended to support both the viability and expansion of existing operations and to encourage new entrants, addressing needs across the seafood supply chain and diverse production systems. The proposed actions serve as points of intersection between climate-smart food production, private-public partnerships, blue economy, community resilience and health, workforce development, working waterfronts, urban and rural development, and seafood supply chains (both farmed and wild-caught). The Economic Development Plan complements two other finalized thematic strategic plans—the
The Overview to the NADP serves as introduction and provides policy context to the three thematic strategic plans. Once finalized, together these four documents will comprise an updated NADP that provides a holistic framework describing how federal agencies are advancing the contributions of aquaculture to support public health and nutrition, resilient communities, a strong economy, and a healthy planet.
These draft plans are being issued under the following authorities: National Aquaculture Act of 1980 (Pub. L. 96-362, 94 Stat. 1198, 16 U.S.C. 2801,
The public is encouraged to review and comment on the draft Economic Development Plan and the draft Overview to the NADP. After the public comment period ends, the SCA will consider and address the comments received before publishing the final work plan.
11:30 a.m. EST, Wednesday, February 28, 2024.
CFTC headquarters office, Washington, DC.
Closed.
Matters relating to the selection of a candidate to serve as the Inspector General of the Commission. In the event that the time, date, or location of this meeting changes, an announcement of the change, along with the new time, date,
Christopher Kirkpatrick, 202-418-5964.
Department of the Army, DOD.
Notice of intent to make appointments to the Board of Directors for the Army West Point Athletic Association (AWPAA).
The Department of the Army is publishing this notice to announce the DoD General Counsel has concurred with the Secretary of the Army's intent to appoint the Deputy Chief of Staff, G-1, U.S. Army; the Commandant of Cadets, U.S. Military Academy; and, the Dean of the Academic Board, U.S. Military Academy, for service on the Board of Directors for the AWPAA.
John S. Frost, Senior Counsel—Legislation in writing at the Office of the Staff Judge Advocate, ATTN: John S. Frost, 646 Swift Road, West Point, NY 10996; by email at
Under 10 U.S.C. 1033 and the Joint Ethics Regulation, Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 5500.07-R, paragraph 3-202, the Secretary of the Army may authorize personnel to participate in the management of a Non-Federal Entity (NFE) with the concurrence of the DOD General Counsel.
The Army West Point Athletic Association (AWPAA) is the 503(c)(3) corporation organized under the provisions of title 10, United States Code, section 7462, to execute the U.S. Military Academy's intercollegiate athletics mission. The AWPAA is governed by a Board of Directors (BOD), which is responsible for the day-to-day operations of the AWPAA as well as the general corporate responsibilities of the organization. Of the minimum of seven BOD positions made available under its by laws, three are reserved for members of the Armed Forces. The purpose of Armed Forces membership on the AWPAA BOD is to provide oversight, advice and coordination with AWPAA. Their activities will not extend to the day-to-day operations of the AWPAA. The DoD General Counsel has designated the AWPAA as an entity for which DOD personnel may participate in management activities.
Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Defense Business Board (“the Board”) will take place.
Open to the public Thursday, February 29 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:35 p.m. Eastern time.
The meeting will be conducted virtually by Zoom. To participate in the meeting, see the Meeting Accessibility section for instructions.
Ms. Cara Allison Marshall, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of the Board in writing at Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 5B1088A, Washington, DC 20301-1155; or by email at
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense and Designated Federal Officer, the Defense Business Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning its February 29, 2024 meeting. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”), 5 U.S.C. 552b (commonly known as the “Government in the Sunshine Act”), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Office of the Deputy Secretary of Defense, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting; amendment.
On Friday, January 19, 2024, the DoD published a notice announcing a partially closed meeting of the Defense Business Board (DBB) on February 6 and 7, 2024. Subsequent to publication of the notice, DoD is making changes to the meeting agenda. The amended meeting agenda is included in this notice.
Closed to the public February 6 from 10:15 a.m. to 7:05 p.m. and on February 7 from 9:20 a.m. to 10:20 a.m. Open virtually to the public February 6 from 9 a.m. to 10:15 a.m. and February 7 from 10:20 a.m. to 11:35 a.m. All eastern standard time.
The open and closed portions of the meeting will be in Room M2 of the Pentagon Library Conference Center and 4D880 in the Pentagon, Washington, DC.
Ms. Cara Allison Marshall, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) of the Board in writing at Defense Business Board, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Room 5B1088A, Washington, DC 20301-1155; or by email at
This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”), 5 U.S.C. 552b (commonly known as the “Government in the Sunshine Act”), and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150.
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense and Designated Federal Officer, the Defense Business Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning its amended February 6-7, 2024 meeting notice. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
Federal Student Aid (FSA), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a new information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before March 21, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be submitted within 30 days of publication of this notice. Click on this link
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Beth Grebeldinger, (202) 377-4018.
The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
National Nuclear Security Administration, Department of Energy.
Record of decision.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a semi-autonomous agency within the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE), is issuing this Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final Site-Wide Environmental Impact Statement (SWEIS) for Continued Operation of the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) in California (Final LLNL SWEIS) (DOE/EIS-0547). NNSA prepared the Final LLNL SWEIS to analyze the potential environmental impacts associated with reasonable alternatives for continuing LLNL operations and foreseeable new and/or modified operations and facilities for approximately the next 15 years. The SWEIS analyzes two alternatives: No-Action Alternative and Proposed Action. In this ROD, NNSA announces its decision to implement the Proposed Action.
For further information on this ROD or the LLNL SWEIS, contact: Thomas Grim, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Document Manager, National Nuclear Security Administration, Livermore Field Office, P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94551; via email
The NNSA is responsible for meeting the national security requirements established by the President and Congress to maintain and enhance the safety, reliability, and performance of the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile. The continued operation of LLNL is critical to NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program, to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons worldwide, and to many other areas that may impact national security and global stability (50 U.S.C. 2521).
LLNL is a federally funded research and development center that conducts research for the U.S. Government in accordance with 48 CFR 35.017. LLNL has been in existence since 1952, employs approximately 8,000 people (employees and contractors), and has a current annual budget of approximately $3 billion.
LLNL consists of two federally owned sites: an 821-acre site in Livermore, California (Livermore Site), and a 7,000-acre experimental test site (Site 300) southeast of the Livermore Site between Livermore and Tracy, California. Most LLNL operations are located at the Livermore Site, which is situated about 50 miles east of San Francisco in southeastern Alameda County. Site 300 is primarily a test site for high explosives and non-nuclear weapons components; it is located about 15 miles southeast of Livermore in the hills of the Diablo Range. LLNL's primary responsibility is ensuring the safety, reliability, and performance of the nation's nuclear weapons stockpile. However, LLNL's mission is broader than stockpile stewardship, as dangers ranging from nuclear proliferation and terrorism to biosecurity and climate change threaten national security and global stability. More than eighteen (18) years have passed since the publication of the 2005 Final Site-wide Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Operation of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Supplemental Stockpile Stewardship and Management Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (2005 LLNL SWEIS). Because of proposed plans for new facilities, demolition of older facilities, enhanced and modernized site utilities projects, as well as needed modifications/upgrades of existing facilities to ensure ongoing safe operations, NNSA determined that it was appropriate to update the previous 2005 LLNL SWEIS analysis.
Under the No-Action Alternative, NNSA would continue current facility operations throughout LLNL in support of assigned missions. The No-Action
The Proposed Action in the 2023 Final LLNL SWEIS includes an increase in current facility operations or enhanced operations that would require new or modified facilities over the next 15 years. The Proposed Action also includes the scope of operations, facility construction, and DD&D under the No-Action Alternative through 2022. Continued re-investment would allow LLNL to meet mission deliverables and sustain science, technology, and engineering excellence to meet future mission requirements. In addition to the No-Action Alternative, the Proposed Action includes approximately 75 new projects, totaling approximately 3.3 million square feet, from 2023-2035. NNSA also proposes 20 types of modernization/upgrade/utility projects, most involving several facilities. Under the Proposed Action, about 150 facilities, totaling approximately 1,170,000 square feet would undergo DD&D. The Proposed Action also includes operational changes that would increase the tritium emissions limits in the National Ignition Facility (NIF) (Building 581) and the Tritium Facility (Building 331), and decrease the administrative limit for fuels-grade-equivalent plutonium in the Superblock (Building 332). In addition, the Proposed Action increases the administrative limits for plutonium-239 at Building 235, and increases the NIF administrative limits for plutonium-239 and tritium. The administrative limit changes for both Building 235 and the NIF would maintain the existing facility characterization of “less than Hazard Category-3” in accordance with DOE Standard (DOE-STD-1027) revisions approved for use at LLNL.
NNSA has prepared this ROD in accordance with Section 102(2)(C) of the
The majority of the comments received on the Draft SWEIS focused on the NEPA process, policy issues, and the scope of the Proposed Action. Scans of those comment documents are located in Volume 3 (Comment Response Document [CRD]) of the Final LLNL SWEIS. In addition, comments from the three public hearings are included in the scanned transcripts, which are also located in Volume 3. All comments received were treated equally by NNSA. Chapter 2 of Volume 3 contains summaries of all comments received on the LLNL Draft SWEIS as well as NNSA's responses to those comments. After considering all comments and modifying the Draft SWEIS, NNSA completed the Final LLNL SWEIS. NNSA posted the Final LLNL SWEIS on the NNSA NEPA Reading Room website (
Brief summaries of impacts are provided below for each resource area:
Considering the many environmental facets of the two alternatives analyzed in the LLNL SWEIS, and with consideration to the long-term effects, the No-Action Alternative is the environmentally preferred alternative because fewer adverse impacts would result compared to the Proposed Action. However, the No-Action Alternative would not meet the purpose and need for agency action.
NNSA posted the Final LLNL SWEIS on the NNSA NEPA Reading Room website (
1. Commenters stated that NNSA inadequately responded to comments on the Draft SWEIS requesting additional alternatives and stated that the Final SWEIS failed to analyze any of the reasonable alternatives proposed by commenters, such as expansion of LLNL's focus on climate change adaptation and amelioration technologies, nuclear non-proliferation, environmental clean-up technologies, alternative fuels, clean energy technologies, battery development, energy-grid efficiency, green building technologies, and other science areas.
2. Commenters stated that plutonium pit work at LLNL remains opaque and requested that NNSA clarify the relationship of plutonium operations to expanded plutonium pit production. Commenters cited concerns with increasing the administrative limits for plutonium at Building 235 and increases in risk and plutonium shipments.
3. Commenters stated that the USEPA submitted comments on the Draft SWEIS with specific recommendations, most of which the NNSA disregarded. Commenters specifically cited USEPA recommendations related to: (a)
(a) Ongoing remedial investigations and cleanup activities for legacy contamination of environmental media at LLNL fall under the CERCLA (42 U.S.C. 9601). NNSA complies with provisions specified in Federal Facility Agreements. As presented in the Final SWEIS, NNSA is not proposing any new CERCLA remedial actions and solutions in the SWEIS. NNSA has an ongoing Superfund cleanup program for contaminated soil and groundwater under the CERCLA process. The CERCLA process addresses ongoing remediation actions, prevention of mobilization of contaminants, and mitigations and are not repeated in this SWEIS. The proposed new facilities and DD&D activities would not change this ongoing cleanup program. Additionally, the CERCLA program is a public process as well. Any changes to the CERCLA program are negotiated with appropriate regulatory agencies before implementation.
(b) Section 5.19 of the Final SWEIS contains information on mitigation measures. Table 5-74 provides examples of design features and potential BMPs that could be utilized for new projects at LLNL. Sections 5.19.1-5.19.12 discuss these features and BMPs as applicable to the environmental resources evaluated in the SWEIS. More specific design features and BMPs will be identified and implemented during the project planning phase for any new proposed and approved work, and DD&D activities. Engineering controls will be employed to reduce potential impacts to acceptable levels for protection of human health and the environment.
(c) Air quality monitoring along site perimeters of Site 300 is established with concurrence from appropriate regulatory agencies. NNSA believes the air monitoring stations at Site 300 are adequate and ensure regulatory compliance. Surveillance monitors for radioactive particulate, tritium, and at some locations, beryllium, are well established at the perimeter of both Livermore Site and Site 300 and at off-site locations. While they are not “real-time,” a quick turnaround in basic radionuclide analysis is achievable by the analytical labs performing the analysis. NNSA produces an Annual Site Environmental Report that provides details on surveillance monitoring. LLNL does not exceed any regulatory limits at surveillance locations.
(d) As described in comment response 15-B of the CRD, NNSA analyzed the potential impacts (including accidents) of transporting radioactive materials and TRU waste from LLNL to disposal facilities. As discussed in Section 5.11.3.2, under the Proposed Action, modeling of all 888 potential offsite shipments would yield a bounding collective incident-free dose to the general public of 24.7 person-rem, with an associated increased risk of 0.015 LCF; and a bounding cumulative increased risk of 2.9 × 10
4. The USEPA recommends that NNSA prepare additional NEPA analyses where significant changed conditions or new circumstances related to site-specific project construction or DD&D activities are found to have the potential to violate any federal, state, and local laws or regulatory limits, or increase the potential for adverse environmental and human health impacts.
5. The USEPA stated that it is not clear where the Site 300 air quality monitor is located and when monitoring takes place. The USEPA requests that the next National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) report, due June 30, 2024, detail this information and include a map of Site 300.
6. With regard to per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), the USEPA recommends continued site characterization and monitoring of drinking water wells, groundwater and soil and continued coordination with the regional water quality control boards and the State Department of Toxic Substances Control to control the mobilization of these contaminants and mitigate impacts.
The continued operation of LLNL is critical to NNSA's Stockpile Stewardship and Management Program, to prevent the spread and use of nuclear weapons worldwide, and to many other areas that may impact national security and global stability. NNSA has decided to implement the Proposed Action. The Proposed Action will enable NNSA to fulfill its statutory missions and other responsibilities, considering economic, environmental, technical, and other factors.
The Final SWEIS provided the NNSA decision-maker with important information regarding the potential environmental impacts of alternatives and options for satisfying the purpose and need. In addition to environmental information, NNSA also considered public comments, statutory responsibilities, strategic objectives, technical needs, safeguards and security, costs, and schedule in its decision-making.
No potential adverse impacts were identified that will require additional mitigation measures beyond those required by regulations, permits, and agreements or achieved through design features or best management practices. However, if mitigation measures above and beyond those required by regulations, permits, and agreements are needed to reduce impacts during implementation, they will be developed, documented, and executed. Because no new potential adverse impacts were identified that will require additional mitigation measures beyond those required by regulation or achieved through design features or best management practices, NNSA does not expect to prepare a Mitigation Action Plan.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 8, 2024, by Jill Hruby, Under Secretary for Nuclear Security and Administrator, NNSA, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA) requires EPA to publish in the
The docket for this action, identified by docket identification (ID) number EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0098, is available online at
This action provides information that is directed to the public in general.
This document lists the statements of findings made by EPA after review of submissions under TSCA section 5(a) that certain new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. This document presents statements of findings made by EPA during the reporting period.
TSCA section 5(a)(3) requires EPA to review a submission under TSCA section 5(a) and make one of several specific findings pertaining to whether the substance may present unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment. Among those potential findings is that the chemical substance or significant new use is not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment per TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C).
TSCA section 5(g) requires EPA to publish in the
Anyone who plans to manufacture (which includes import) a new chemical substance for a non-exempt commercial purpose and any manufacturer or
The submitter of a notice to EPA for which EPA has made a finding of “not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment” may commence manufacture of the chemical substance or manufacture or processing for the significant new use notwithstanding any remaining portion of the applicable review period.
No.
In this unit, EPA provides the following information (to the extent that such information is not claimed as Confidential Business Information (CBI)) on the PMNs, MCANs, and SNUNs for which, during this period, EPA has made findings under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C) that the new chemical substances or significant new uses are not likely to present an unreasonable risk of injury to health or the environment:
The following list provides the EPA case number assigned to the TSCA section 5(a) submission and the chemical identity (generic name if the specific name is claimed as CBI).
• P-23-0017, Hydrolyzed collagen, polymer with aromatic isocyanate, N-triethoxysylil-alkanamine, pectic polysaccharide and poly alkyl alcohol (Generic Name).
• P-23-0068, 1,3-Isobenzofurandione, hexahydro-, polymer with 1,4-cyclohexanedimethanol, isononanoate (CASRN 2773548-84-6).
To access EPA's decision document describing the basis of the “not likely to present an unreasonable risk” finding made by EPA under TSCA section 5(a)(3)(C), look up the specific case number at
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; request for comment.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is seeking comment on this draft Guidance to clarify and inform future National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting actions for communities with combined sewer systems. This draft Guidance highlights the available approaches for permitting combined sewer overflow (CSO) communities nearing completion of the projects and activities identified in their Long-Term Control Plan (LTCP). The draft Guidance summarizes options under the Clean Water Act (CWA) that are articulated in the 1994 Combined Sewer Overflow Control Policy and the option to use the EPA's 2012 Integrated Planning Framework to look holistically at future investments in controlling wastewater and stormwater discharges and improving water quality.
Comments must be received on or before March 21, 2024.
You may send comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0475, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Kathryn Kazior, Office of Wastewater Management, Water Permits Division (MC4203M), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-2696; email address:
The Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Control Policy (CSO Policy) was issued in 1994 and incorporated into the Clean Water Act (CWA) in 2000.
The EPA requests public comment on the draft Guidance.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2023-0475, at
The agency is requesting comments on this draft Guidance to clarify and inform future NPDES permitting actions for communities with CSOs. Visit the EPA website at:
Tuesday, February 27, 2024, at 10:00 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on February 29, 2024.
1050 First Street NE, Washington, DC and virtual (This meeting will be a hybrid meeting.)
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109.
Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer. Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
10 a.m., Tuesday, March 12, 2024.
The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 504 North, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from F Street entrance).
Open.
The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open session:
Any person attending this meeting who requires special accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those needs. Subject to 29 CFR 2706.150(a)(3) and 2706.160(d).
Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935/(202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay/1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors that are considered in acting on the applications are set forth in paragraph 7 of the Act (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)(7)).
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than March 6, 2024.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Federal Trade Commission.
Notice of Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority (HISA) proposed rule modification; request for public comment.
As required by the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, the Federal Trade Commission publishes a proposed modification of the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority's rules addressing horseracing in the United States. The proposed rule modification would amend the Rule Series 9000 Registration Rules, which establish the registration requirements applicable to all Covered Horses, Covered Persons, and Racetracks. This document contains the Authority's proposed rule modification's text and explanation, and it seeks public comment on whether the Commission should approve the proposed rule modification.
The Commission must approve or disapprove the proposed modification on or before April 22, 2024. If approved, the proposed rule modification would be effective on July 1, 2024. Comments must be filed on or before March 5, 2024.
Interested parties may file a comment online or on paper by following the instructions in the Comment Submissions part of the
Sarah Botha (202-326-2036), Attorney Advisor and Acting HISA Program Manager, Office of the Executive Director, Federal Trade Commission, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20580.
The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020
Pursuant to Section 3053(a) of the Act and Commission Rule 1.142, notice is hereby given that, on September 27, 2023, the Authority filed with the Commission a proposed Registration Rule modification and supporting documentation as described in Items I, II, III, IV, and IX below, which Items have been prepared by the Authority. The Office of the Secretary of the Commission determined that the filing complied with the Commission's rule governing such submissions.
The Act recognizes that the establishment of a national set of uniform standards for racetrack safety and medication control will enhance the safety and integrity of horseracing. On April 25, 2022, the Authority filed with the Commission the Rule 9000 Series, which establishes the registration requirements for Covered Persons and Covered Horses. The Rule 9000 Series was published in the
The Authority now proposes modifications to several provisions in the Rule 9000 Series. This submission is made in order to comply with the Commission's March 27, 2023 Order that directed “the Authority to review all of its existing rules (Racetrack Safety, Assessment Methodology, Enforcement, Registration, and ADMC) and submit any proposed rule modifications to the Commission by September 27, 2023.”
The safety and welfare of Covered Horses will be affected and enhanced by this rule modification because the modifications will enable the Authority to possess accurate and timely information concerning Covered Persons and Covered Horses. Covered Persons will be affected by modifications that alter slightly some of the registration requirements, but the requirements as altered are not burdensome. The registration of Covered Horses and Covered Persons, including racetracks, furthers the purpose of enhancing the safety, welfare, and integrity of Covered Persons and Covered Horses, and the safe conduct of Covered Horseraces will be affected and enhanced as a result. An effective registration system provides Covered Persons with the information and guidance necessary to properly register with the Authority, establishes certain exemptions to registration, requires that registration information be updated as necessary, and provides for the registration of Covered Horses. It also requires that Covered Persons provide and update their contact information with the Authority, so that the Authority may contact a Covered Person quickly in order to address any
The modifications have been crafted in the most precise manner possible to resolve the minor problems and specific issues that are outlined in Section II for each modification. The modifications are very tightly focused, and making these changes did not require the weighing of significant reasonable alternatives. The modifications are consistent with the Act because they further the directive of 15 U.S.C. 3054(d), which requires the Authority to establish a registration system for Covered Persons. The Authority incorporates by reference into this modification the existing standards that were set forth in the Notice of Filing of Proposed Rule that originally established the Rule 9000 Series and that was submitted to the Commission in the original filing of the Rule 9000 Series on April 25, 2022.
On August 28, 2023, HISA representatives shared the draft of the Rule 9000 modifications with the following interested stakeholders for input: Racing Officials Accreditation Program; Racing Medication and Testing Consortium (Scientific Advisory Committee); National Thoroughbred Racing Association; The Jockey Club; The Jockeys' Guild; Thoroughbred Racing Association; Arapahoe Park; Rillito Downs; Thoroughbred Owners of California; California Horse Racing Board; Kentucky Racing Commission; Delaware Racing Commission; Maryland Racing Commission; National Horsemen's Benevolent and Protective Association; Thoroughbred Horsemen's Association; Thoroughbred Owners and Breeders Association; Kentucky Thoroughbred Association; American Association of Equine Practitioners; American Veterinary Medical Association; Stronach Racing Group (5 thoroughbred racetracks); Churchill Downs (6 thoroughbred racetracks); Breeders' Cup; Keeneland; Del Mar; and the Racing Operations Committee. Additionally, on August 28, 2023, the draft of the proposed modifications was made available to the public for review and comment on the HISA website at
With the review, input and ultimate approval of the Authority's Board of Directors, the proposed rule modification to the Rule 9000 Series modifies and enhances the registration rules. HISA submits herewith the proposed rule modification for Commission approval. As required by 15 U.S.C. 3053(c)(2), the rules are consistent with the Act and the rules approved by the Commission. Pursuant to 16 CFR part 1, subpart S 1.142(a)(7), the Authority proposed January 5, 2024, as the date for the
The Horseracing Integrity and Safety Act of 2020, 15 U.S.C. 3051 through 3060.
The Authority's Registration Rule was guided by the purposes and objectives of the Act, and in particular the Act's explicit directive in 15 U.S.C. 3054(d)(1) that Covered Persons be required to register with the Authority in accordance with rules promulgated by the Authority and approved by the Commission. The Registration Rule establishes the requirements and procedures for the registration of Covered Persons and Covered Horses.
Rule 9000(a) is modified to exempt Owners having an ownership or beneficial interest in a Covered Horse of less than five (5) percent from registration unless such owner is or becomes a Responsible Person as defined in Rule 2010. Many state racing commissions exempt individuals who own a small percentage of a horse from licensure requirements. The Authority has determined that the registration of Owners having an ownership or beneficial interest in a horse of less than five (5) percent is not necessary for the safety, welfare, and integrity of Covered Persons and Covered Horses, and the safe conduct of Covered Horseraces unless the owner is or becomes the Responsible Person. The remainder of the modifications in Rule 9000(a) are stylistic edits.
Currently, Rule 9000(b) requires that a Covered Person provide a mobile phone number or email address, or both if available. The modification requires an email address and a mobile phone number, if the Covered Person possesses a mobile phone. The Authority uses email addresses to communicate with Covered Persons. Quite simply, a Covered Person needs to provide an email address so that the Covered Person can receive communications from the Authority. The remainder of the modifications in Rule 9000(b) are stylistic edits.
Rule 9000(d) is amended to require that any Covered Person who registers as a Veterinarian shall also provide the name and contact information for any clinic or practice that the Veterinarian is associated with, along with the Veterinarian's state license number. The information pertaining to the clinic facilitates maintenance of and access to veterinary records and will allow trainers to identify a clinic by name instead of a specific Veterinarian who might change from visit to visit. The state license number will allow the Authority to check and verify the Veterinarian's status.
Rule 9000(e), which sets forth the registration requirements for Racetracks, is amended to add the following clause: “4. Any other information reasonably required by the Authority to fulfill its statutory duties under the Act.” This clause is already included in the Registration Rule for Covered Horses and Covered Persons but was inadvertently omitted in the Registration Rule relating to Racetracks. The remainder of the modifications in Rules 9000(e), 9000(f) and 9000(g) are stylistic edits.
Rule 9000(h) was moved to Rule 9000(i) since it should more properly be located at the end of the rule series; it prescribes the general requirements to provide complete and accurate information and to report any material changes to the information and establishes penalties for failure to comply with the registration rules. The only substantive change to the section was the addition of the failure of a Responsible Person to register a Covered Horse as a violation. This addition comes from Rule 9000(j) and means that the penalties can be consolidated and listed in Rule 9000(i). The remainder of the modifications in Rule 9000(i) are stylistic edits.
The registration of Covered Horses is now set forth in Rule 9000(h). The Act states that a horse becomes a Covered Horse on the date of the horse's first timed and reported workout at a Racetrack that participates in Covered Horseraces or at a training facility. This language was added to the rule to make clear when the duty to register a Covered Horse occurs. Rule 9000(h)(3) is modified as follows: “The designated ID number of the Owner (who must be registered) of the Covered Horse or if the Covered Horse is owned by an entity, the entity name (who must be registered) shall be provided along with
In accordance with the Commission's March 27, 2023 Order, the Authority states that no comments were submitted by commenters on the
This rule is proposed by the Authority for approval or disapproval by the Commission under 15 U.S.C. 3053(c)(1).
If approved by the Commission, this proposed rule will take effect on July 1, 2024.
Members of the public are invited to comment on the Authority's proposed rule. The Commission requests that factual data on which the comments are based be submitted with the comments. The supporting documentation referred to in the Authority's filing are available for public inspection on the docket for this matter at
The Commission seeks comments that address the decisional criteria provided by the Act. The Act gives the Commission two criteria against which to measure proposed rules and rule modifications: “The Commission shall approve a proposed rule or modification if the Commission finds that the proposed rule or modification is consistent with—(A) this chapter; and (B) applicable rules approved by the Commission.”
Although the Commission evaluates the Authority's proposed rule for its consistency with the Act and the Commission's procedural rule, the Commission may consider broader questions—about the health and safety of horses and jockeys, the integrity of horseraces and wagering on horseraces, and the administration of the Authority itself—in another context: “The Commission . . . may abrogate, add to, and modify the rules of the Authority promulgated in accordance with this chapter as the Commission finds necessary or appropriate to ensure the fair administration of the Authority, to conform the rules of the Authority to requirements of this chapter and applicable rules approved by the Commission, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of this chapter.”
You can file a comment online or on paper. For the Commission to consider your comment, we must receive it on or before March 5, 2024. Write “HISA Registration Rule Modification” on your comment. Your comment—including your name and your State—will be placed on the public record of this proceeding, including the
Postal mail addressed to the Commission is subject to delay due to heightened security screening. As a result, we strongly encourage you to submit your comments online. To make sure the Commission considers your online comment, you must file it at
If you file your comment on paper, write “HISA Registration Rule Modification” on your comment and on the envelope, and mail your comment to the following address: Federal Trade Commission, Office of the Secretary, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Mail Stop H-144 (Annex H), Washington, DC 20580. If possible, please submit your paper comment to the Commission by overnight service.
Because your comment will be placed on the public record, you are solely responsible for making sure that your comment does not include any sensitive or confidential information. In particular, your comment should not contain sensitive personal information, such as your or anyone else's Social Security number; date of birth; driver's license number or other State identification number or foreign country equivalent; passport number; financial account number; or credit or debit card number. You are also solely responsible for making sure your comment does not include any sensitive health information, such as medical records or other individually identifiable health information. In addition, your comment should not include any “[t]rade secret or any commercial or financial information which . . . is privileged or confidential”—as provided in Section 6(f) of the FTC Act, 15 U.S.C. 46(f), and FTC Rule 4.10(a)(2), 16 CFR 4.10(a)(2)—including, in particular, competitively sensitive information such as costs, sales statistics, inventories, formulas, patterns, devices, manufacturing processes, or customer names.
Comments containing material for which confidential treatment is requested must be filed in paper form, must be clearly labeled “Confidential,” and must comply with FTC Rule 4.9(c), 16 CFR 4.9(c). In particular, the written
Visit the FTC website to read this document and any news release describing it. The FTC Act and other laws that the Commission administers permit the collection of public comments to consider and use in this proceeding as appropriate. The Commission will consider all timely and responsive public comments it receives on or before March 5, 2024. For information on the Commission's privacy policy, including routine uses permitted by the Privacy Act, see
Written communications and summaries or transcripts of oral communications respecting the merits of this proceeding, from any outside party to any Commissioner or Commissioner's advisor, will be placed on the public record.
The following language reflects the Registration Rule with the proposed modifications incorporated. A redline version that shows every way in which the previously approved Registration Rule would be modified by the proposed rule modification is available as Exhibit B on the docket at
(a) Registration Requirement for Covered Persons. A Covered Person (as defined by 15 U.S.C. 3051(6)) shall register with the Authority in accordance with this rule on the Horseracing Integrity and Safety Authority website at
(b) Information Required for Registration of Covered Persons. The following information shall be provided by all Covered Persons who register as individuals with the Authority:
(1) The Covered Person's name, physical address, and permanent mailing address;
(2) The Covered Person's email address;
(3) If the Covered Person possesses a mobile phone, the mobile phone number;
(4) Identification of all racing jurisdictions in which the Covered Person is currently licensed and the occupation(s) for which the Covered Person is licensed;
(5) If required by the Authority, an image of at least one currently valid license issued to the Covered Person by a racing regulatory authority; and
(6) Any other information reasonably required by the Authority to fulfill its statutory duties under the Act.
(c) Jockeys and Jockey Agents. Jockeys shall identify the Jockey agents who represent them. Jockey agents shall identify the Jockeys whom they represent.
(d) Veterinarians. A Covered Person who registers as a veterinarian shall also provide (i) the name and contact information for any clinic or practice that the veterinarian is associated with; and (ii) all jurisdictions in which the registrant is currently licensed by state veterinary licensing authorities and the registrant's license number for each such jurisdiction.
(e) Racetracks. A Racetrack licensed by a state racing commission to conduct Covered Horseraces (as defined by 15 U.S.C. 3051(5)) shall register with the Authority, and shall provide and update as necessary the following information:
(1) The name and contact information, including email address and direct phone number, of the Director or Officer with principal responsibility for conducting Covered Horseraces to serve as the contact person for the Racetrack;
(2) The Racetrack's physical address, mailing address, phone number and general delivery email address;
(3) Identification of the majority or controlling ownership interests of the Racetrack. Any change in the majority or controlling ownership interests or control of a Racetrack shall constitute a material change and shall be reported to the Authority within 30 days following the change; and
(4) Any other information reasonably required by the Authority to fulfill its statutory duties under the Act.
(f) Registration Exemptions. Vendors of goods or services and racetrack employees or contractors who do not have access to restricted areas of a Racetrack in the ordinary course of carrying out their duties are not required to register with the Authority. For purposes of this rule, mutuel employees are deemed not to have access to restricted areas of a Racetrack.
(g) Agreement With Respect to Authority Rules, Standards, and Procedures. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 3054(d) of the Act, a Covered Person who registers with the Authority shall agree to be subject to and comply with the rules, standards, and procedures of the Authority developed and approved under 15 U.S.C. 3054(c). These rules, standards, and procedures are set forth in the Rule 8000 Series.
(h) Registration of Covered Horses. Responsible Persons (as defined in Rule 2010) shall ensure that Covered Horses (as defined by 15 U.S.C. 3051(4)) are registered with the Authority on the date of the horse's first timed and reported workout at a Racetrack that participates in Covered Horseraces or at a training facility. The following information shall be provided by all Covered Persons who register horses with the Authority:
(1) The Covered Horse's name and year of birth;
(2) The name of the dam of the Covered Horse;
(3) The designated Owner (who must be registered) of the Covered Horse or if the Covered Horse is owned by an entity, the entity name (who must be registered) shall be provided along with a designated owner of the entity who is a natural person (who must be registered);
(4) The location of the Covered Horse, which shall be updated by the Responsible Person within twenty-four (24) hours of the Covered Horse arriving at its new location;
(5) The Vaccine and Health Information required by Rule 2143;
(6) If the Covered Horse suffers a fatal condition, the Responsible Person within three (3) days of the date of the
(7) Any other information reasonably required by the Authority to fulfill its statutory duties under the Act.
(i) Accuracy of and Changes to Registration Information.
(1) Complete and Correct Information. Information provided by a Covered Person in the course of registration pursuant to the Rule 9000 Series shall be complete and correct.
(2) Material Changes in Registration Information. A Covered Person registered with the Authority shall timely update registration information to accurately report any material changes in any information required for registration by the Authority, including the information required under Rule 9000(h).
(3) Penalties. As set forth in Rule 8100(g), failure to register with the Authority, failure of a Responsible Person to register a Covered Horse, knowingly making a false statement, omitting information in an application for registration with the Authority, or failure to advise the Authority of material changes in information provided to the Authority as required under any provision in Authority rules shall constitute a violation and shall be subject to the sanctions set forth in Rule 8200 and the disciplinary procedures set forth in Rule 8300.
By direction of the Commission.
General Services Administration, Office of Government-wide Policy, Office of Executive Councils, Federal Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council, Innovation Committee.
Meeting notice.
Join leaders across the federal government for an immersive one-day symposium exploring the technologies transforming our future. Through keynote addresses and fireside chats, gain insider perspectives from those using AI to combat and reduce fraud to those safeguarding our digital lives in the emerging quantum era and designing the future of data security across government. Learn about the technical breakthroughs employees at the National Labs are making to improve the lives of the American public. This symposium will spotlight the intersections of technology, innovation, and open government—shaping the digital tomorrow and harnessing the power of technology to drive mission impact. Join us at the frontier of what's next.
Tuesday, March 5, 2024 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.
GSA Headquarters, 1800 F St. NW, Washington, DC Jess Mellon Auditorium.
This is an in-person event. All attendees, including industry partners, must register for the event here:
Members of the press are invited to attend but are required to register with the GSA press office (via email
Ms. Ariel Crawford, Office of Government-wide Policy, at 301-653-7198 or
The Disruption and Discovery: AI, Data, and Quantum on the Symposium convenes leaders from the Federal Government to discuss their experiences with emerging technologies. The summit will include keynotes and Fireside Chats with featured speakers.
If you have questions for the panelists, you can email them to CIO Council Support at
American Sign Language (ASL) interpreters will be in attendance. If additional accommodations are needed, please indicate on the Zoom registration form.
Live Speakers (Subject to change without notice.)
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), HHS.
Notice of request for nominations for members.
The National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality (the Council) advises the Secretary of HHS (Secretary) and the Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) with respect to activities proposed or undertaken to carry out AHRQ's statutory mission. AHRQ produces evidence to make health care safer, higher quality, more accessible, equitable, and affordable, and works within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and with other partners to make sure that the evidence is understood and used. Seven new members will be appointed to replace seven current members whose terms will expire in November 2024.
Nominations should be received on or before 60 days after date of publication.
Nominations should be sent by email to Jaime Zimmerman at
Jaime Zimmerman, AHRQ, at (301) 427-1456.
42 U.S.C. 299c provides that the Secretary shall appoint to the Council twenty-one appropriately qualified individuals. At least seventeen members shall be representatives of the public and at least
Seven current members' terms will expire in November 2024. To fill these positions, we are seeking individuals who: (1) are distinguished in the conduct of research, demonstration projects, and evaluations with respect to health care; (2) are distinguished in the fields of health care quality research or health care improvement; (3) are distinguished in the practice of medicine; (4) are distinguished in other health professions; (5) represent the private health care sector (including health plans, providers, and purchasers) or are distinguished as administrators of health care delivery systems; (6) are distinguished in the fields of health care economics, information systems, law, ethics, business, or public policy; and (7) represent the interests of patients and consumers of health care, 42 U.S.C. 299c(c)(2). Individuals are particularly sought with experience and success in these activities. AHRQ will accept nominations to serve on the Council in a representative capacity.
The Council meets in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area, generally in Rockville, Maryland, approximately three times a year to provide broad guidance to the Secretary and AHRQ's Director on the direction of and programs undertaken by AHRQ.
Seven individuals will be selected by the Secretary to serve on the Council beginning with the meeting in the spring of 2024. Members generally serve 3-year terms. Appointments are staggered to permit an orderly rotation of membership.
Interested persons may nominate one or more qualified persons for membership on the Council. Self-nominations are accepted. Nominations shall include: (1) a copy of the nominee's resume or curriculum vitae; and (2) a statement that the nominee is willing to serve as a member of the Council. Selected candidates will be asked to provide detailed information concerning their financial interests, consultant positions and research grants and contracts, to permit evaluation of possible sources of conflict of interest. Please note that once a candidate is nominated, AHRQ may consider that nomination for future positions on the Council.
The Department seeks a broad geographic representation. In addition, AHRQ conducts and supports research concerning priority populations, which include: Inner city; rural; low income; minority; women; children; elderly; and those with special health care needs, including those who have disabilities, need chronic care, or need end-of-life health care. See 42 U.S.C. 299(c). AHRQ also includes in its definition of priority populations those groups identified in section 2(a) of Executive Order 13985 as members of underserved communities: Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. Nominations of persons with expertise in health care for these priority populations are encouraged.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments must be received by April 22, 2024.
When commenting, please reference the document identifier or OMB control number. To be assured consideration, comments and recommendations must be submitted in any one of the following ways:
1.
2.
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William N. Parham at (410) 786-4669.
This notice sets out a summary of the use and burden associated with the following information collections. More detailed information can be found in each collection's supporting statement and associated materials (see
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests
1.
CMS, specifically, the Division of Data Analysis and Market-based Pricing (DDAMBP) will utilize the ASP data (ASP and number of units sold as specific in section 1847A of the Act) to determine the Medicare Part B drug payment amounts for CY 2005 and beyond. The manufacturers submit their ASP data for all of their National Drug Codes (NDC) for Part B drugs. DDAMBP compiles the data, analyzes the data and runs the data through software to calculate the volume-weighted ASP for all of the NDCs that are grouped within a given HCPCS code. The formula to calculate the volume-weighted ASP is the Sum (ASP * units) for all NDCs/Sum (units * bill units per pkg) for all NDCs. DDAMBP provides ASP payment amounts for several components within CMS that utilize 1847(A) payment methodologies to implement various payment policies including, but not limited to, ESRD, OPPS, OTP and payment models. CMS will also use reported ASP and units to calculate inflation adjusted coinsurance and rebates. The Department of Health and Human Services' Office of the Inspector General also uses the ASP data in conducting studies.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by March 21, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by March 21, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires Federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
1.
The Secretary promulgated rules that relate to compliance with, and enforcement of, the HIPAA rules, which are codified at 45 CFR part 160, subparts C, D, and E and collectively referred to as the Enforcement Rule. The Secretary first issued an interim final rule promulgating the procedural requirements for imposition of civil money penalties on violations of the privacy standards on April 17, 2003, Civil Money Penalties: Procedures for Investigations, Imposition of Penalties (68 FR 18896). The Secretary subsequently proposed a rule on April 18, 2005, HIPAA Administrative Simplification: Enforcement; Proposed Rule (70 FR 20224), proposing the amendment of 45 CFR part 160, subparts A (General Provisions), C (Compliance and Enforcement), and E (Procedures for Hearing), and proposing a new subpart D (Imposition of Civil Money Penalties) that addressed the substantive issues related to the imposition of civil money penalties and proposing the above provisions be applied to all HIPAA rules.
The purpose of this collection is to retrieve information necessary to conduct a compliance review and carry out the authority delegated to CMS as described in CMS-0014-N (68 FR 60694). These forms will be submitted to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), National Standards Group, from entities covered by HIPAA Administrative Simplification regulations. This collection is not applicable to HIPAA Privacy and Security Rules.
2.
CMS requires MAOs, § 1876 cost contracts, and Medicare Medicaid Plans (MMPs or demonstrations) to submit HEDIS® data on an annual basis to (1) assess care that is provided to Medicare beneficiaries and (2) to provide information to Medicare beneficiaries to make more informed decisions when choosing a health plan.
The HEDIS® data collection supports the CMS strategic goals of advancing health equity and improving health outcomes for Medicare beneficiaries. The HEDIS® measures are part of the Medicare Part C Star Ratings as described at §§ 422.160, 422.162, 422.164, and 422.166. CMS publishes the Medicare Part C Star Ratings each year to: (1) incentivize quality improvement in Medicare Advantage (MA); and (2) assist beneficiaries in finding the best plan for them. The Star Ratings are used to determine MA Quality Bonus Payments.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than March 21, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Joella Roland, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
The HPSL Program, authorized by Public Health Service (PHS) Act sections 721-722 and 725-735, is a grant program where recipients provide long-term, low-interest loans to students attending schools of medicine, osteopathic medicine, dentistry, veterinary medicine, optometry, podiatric medicine, and pharmacy. The LDS Program, authorized by PHS Act sections 721-722 and 724-735, is a grant program where recipients provide long-term, low interest loans to certain students attending schools of allopathic medicine, osteopathic medicine, podiatric medicine, dentistry, optometry, pharmacy, and veterinary medicine. The PCL Program, authorized by PHS Act sections 721-723 and 725-735, is a grant program where recipients provide long-term, low interest loans to students attending schools of allopathic medicine and osteopathic medicine to practice primary health care. The NSL Program, authorized by PHS Act sections 835-842, is a grant program where recipients provide long-term, low-interest loans to students who attend eligible schools of nursing in programs leading to a diploma degree, an associate degree, a baccalaureate degree, or a graduate degree in nursing. These programs have a number of recordkeeping and reporting requirements for academic institutions and loan applicants. The applicable program regulations are found in 42 CFR 57.201-218 and 57.301-318. HRSA proposes revisions to the Annual Operating Report (AOR)-HRSA Form 501 completed by institutions participating in the HPSL, LDS, PCL, and NSL Programs to obtain additional information about those institutions and their student borrowers.
A 60-day notice was published in the
There was a miscalculation of the total burden hours as previously reported in the 60-day FRN, which is updated below to properly account for the 25,080 HPSL/LDS/PCL and NSL Recordkeeping Requirement total hours that were shown but not added in the overall total. The total burden hours are now 353,059, which represents a 7.6 percent increase when compared to the total burden reported in the last ICR.
Table 2 shows the estimated burden for schools to maintain required records on the history and status for each loan account, which is necessary to complete the forms listed in Table 1 above.
Table 3 shows the estimated burden for schools to complete reporting requirements for loan records, which is necessary to complete the forms listed in Table 1 above.
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.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a
The meeting will be closed to the public as indicated below in accordance with the provisions set forth in section 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended for the review, discussion, and evaluation of individual grant applications conducted by the National Institute On Deafness And Other Communication Disorders, including consideration of personnel qualifications and performance, and the competence of individual investigators, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 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.
This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and funding cycle.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following 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.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0085, Streamlined Inspection Program; without change.
Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 22, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2024-0044] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2024-0044], and must be received by April 22, 2024.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
Coast Guard, DHS.
Sixty-day notice requesting comments.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the U.S. Coast Guard intends to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), requesting an extension of its approval for the following collection of information: 1625-0127, Marine Transportation System Recovery; without change.
Our ICR describes the information we seek to collect from the public. Before submitting this ICR to OIRA, the Coast Guard is inviting comments as described below.
Comments must reach the Coast Guard on or before April 22, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2024-0045] to the Coast Guard using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
A copy of the ICR is available through the docket on the internet at
A.L. Craig, Office of Privacy Management, telephone 202-475-3528, or fax 202-372-8405, for questions on these documents.
This notice relies on the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 3501
The Coast Guard invites comments on whether this ICR should be granted based on the Collection being necessary for the proper performance of Departmental functions. In particular, the Coast Guard would appreciate comments addressing: (1) the practical utility of the Collection; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden of the Collection; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of information subject to the Collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the Collection on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
In response to your comments, we may revise this ICR or decide not to seek an extension of approval for the Collection. We will consider all comments and material received during the comment period.
We encourage you to respond to this request by submitting comments and related materials. Comments must contain the OMB Control Number of the ICR and the docket number of this request, [USCG-2024-0045], and must be received by April 22, 2024.
We encourage you to submit comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
We accept anonymous comments. All comments received will be posted without change to
• CG-11410, Marine Transportation System Recovery Essential Elements of Information.
• CG-11410A, Marine Transportation System Recovery Facility Status.
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security.
Notice; request for applications.
The U.S. Coast Guard is accepting applications to fill three vacancies on the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee (Committee). This Committee advises the Secretary of Homeland Security, via the Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard on matters relating to activities directly involved with, or in support of, the exploration of offshore mineral and energy resources, to the extent that such matters are within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Coast Guard.
Completed applications must reach the U.S. Coast Guard on or before April 22, 2024.
Applications must include: (a) a cover letter expressing interest in an appointment to the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee, (b) a resume detailing the applicant's relevant experience for the position applied for, and (c) a brief biography. Applications should be submitted via email with subject line “NOSAC Vacancy Application” to
Mr. Patrick Clark, Designated Federal Officer of the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee; telephone 571-607-8236 or email at
The National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee is a Federal advisory committee. The Committee was established on December 4, 2018, by section 601 of the
The Committee is required to meet at least once a year in accordance with 46 U.S.C. 15109(a). We expect the Committee to meet at least twice a year, but it may meet more frequently. The meetings are generally held in Houston, Texas and New Orleans, Louisiana.
Under provisions in 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(6), if you are appointed as a member of the Committee, your membership term will expire on December 31st of the third full year after the effective date of your appointment. The Secretary of Homeland Security may require an individual to have passed an appropriate security background examination before appointment to the Committee, 46 U.S.C. 15109(f)(4).
All members serve at their own expense and receive no salary or other compensation from the Federal Government. If you are appointed as a member of the Committee, you will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement and a Gratuitous Services Agreement.
In this solicitation for Committee Members, we will consider applications for the following three positions:
• One member representing entities engaged in offshore oil exploration and production on the Outer Continental Shelf adjacent to Alaska.
• One member representing entities engaged in offshore drilling (one of two positions in this category is open).
• One member representing entities engaged in the construction of offshore facilities on the U.S. Outer Continental Shelf.
The members who will fill the positions described above will be appointed to represent the interest of their respective groups and viewpoints and are not Special Government Employees as defined in 18 U.S.C. 202(a).
In order for the Department, to fully leverage broad-ranging experience and education, the National Offshore Safety Advisory Committee must be diverse with regard to professional and technical expertise. The Department is committed to pursuing opportunities, consistent with applicable law, to compose a committee that reflects the diversity of the Nation's people.
If you are interested in applying to become a member of the Committee, email your application to
The U.S. Coast Guard will not consider incomplete or late applications.
Office of Chief Financial Officer, HUD.
Notice.
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989, this announcement notifies the public of funding decisions made by the Department in competitions for funding under the Notices of Funding Opportunity (NOFOs) and Notices for the following program(s): Authority to Accept Unsolicited Proposals for Research Partnerships, Impact Evaluation of the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA), FY22 HUDRD CDBG Disaster Recovery Outcomes of Renter Households, FY22 HUDRD—Exploring the Feasibility of Linking Eviction Records to Administrative Databases for HUD's Housing Choice Voucher Program, FY21 Eviction Protection Grant Program Rounds 1 and 2, FY21 HBCU Research Center of Excellence, FY22 HUDRD-HBCU Research Center of Excellence, FY22 HUDRD—Wildfire Recovery and Resilience, FY22 HUDRD—Qualitative Data Collection for Cohort 2 MTW Expansion—Rent Reform Experiment, FY22 Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG and FY22 Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG)—Imminent Threat (IT), FY22 Foster Youth to Independence Competitive (FYI Competitive), FY22 Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grants, Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA), Rural Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing Grants, Veterans Housing Rehabilitation and Modification Pilot Program, and FY 2022 Comprehensive Housing Counseling Grant Program.
HUD posted the Authority to Accept Unsolicited Proposals for Research Partnerships NOTICE on
HUD posted the Impact Evaluation of the Emergency Rental Assistance (ERA) Program NOFO on
HUD posted the Authority to FY22 HUDRD CDBG Disaster Recovery Outcomes of Renter Households NOFO on
HUD posted the Authority to FY22 HUDRD-Exploring the Feasibility of Linking Eviction Records to Administrative Databases for HUD's Housing Choice Voucher Program NOFO on
HUD posted the FY21 Eviction Protection Grant Program Rounds 1 and 2 NOFO on
HUD posted the FY21 HBCU Research Center of Excellence NOFO on
HUD posted the FY22 HUDRD—HBCU Research Center of Excellence NOFO on
HUD posted the FY22 HUDRD—Wildfire Recovery and Resilience NOFO on
HUD posted the FY22 HUDRD—Qualitative Data Collection for Cohort 2 MTW Expansion-Rent Reform Experiment NOFO on
HUD posted FY22 Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG) and FY22 Indian Community Development Block Grant (ICDBG)—Imminent Threat (IT) Program on
HUD posted the FY22 Foster Youth to Independence Competitive (FYI Competitive) NOFO on
HUD posted the FY22 Choice Neighborhoods Planning Grants NOFO on
HUD posted the FY2022 Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) Notice on
HUD posted the FY2021 and 2022 Rural Capacity Building for Community Development and Affordable Housing NOFO on
HUD posted the FY2022 Veterans Housing Rehabilitation and Modification Pilot Program NOFO on
HUD posted FY2022 Supplemental Comprehensive Housing Counseling (CHC) Grant Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) on
In accordance with section 102(a)(4)(C) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (103 Stat. 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3545(a)(4)(C)), the Department is publishing the awardees and the amounts of the awards in Appendices A thru Q of this document.
Office of Policy Development and Research, Chief Data Officer, HUD.
Notice.
HUD is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, HUD is requesting comment from all interested parties on the proposed collection of information. The purpose of this notice is to allow for an additional 30 days of public comment.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments regarding this proposal. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Anna P. Guido, Reports Management Officer, REE, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 8210, Washington, DC 20410; email:
This notice informs the public that HUD is seeking approval from OMB for the information collection described in Section A.
The
The goal of this research is to improve disaster recovery effectiveness for renter households by examining the disaster recovery outcomes of renter households and rental housing stock in places that received Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery grants (CDBG-DR). This research is expected to help the Federal government, states, and communities throughout the United States improve disaster recovery effectiveness for renter households by
This
This notice is soliciting comments from members of the public and affected parties concerning the collection of information described in Section A on the following:
(1) Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) The accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information;
(3) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond; including through the use of appropriate automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(5) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. HUD encourages interested parties to submit comments in response to these questions.
Section 3507 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35.
Office of Single-Family Housing, Office of Housing, HUD.
Notice of a modified system of records.
HUD Single Family Asset Management relies on the Single-Family Mortgage Asset Recovery Technology (SMART) System to provide various loan servicing functions including generating payoffs and processing payments for HUD FHA Insured Title II Secretary held loans. Pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Office of Single-Family Housing, is modifying system of records, the Single-Family Mortgage Asset Recovery Technology (SMART) System. The modification will clarify the categories of system location, system manager, authority for maintenance, purpose of the system, record source categories, routine uses of records maintained in the system, storage, retention and disposal, safeguards.
Comments will be accepted on or before March 21, 2024. This proposed action will be effective on the date following the end of the comment period unless comments are received which result in a contrary determination.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number or by one of the following methods:
LaDonne White 451 Seventh Street SW, Room 10139; Washington, DC 20410-
HUD Single Family Asset Management relies on the Single-Family Asset Recovery Technology (SMART) System to provide various loan servicing functions including generating payoffs and processing for HUD FHA Insured Title II forward Secretary held loans. HUD is publishing this revised notice to update system location, manager, purpose, categories, routine uses, storage, retention and disposal, safeguards to mirror updated information in the sections being modified. The revision of system records will have no unnecessary impact on the individual's privacy and updates follow the records collected.
1. Location—Added the new location of backup records.
2. System Manager—Identified the new system manager operating this system of records.
3. Purpose—Expanded to include detailed loan servicing information.
4. Record Source Categories—Updated to cover all electronic and manual record sources for internal and external systems to HUD.
5. Routine Uses—Amended to cover routine uses that are new, modified or removed.
a. Added Routine Use (1) to address disclosures to the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services, to review administrative agency policies, procedures in compliance with FOIA and to facilitate the resolution of disputes between individuals making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
b. Added Routine Use (2) for disclosures made to congressional office from the record of an individual, in response to an inquiry from the congressional office completed at the request of that individual.
c. Added Routine Use (3) to cover contractors who require access to the system in order to perform an agency function.
d. Added Routine Use (4) to address disclosures for Federal agencies, non-Federal entities, their employees, agents (including contractors, their agents, or employees) for detecting, preventing improper payments, fraud, waste, and abuse in Federal programs.
e. Added Routine Use (5) for disclosures made to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, Federal agencies, and non-Federal entities conducting research and statistical analysis on HUD programs.
f. Added Routine Use (6) to cover disclosures related to using new technology including system designs to improve overall program performance.
g. Added Routine Use (7) and (8) for disclosures made to agencies, entities, and persons to assist HUD in responding to alleged or confirmed breaches of system records or other Federal agencies where HUD determines information from system records is needed to assist the agency in responding to an alleged or confirmed breach.
h. Added Routine Use (9) to address disclosures to Federal, State, local, tribal, or other governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations in authority of investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a criminal or civil statue, rule, regulation, order, or license.
i. Added Routine Use (10) covering disclosures related to any area of the Department of Justice or other Federal agency overseeing litigation or related proceedings.
j. Previously published Routine Uses (a) and (b) have been renumbered to (11) and (12), but otherwise remain unchanged.
k. Added a note to allow for disclosures pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(12) to cover consumer reporting agency related disclosures on attempts of the agency to collect claims owed on behalf of the government.
6. Storage—Simplified the information regarding storage.
7. Retention and Disposal—Added additional disposition details.
8. Safeguards—Included more detail on updates to safeguard procedures.
Single-Family Mortgage Asset Recovery Technology (SMART), HUD/HOU-58.
Unclassified.
Digital records are maintained at the Amazon Web Services (AWS) Simple Technology Solutions Inc, 1775 I Street NW, Suite 1150, Washington, DC 2006-2402. Active paper records are kept at ISN Corporation, 2000 N Classen Blvd., Suite 3200, Oklahoma City, OK 73106.
Office of Single-Family Housing, Julia Rogers, Director, National Servicing Center, 301 NW 6th Street, Suite 200, Oklahoma City, OK 73102, Telephone Number (405) 609-8414.
The Housing and Community Development Act of 1987, 42 U.S.C. 3543(a); Sec. 204, National Housing Act, 12 U.S.C. 1710(a). 42 U.S. Code 3543.
The Single Family Mortgage Asset Recovery Technology (SMART) System is a specialized servicing web-application that is used to service and track servicing activities for the Secretary Held portfolio including 235 insured, Asset Control Area Program (ACA), Emergency Home Loan Program (EHLP), Good Neighbor Next Door Program (GNND), Hope for Homeowners (H4H), Nehemiah Program, Partial Claim (PC), Purchase Money Mortgage (PMM). SMART provides automated business processes to perform comprehensive loan servicing for loan programs that are under the jurisdiction of the National Servicing Center.
Mortgagors.
Full Name, Social Security Number, Date of Birth, Email work Address, Financial Information, Home Address, Phone Number, Spouse Name, Lender Loan Number, FHA Case Number.
Records are initiated from HUD employees and their contractors. Information is also received from Single Family Insurance System (CLAIMS Subsystem), Asset Disposition and Management System, HUD FHA Resource Center Customer Relationship Management System (CRM).
(1) To the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures and compliance with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
(2) To a congressional office from the record of an individual, in response to
(3) To contractors, grantees, experts, consultants and their agents, or others performing or working under a contract, service, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement with HUD, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to a system of records. Disclosure requirements are limited to only those data elements considered relevant to accomplishing an agency function.
(4) To Federal agencies, non-Federal entities, their employees, and agents (including contractors, their agents or employees; employees or contractors of the agents or designated agents); or contractors, their employees or agents with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, grant, cooperative agreement, or computer matching agreement for the purpose of: (1) detection, prevention, and recovery of improper payments; (2) detection and prevention of fraud, waste, and abuse in major Federal programs administered by a Federal agency or non-Federal entity; (3) detection of fraud, waste, and abuse by individuals in their operations and programs; or (4) for the purpose of establishing or verifying the eligibility of, or continuing compliance with statutory and regulatory requirements by, applicants for, recipients or beneficiaries of, participants in, or providers of services with respect to, cash or in-kind assistance or payments under Federal benefits programs or recouping payments or delinquent debts under such Federal benefits programs. Records under this routine use may be disclosed only to the extent that the information shared is necessary and relevant to verify pre-award and prepayment requirements prior to the release of Federal funds, prevent and recover improper payments for services rendered under programs of HUD or of those Federal agencies and non-Federal entities to which HUD provides information under this routine use.
(5) contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, Federal agencies, and non-Federal entities, including, but not limited to, State and local governments and other research institutions or their parties, and entities and their agents with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement for the purposes of statistical analysis and research in support of program operations, management, performance monitoring, evaluation, risk management, and policy development, to otherwise support the Department's mission, or for other research and statistical purposes not otherwise prohibited by law or regulation. Records under this routine use may not be used in whole or in part to make decisions that affect the rights, benefits, or privileges of specific individuals. The results of the matched information may not be disclosed in identifiable form.
(6) To contractors, experts, and consultants with whom HUD has a contract, service agreement, assignment, or other agreement, when necessary, to utilize relevant data for the purpose of testing new technology and systems designed to enhance program operations and performance.
(7) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) HUD suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) HUD has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, HUD, 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 HUD's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(8) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when HUD 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.
(9) To appropriate Federal, State, local, tribal, or other governmental agencies or multilateral governmental organizations responsible for investigating or prosecuting the violations of, or for enforcing or implementing, a statute, rule, regulation, order, or license, where HUD determines that the information would assist in the enforcement of civil or criminal laws and when such records, either alone or in conjunction with other information, indicate a violation or potential violation of law.
(10) To any component of the Department of Justice or other Federal agency conducting litigation or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative, or administrative body, when HUD determines that the use of such records is relevant and necessary to the litigation and when any of the following is a party to the litigation or have an interest in such litigation: (1) HUD, or any component thereof; or (2) any HUD employee in his or her official capacity; or (3) any HUD employee in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or agency conducting the litigation has agreed to represent the employee; or (4) the United States, or any agency thereof, where HUD determines that litigation is likely to affect HUD or any of its components.
(11) To the U.S. Treasury for disbursements and adjustments.
(12) To the IRS for reporting of discharge indebtedness.
Electronic and paper records.
Records are retrieved by mortgagor name, FHA Case Number, or property address.
In accordance with HUD records disposition schedule 2225.6, Appendix 20. records are destroyed upon successful creation of the final document or file, or when no longer needed for business use, whichever is later. Backup and recovery digital media will be destroyed or otherwise rendered irrecoverable per NIST SP 800-88 “Guidelines for Media Sanitization.” GRS 5.2, Item 20, DAA-GRS2017-0003-0002. Temporary. Destroy upon verification of successful creation of the final document or file, or when no longer needed for business use, whichever is later.
Individuals requesting records of themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing Urban and Development 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001. For verification, individuals should provide their full name, current address, and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4.
The HUD rule for contesting the content of any record pertaining to the individual by the individual concerned is published in 24 CFR 16.8 or may be obtained from the system manager.
Individuals requesting notification of records of themselves should address written inquiries to the Department of Housing Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20410-0001. For verification purposes, individuals should provide their full name, office or organization where assigned, if applicable, and current address and telephone number. In addition, the requester must provide either a notarized statement or an unsworn declaration made under 24 CFR 16.4.
None.
Docket No. FR-5386-N-05, 75 FR 34755, June 18, 2010.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of initiation of reviews; correction.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a notice in the
We are requesting submission of new information no later than February 26, 2024.
Beth Forbus, by telephone at 505-248-6681 or by email at
On January 25, 2024, we, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, published a notice initiating 5-year status reviews of 22 species in the Southwest under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
In the
1. On page 4967, in the first row of the table, replace the telephone number in the “Contact person, phone, email” entry with “512-937-7371”.
2. On page 4967, in the first row of the table, replace the entire “Contact person's U.S. mail address” entry with “U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Austin Ecological Services Office, 1505 Ferguson Lane, Austin, TX 78754.”.
3. On page 4968, in the “Whooping crane” entry in the table, in the “Listing status” column, replace “Threatened” with “Endangered”.
Geological Survey, Department of the Interior.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act of 1972 (FACA), the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is publishing this notice to announce that a Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the National Geospatial Advisory Committee (NGAC) will take place and is open to members of the public.
The meeting will be held on Tuesday, April 2, 2024, from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; Wednesday, April 3, 2024, from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.; and on Thursday, April 4, 2024, from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
The meeting will be held in the South Penthouse Conference Room of the Department of the Interior Building, located at 1849 C Street NW, Washington, DC Members of the public may attend the meeting in person or can attend via webinar. Instructions for registration to attend the meeting will be posted at
Mr. Josh Delmonico, Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), USGS, by mail at 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive, MS 590, Reston, VA 20192; by email at
This meeting is being held under the provisions of the FACA (5 U.S.C. ch. 10), the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended), and 41 CFR part 102-3.
Agenda Topics:
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.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personally identifiable information (PII) in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your PII—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your PII from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has received a complaint regarding
Lisa R. Barton, Secretary to the Commission, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2000. The public version of the complaint can be accessed on the Commission's Electronic Document Information System (EDIS) at
General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server at United States International Trade Commission (USITC) at
The Commission has received a complaint and a submission pursuant to § 210.8(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure filed on behalf of CMC Great USA, Inc.; CMI USA, Inc.; and Cooler Master Co., Ltd. on February 14, 2024. The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1337) in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain liquid coolers for electronic components in computers, components thereof, devices for controlling same, and products containing same. The complaint names as respondents: SilverStone Technology Co., Ltd. of Taiwan; SilverStone Technology, Inc. of Chino, CA; Enermax Technology Corp. of Taiwan; Enermax USA of Chino, CA; Shenzhen Apaltek Co., Ltd. of China; and Guangdong Apaltek Liquid Cooling Technology Co., Ltd. of China. The complainant requests that the Commission issue a limited exclusion order, cease and desist orders, and impose a bond upon respondent alleged infringing articles during the 60-day Presidential review period pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(j).
Proposed respondents, other interested parties, and members of the public are invited to file comments on any public interest issues raised by the complaint or § 210.8(b) filing. Comments should address whether issuance of the relief specifically requested by the complainant in this investigation would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the requested remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the requested remedial orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the requested exclusion order and/or a cease and desist order within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the requested remedial orders would impact United States consumers.
Written submissions on the public interest must be filed no later than by close of business, eight calendar days after the date of publication of this notice in the
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. Submissions should refer to the docket number (“Docket No. 3723”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment. All such requests should be directed to the Secretary to the Commission and must include a full statement of the reasons why the Commission should grant such treatment.
This action is taken under the authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and of §§ 201.10 and 210.8(c) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 201.10, 210.8(c)).
By order of the Commission.
Federal Bureau of Investigation, Department of Justice.
60-Day notice.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Department of Justice (DOJ), will be submitting the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until April 22, 2024.
If you have additional comments especially on the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions or additional information, please contact Edward L. Abraham, Crime and Law Enforcement Statistics Unit Chief, FBI, CJIS Division, Module D-1, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306;
Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
The time per response is 2 minutes to complete the survey.
6.
7.
If additional information is required contact: Darwin Arceo, Department Clearance Officer, United States Department of Justice, Justice Management Division, Policy and Planning Staff, Two Constitution Square, 145 N Street NE, 4W-218, Washington, DC.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub., L. 92-463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces the following meeting:
Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO), National Science Foundation.
Request for information.
Pursuant to the
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before 11:59 p.m. (ET) on March 21, 2024.
Comments submitted in response to this RFI may be sent by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Mallory Hinks at
The National Spectrum Strategy (Strategy), November 13, 2023, Strategic Objective 3.2 directs the U.S. Government, through the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and in coordination with the Federal agencies, to develop a National Spectrum Research and Development Plan (R&D Plan). The R&D Plan will act as an organizing national document, providing guidance for government investments in spectrum-related research and offering valuable insights. The plan will identify key innovation areas for spectrum research and development and will include a process to refine and enhance these areas on an ongoing basis.
OSTP has tasked the NITRD Wireless Spectrum Research and Development Interagency Working Group (WSRD IWG) to draft and coordinate development of the National Spectrum R&D Plan. The R&D Plan is expected to be released in late 2024. Revisions will occur periodically.
The NITRD WSRD IWG requests input from the public, including academia and industry, to assist in development of the National Spectrum R&D Plan.
1. Recommendations on strategies for conducting spectrum research in a manner that minimizes unnecessary duplication, ensures that all essential spectrum research areas are sufficiently explored, and achieves measurable advancements in state-of-the-art spectrum science and engineering. This includes, but is not limited to, the following:
2. Recommended priority areas for spectrum research and development, as well as productive directions for advancing the state-of-the-art in those areas. Areas of interest include, but are not limited to, the following:
Topics relevant to each of the above include, but are not limited to, the following:
3. Recommendations on grand challenge problems for spectrum R&D. Grand challenges are selected research problems that if attacked will help motivate and coalesce R&D efforts. Such problems have the following characteristics:
4. Recommendations on spectrum R&D accelerators such as the following:
5. Recommendations on near-term Federal activities to make progress towards anything identified in responses 1-4.
6. Recommendations on a process to refine and enhance the R&D plan on an ongoing basis.
7. Terminology and definitions relevant for spectrum R&D.
8. Other topics.
•
•
Submitted by the National Science Foundation in support of the Networking and Information Technology Research and Development (NITRD) National Coordination Office (NCO) on February 14, 2024.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Monthly notice.
Pursuant to section 189.a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is publishing this regular monthly notice. The Act requires the Commission to publish notice of any amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, and grants the Commission the authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an operating license or combined license, as applicable, upon a determination by the Commission that such amendment involves no significant hazards consideration (NSHC), notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a hearing from any person.
Comments must be filed by March 21, 2024. A request for a hearing or petitions for leave to intervene must be filed by April 22, 2024. This monthly notice includes all amendments issued, or proposed to be issued, from January 5, 2024, to February 1, 2024. The last monthly notice was published on January 23, 2024.
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
Karen Zeleznock, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-1118; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0042, facility name, unit number(s), docket number(s), application date, and subject 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.
For the facility-specific amendment requests shown in this notice, the Commission finds that the licensees' analyses provided, consistent with section 50.91 of title 10 of
The Commission is seeking public comments on these proposed determinations. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice will be considered in making any final determinations.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendments until the expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The Commission may issue any of these license amendments before expiration of the 60-day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment involves NSHC. In addition, the Commission may issue any of these amendments prior to the expiration of the 30-day comment period if circumstances change during the 30-day comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result, for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. If the Commission takes action on any of these amendments prior to the expiration of either the comment period or the notice period, it will publish in
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by any of these actions may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to that 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 a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the Commission or a presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a 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).
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, which will serve to establish when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration, the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final determination is that the amendment request involves a significant hazards consideration, then any hearing held would take place before the issuance of the amendment unless the Commission finds an imminent danger to the health or safety of the public, in which case it will issue an appropriate order or rule under 10 CFR part 2.
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian 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 Indian 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 Indian 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
The following table provides the plant name, docket number, date of application, ADAMS accession number, and location in the application of the licensees' proposed NSHC determinations. For further details with respect to these license amendment applications, see the applications for amendment, which are available for public inspection in ADAMS. For additional direction on accessing information related to this document, see the “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” section of this document.
During the period since publication of the last monthly notice, the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has determined for each of these amendments that the application complies with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR chapter I, which are set forth in the license amendment.
A notice of consideration of issuance of amendment to facility operating license or combined license, as applicable, proposed NSHC determination, and opportunity for a hearing in connection with these actions, were published in the
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in 10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment, it is so indicated in the safety evaluation for the amendment.
For further details with respect to each action, see the amendment and associated documents such as the Commission's letter and safety evaluation, which may be obtained using the ADAMS accession numbers indicated in the following table. The safety evaluation will provide the ADAMS accession numbers for the application for amendment and the
The following notice was previously published as separate individual notice. It was published as an individual notice either because time did not allow the Commission to wait for this monthly notice or because the action involved exigent circumstances. It is repeated here because the monthly notice lists all amendments issued or proposed to be issued involving NSHC.
For details, including the applicable notice period, see the individual notice in the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Weeks of February 19, 26, and March 4, 11, 18, 25, 2024. The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short notice. The NRC Commission Meeting Schedule can be found on the internet at:
The NRC provides reasonable accommodation to individuals with disabilities where appropriate. If you need a reasonable accommodation to participate in these public meetings or need this meeting notice or the transcript or other information from the public meetings in another format (
Public and closed.
Members of the public may request to receive the information in these notices electronically. If you would like to be added to the distribution, please contact the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of the Secretary, Washington, DC 20555, at 301-415-1969, or by email at
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of February 26, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 4, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 11, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 18, 2024.
There are no meetings scheduled for the week of March 25, 2024.
For more information or to verify the status of meetings, contact Wesley Held at 301-287-3591 or via email at
The NRC is holding the meetings under the authority of the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing an extension to a currently approved information collection, OMB Control Number, 3206-0143: Request to Disability Annuitant for Information on Physical Condition and Employment, RI 30-1.
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 21, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to this information collection activity, please contact: Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
OPM, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Agency assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Agency's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. OPM is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Agency is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) whether this collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Agency; (2) whether this information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the burden estimate; (4) ways the Agency can enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) ways the Agency can minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Personnel Management.
30-Day notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is proposing an extension to a currently approved information collection, OMB Control Number, 3206-0128: SF 2802 (Application for Refund of Retirement Deductions: CSRS) and SF 2802A (Notification of Application for Refund of Retirement Deductions Under CSRS).
Comments are encouraged and will be accepted until March 21, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for proposed information collection requests should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
For specific questions related to this information collection activity, please contact: Retirement Services Publications Team, Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street NW, Room 3316-L, Washington, DC 20415, Attention: Cyrus S. Benson, or sent via electronic mail to
OPM, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Agency assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Agency's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. OPM is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Agency is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) whether this collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Agency; (2) whether this information will be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) the accuracy of the burden estimate; (4) ways the Agency can enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) ways the Agency can minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Pearl Options Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to amend fees for MIAX Express Network (“MEO”)
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for Purge Ports, which is a function enabling the Exchange's two types of Members,
The Exchange initially filed the proposal on September 29, 2023 (SR-PEARL-2023-52) (the “Initial Proposal”).
The Exchange is including a cost analysis in this filing to justify the proposed fees. As described more fully below, the cost analysis includes, among other things, descriptions of how the Exchange allocated costs among it and its affiliated exchanges for similar proposed fee changes (separately between MIAX
Unlike other options exchanges that charge fees for Purge Ports on a per port basis,
The Exchange now proposes to amend the fee for Purge Ports to align more closely with other exchanges who charge on a per port basis by providing two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for a monthly flat fee of $600 per month per Matching Engine. The only difference with a per port structure is that Members receive two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for the same proposed monthly fee, rather than being charged a separate fee for each Purge Port. The Exchange proposes to charge the proposed fee for Purge Ports per Matching Engine, instead on a per Purge Port basis, due to its System architecture which provides two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for redundancy purposes. In addition, the proposed fee is lower than the comparable fee charged by competing exchanges that also charge on a per port basis, notwithstanding that the Exchange is providing up to two (2) Purge Ports for that same lower fee.
Similar to a per port charge, Members are able to select the Matching Engines that they want to connect to,
A logical port represents a port established by the Exchange within the Exchange's System for trading and billing purposes. Each logical port grants a Member the ability to accomplish a specific function, such as order entry, order cancellation, access to execution reports, and other administrative information.
Purge Ports are designed to assist Members
The Exchange operates highly performant systems with significant throughput and determinism which allows participants to enter, update and cancel orders at high rates. Members may currently cancel individual orders through the existing functionality, such as through the use of a mass cancel message by which a Market Maker may request that the Exchange remove all or a subset of its quotations and block all or a subset of its new inbound quotations.
Similarly, Members may also use cancel-on-disconnect control when they experience a disruption in connection to the Exchange to automatically cancel all orders, as configured or instructed by the Member or Market Maker.
The Exchange believes that market participants benefit from a dedicated purge mechanism for specific Members and to the market as a whole. Members will have the benefit of efficient risk
The proposed fees are effective beginning February 1, 2024.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In general, the Exchange believes that exchanges, in setting fees of all types, should meet very high standards of transparency to demonstrate why each new fee or fee increase meets the Exchange Act requirements that fees be reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not create an undue burden on competition among members and markets. In particular, the Exchange believes that each exchange should take extra care to be able to demonstrate that these fees are based on its costs and reasonable business needs.
In proposing to charge fees for port services, the Exchange is especially diligent in assessing those fees in a transparent way against its own aggregate costs of providing the related service, and in carefully and transparently assessing the impact on Members—both generally and in relation to other Members,
As detailed below, the Exchange recently calculated its aggregate annual costs for providing Purge Ports to be $1,017,523 (or approximately $84,793 per month, rounded to the nearest dollar when dividing the annual cost by 12 months). In order to cover the aggregate costs of providing Purge Ports to its Market Makers going forward and to make a modest profit, as described below, the Exchange proposes to modify its Fee Schedule to charge a fee of $300 per Matching Engine for Purge Ports.
In 2019, the Exchange completed a study of its aggregate costs to produce market data and connectivity (the “Cost Analysis”).
As an initial step, the Exchange determined the total cost for the Exchange and the affiliated markets for each cost driver as part of its 2024 budget review process. The 2024 budget review is a company-wide process that occurs over the course of many months, includes meetings among senior management, department heads, and the Finance Team. Each department head is required to send a “bottom up” budget to the Finance Team allocating costs at the profit and loss account and vendor levels for the Exchange and its affiliated markets based on a number of factors, including server counts, additional hardware and software utilization, current or anticipated functional or non-functional development projects, capacity needs, end-of-life or end-of-service intervals, number of members, market model (
The next step involves determining what portion of the cost allocated to the Exchange pursuant to the above methodology is to be allocated to each core service,
This next level of the allocation methodology at the individual exchange level also took into account factors similar to those set forth under the first step of the allocation methodology process described above, to determine the appropriate allocation to connectivity or market data versus allocations for other services. This allocation methodology was developed through an assessment of costs with senior management intimately familiar with each area of the Exchange's operations. After adopting this allocation methodology, the Exchange then applied an allocation of each cost driver to each core service, resulting in the cost allocations described below. Each of the below cost allocations is unique to the Exchange and represents a percentage of overall cost that was allocated to the Exchange pursuant to the initial allocation described above.
By allocating segmented costs to each core service, the Exchange was able to estimate by core service the potential margin it might earn based on different fee models. The Exchange notes that as a non-listing venue it has five primary sources of revenue that it can potentially use to fund its operations: transaction fees, fees for connectivity and port services, membership fees, regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the Exchange must cover its expenses from these five primary sources of revenue. The Exchange also notes that as a general matter each of these sources of revenue is based on services that are interdependent. For instance, the Exchange's system for executing transactions is dependent on physical hardware and connectivity; only Members and parties that they sponsor to participate directly on the Exchange may submit orders to the Exchange; many Members (but not all) consume market data from the Exchange in order to trade on the Exchange; and, the Exchange consumes market data from external sources in order to comply with regulatory obligations. Accordingly, given this interdependence, the allocation of costs to each service or revenue source required judgment of the Exchange and was weighted based on estimates of the Exchange that the Exchange believes are reasonable, as set forth below. While there is no standardized and generally accepted methodology for the allocation of an exchange's costs, the Exchange's methodology is the result of an extensive review and analysis and will be consistently applied going forward for any other potential fee proposals. In the absence of the Commission attempting to specify a methodology for the allocation of exchanges' interdependent costs, the Exchange will continue to be left with its best efforts to attempt to conduct such an allocation in a thoughtful and reasonable manner.
Through the Exchange's extensive updated Cost Analysis, which was again recently further refined, the Exchange analyzed every expense item in the Exchange's general expense ledger to determine whether each such expense relates to the provision of connectivity and port services, and, if such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports the provision of Purge Port services, and thus bears a relationship that is, “in nature and closeness,” directly related to Purge Port services. In turn, the Exchange allocated certain costs more to physical connectivity and others to ports, while certain costs were only allocated to such services at a very low percentage or not at all, using consistent allocation methodologies as described above. Based on this analysis, the Exchange estimates that the aggregate monthly cost to provide Purge Port services is $84,793, as further detailed below.
The following chart details the individual line-item costs considered by the Exchange to be related to offering Purge Ports as well as the percentage of the Exchange's overall costs that such costs represent for each cost driver (
Below are additional details regarding each of the line-item costs considered by the Exchange to be related to offering Purge Ports. While some costs were attempted to be allocated as equally as possible among the Exchange and its affiliated markets, the Exchange notes that some of its cost allocation percentages for certain cost drivers differ when compared to the same cost drivers for the Exchange's affiliated markets in their similar proposed fee changes for Purge Ports. This is because the Exchange's cost allocation methodology utilizes the actual
The Exchange notes that it and its affiliated markets anticipate that by year-end 2024, there will be 289 employees (excluding employees at non-options/equities exchange subsidiaries of Miami International Holdings, Inc. (“MIH”), the holding company of the Exchange and its affiliated markets), and each department leader has direct knowledge of the time spent by each employee with respect to the various tasks necessary to operate the Exchange. Specifically, twice a year, and as needed with additional new hires and new project initiatives, in consultation with employees as needed, managers and department heads assign a percentage of time to every employee and then allocate that time amongst the Exchange and its affiliated markets to determine each market's individual Human Resources expense. Then, managers and department heads assign a percentage of each employee's time allocated to the Exchange into buckets including network connectivity, ports, market data, and other exchange services. This process ensures that every employee is 100% allocated, ensuring there is no double counting between the Exchange and its affiliated markets.
For personnel costs (Human Resources), the Exchange calculated an allocation of employee time for employees whose functions include providing and maintaining Purge Ports and performance thereof (primarily the Exchange's network infrastructure team, which spends most of their time performing functions necessary to provide port and connectivity services). As described more fully above, the Exchange's parent company allocates costs to the Exchange and its affiliated markets and then a portion of the Human Resources costs allocated to the Exchange is then allocated to port services. From that portion allocated to the Exchange that applied to ports, the Exchange then allocated a weighted average of 5.4% of each employee's time from the above group to Purge Ports.
The Exchange also allocated Human Resources costs to provide Purge Ports to a limited subset of personnel with ancillary functions related to establishing and maintaining such ports (such as information security, sales, membership, and finance personnel). The Exchange allocated cost on an employee-by-employee basis (
The estimates of Human Resources cost were therefore determined by consulting with such department leaders, determining which employees are involved in tasks related to providing Purge Ports, and confirming that the proposed allocations were reasonable based on an understanding of the percentage of time such employees devote to those tasks. This includes personnel from the Exchange departments that are predominately involved in providing Purge Ports: Business Systems Development, Trading Systems Development, Systems Operations and Network Monitoring, Network and Data Center Operations, Listings, Trading Operations, and Project Management. Again, the Exchange allocated 5.4% of each of their employee's time assigned to the Exchange for Purge Ports, as stated above. Employees from these departments perform numerous functions to support Purge Ports, such as the installation, re-location, configuration, and maintenance of Purge Ports and the hardware they access. This hardware includes servers, routers, switches, firewalls, and monitoring devices. These employees also perform software upgrades, vulnerability assessments, remediation and patch installs, equipment configuration and hardening, as well as performance and capacity management. These employees also engage in research and development analysis for equipment and software supporting Purge Ports and design, and support the development and on-going maintenance of internally-developed applications as well as data capture and analysis, and Member and internal Exchange reports related to network and system performance. The above list of employee functions is not exhaustive of all the functions performed by Exchange employees to support Purge Ports, but illustrates the breath of functions those employees perform in support of the above cost and time allocations.
Lastly, the Exchange notes that senior level executives' time was only allocated to the Purge Ports related Human Resources costs to the extent that they are involved in overseeing tasks related to providing Purge Ports. The Human Resources cost was calculated using a blended rate of compensation reflecting salary, equity and bonus compensation, benefits, payroll taxes, and 401(k) matching contributions.
The Connectivity cost driver includes external fees paid to connect to other exchanges and third parties, cabling and switches required to operate the Exchange. The Connectivity cost driver is more narrowly focused on technology used to complete connections to the Exchange and to connect to external markets. The Exchange notes that its connectivity to external markets vendors is required in order to receive market data to run the Exchange's matching engine and basic operations compliant with existing regulations, primarily Regulation NMS.
The Exchange relies on various connectivity providers for connectivity to the entire U.S. options industry, and infrastructure services for critical components of the network that are necessary to provide and maintain its System Networks and access to its System Networks via 10Gb ULL connectivity. Specifically, the Exchange utilizes connectivity providers to connect to other national securities exchanges and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”). The Exchange understands that these service providers provide services to most, if not all, of the other U.S. exchanges and other market participants. Connectivity provided by these service providers is critical to the Exchanges daily operations and performance of its System Networks which includes Purge Ports. Without these services providers, the Exchange would not be able to connect to other national securities exchanges, market data providers or OPRA and, therefore, would not be able to operate and support its System Networks, including Purge Ports. In addition, the connectivity is necessary for the Exchange to notify OPRA and other market participants that an order has been cancelled, and that quotes may have been cancelled as a result of a Member purging quotes via their Purge Port. Also, like other types of ports
The next cost driver consists of internet services and external market data. Internet services includes third-party service providers that provide the internet, fiber and bandwidth connections between the Exchange's networks, primary and secondary data centers, and office locations in Princeton and Miami. For purposes of Purge Ports, the Exchange also includes a portion of its costs related to external market data. External market data includes fees paid to third parties, including OPRA, to receive and consume market data from other markets. The Exchange includes external market data costs towards Purge Ports because such market data is necessary to offer certain services related to such ports, such as checking for market conditions (
For the reasons set forth above, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate a small amount of such costs to Purge Ports since market data from other exchanges is consumed at the Exchange's Purge Port level to validate purge messages and the necessity to cancel a resting quote via a purge message or via some other means.
Data Center costs includes an allocation of the costs the Exchange incurs to provide Purge Ports in the third-party data centers where it maintains its equipment as well as related costs for market data to then enter the Exchange's system (the Exchange does not own the Primary Data Center or the Secondary Data Center, but instead, leases space in data centers operated by third parties).
Hardware and Software Licenses includes hardware and software licenses used to operate and monitor physical assets necessary to offer Purge Ports for each Matching Engine of the Exchange.
The vast majority of the software the Exchange uses to provide Ports has been developed in-house and the cost of such development, which takes place over an extended period of time and includes not just development work, but also quality assurance and testing to ensure the software works as intended, is depreciated over time once the software is activated in the production environment. Hardware used to provide Purge Ports includes equipment used for testing and monitoring of order entry infrastructure and other physical equipment the Exchange purchased and is also depreciated over time.
All hardware and software, which also includes assets used for testing and monitoring of order entry infrastructure, were valued at cost, depreciated or leased over periods ranging from three to five years. Thus, the depreciation cost primarily relates to servers necessary to operate the Exchange, some of which is owned by the Exchange and some of which is leased by the Exchange in order to allow efficient periodic technology refreshes. The Exchange allocated 1.9% of all depreciation costs to providing Purge Ports. The Exchange allocated depreciation costs for depreciated software necessary to operate the Exchange because such software is related to the provision of Purge Ports. As with the other allocated costs in the Exchange's updated Cost Analysis, the Depreciation cost driver was therefore narrowly tailored to depreciation related to Purge Ports.
Finally, a portion of general shared expenses was allocated to overall Purge Port costs as without these general shared costs the Exchange would not be able to operate in the manner that it does and provide Purge Ports. The costs included in general shared expenses include general expenses of the Exchange, including office space and office expenses (
Based on projected 2024 data, the total monthly cost allocated to Purge Ports of $84,793 was divided by the total number of Matching Engines in which Market Makers used Purge Ports for the month of December 2023, which was 142, resulting in an approximate cost of $597 per Matching Engine per month for Purge Port usage (when rounding to the nearest dollar). The Exchange notes that the flat fee of $600 per month per Matching Engine entitles each Market Maker to two Purge Ports per Matching Engine. The majority of Market Makers are connected to all twenty-four of the Exchange's Matching Engines and utilize Purge Ports on each Matching Engine, except one Market Maker, which only utilizes Purge Ports on three Matching Engines.
In conducting its Cost Analysis, the Exchange did not allocate any of its expenses in full to any core services (including Purge Ports) and did not double-count any expenses. Instead, as described above, the Exchange allocated applicable cost drivers across its core services and used the same Cost Analysis to form the basis of this proposal. For instance, in calculating the Human Resources expenses to be allocated to Purge Ports based upon the above described methodology, the Exchange has a team of employees dedicated to network infrastructure and with respect to such employees the Exchange allocated network infrastructure personnel with a higher percentage of the cost of such personnel (19.3%) given their focus on functions necessary to provide Ports. The salaries of those same personnel were allocated only 5.4% to Purge Ports and the remaining 94.6% was allocated to connectivity, other port services, transaction services, membership
In total, the Exchange allocated 3.5% of its personnel costs to providing Purge Ports. In turn, the Exchange allocated the remaining 96.5% of its Human Resources expense to membership services, transaction services, connectivity services, other port services and market data. Thus, again, the Exchange's allocations of cost across core services were based on real costs of operating the Exchange and were not double-counted across the core services or their associated revenue streams.
As another example, the Exchange allocated depreciation expense to all core services, including Purge Ports, but in different amounts. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of such expense because such expense includes the actual cost of the computer equipment, such as dedicated servers, computers, laptops, monitors, information security appliances and storage, and network switching infrastructure equipment, including switches and taps that were purchased to operate and support the network. Without this equipment, the Exchange would not be able to operate the network and provide Purge Port services to its Market Makers. However, the Exchange did not allocate all of the depreciation and amortization expense toward the cost of providing Purge Port services, but instead allocated approximately 1.7% of the Exchange's overall depreciation and amortization expense to Purge Ports. The Exchange allocated the remaining depreciation and amortization expense (approximately 98.3%) toward the cost of providing transaction services, membership services, connectivity services, other port services, and market data.
The Exchange notes that its revenue estimates are based on projections across all potential revenue streams and will only be realized to the extent such revenue streams actually produce the revenue estimated. The Exchange does not yet know whether such expectations will be realized. For instance, in order to generate the revenue expected from Purge Ports, the Exchange will have to be successful in retaining existing Market Makers that wish to maintain Purge Ports or in obtaining new Market Makers that will purchase such services. Similarly, the Exchange will have to be successful in retaining a positive net capture on transaction fees in order to realize the anticipated revenue from transaction pricing.
The Exchange notes that the Cost Analysis is based on the Exchange's 2024 fiscal year of operations and projections. It is possible, however, that actual costs may be higher or lower. To the extent the Exchange sees growth in use of connectivity services it will receive additional revenue to offset future cost increases. However, if use of port services is static or decreases, the Exchange might not realize the revenue that it anticipates or needs in order to cover applicable costs. Accordingly, the Exchange is committing to conduct a one-year review after implementation of these fees. The Exchange expects that it may propose to adjust fees at that time, to increase fees in the event that revenues fail to cover costs and a reasonable mark-up of such costs. Similarly, the Exchange may propose to decrease fees in the event that revenue materially exceeds our current projections. In addition, the Exchange will periodically conduct a review to inform its decision making on whether a fee change is appropriate (
The proposed fees will allow the Exchange to cover certain costs incurred by the Exchange associated with providing and maintaining necessary hardware and other network infrastructure as well as network monitoring and support services; without such hardware, infrastructure, monitoring and support the Exchange would be unable to provide port services. Much of the cost relates to monitoring and analysis of data and performance of the network via the subscriber's connection(s). The above cost, namely those associated with hardware, software, and human capital, enable the Exchange to measure network performance with nanosecond granularity. These same costs are also associated with time and money spent seeking to continuously improve the network performance, improving the subscriber's experience, based on monitoring and analysis activity. The Exchange routinely works to improve the performance of the network's hardware and software. The costs associated with maintaining and enhancing a state-of-the-art exchange network is a significant expense for the Exchange, and thus the Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to help offset those costs by amending fees for Purge Port services. Subscribers, particularly those of Purge Ports, expect the Exchange to provide this level of support so they continue to receive the performance they expect. This differentiates the Exchange from its competitors. As detailed above, the Exchange has five primary sources of revenue that it can potentially use to fund its operations: transaction fees, fees for connectivity services (connections and ports), membership and regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the Exchange must cover its expenses from these five primary sources of revenue.
The Exchange's Cost Analysis estimates the annual cost to provide Purge Port services will equal $1,017,523. Based on current Purge Port services usage, the Exchange would generate annual revenue of approximately $1,029,600. The Exchange believes this represents a modest profit of 1.2% when compared to the cost of providing Purge Port services, which could decrease over time.
Based on the above discussion, the Exchange believes that even if the Exchange earns the above revenue or
The Exchange further supports the proposed fee change based on a recent 2023 proposal filed with the Commission by another national securities exchange, Phlx, to adopt fees for purge ports, which the Commission deemed acceptable by not suspending that filing during the applicable 60-day review period.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because offering Members optional service and flexible fee structures which promotes choice, flexibility, efficiency, and competition. The Exchange believes Purge Ports enhance Members' ability to manage orders, which would, in turn, improve their risk controls to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that Purge Ports foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities because designating Purge Ports for purge messages may encourage better use of such ports. This may, concurrent with the ports that carry orders and other information necessary for market making activities, enable more efficient, as well as fair and reasonable, use of Members' resources. Similar connectivity and functionality is offered by options exchanges, including the Exchange's own affiliated options exchanges, and other equities exchanges.
Purge Ports do not relieve Members of their quoting obligations or firm quote obligations under Regulation NMS Rule 602.
The Exchange is not the only exchange to offer this functionality and to charge associated fees.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge $600 per month for Purge Ports as proposed because such ports were specially developed to allow Members to send a single message to cancel multiple orders, thereby assisting firms in effectively managing risk. The Exchange also believes that a Member that chooses to utilize Purge Ports may, in the future, reduce their need for additional ports by consolidating cancel messages to their dedicated Purge Port and thus freeing up some capacity of the existing logical ports and, therefore, allowing for increased message traffic without paying for additional logical ports. Purge Ports provide the ability to cancel multiple orders with a single message over a dedicated port, and, therefore, may create efficiencies for firms and provide a more efficient solution for them based on their risk management needs. In addition, Purge Port requests may cancel orders submitted over numerous ports and contain added functionality to purge only a subset of these orders. Effective risk management is important both for individual market participants that choose to utilize risk features provided by the Exchange, as well as for the market in general. As a result, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to charge fees for such functionality as doing so aids in the maintenance of a fair and orderly market.
The Exchange also believes that its ability to set fees for Purge Ports is subject to significant substitution-based forces because Members are able to rely on currently available services both free and those they receive when using existing trading protocols. If the value of the efficiency introduced through the Purge Port functionality is not worth the proposed fees, Members will simply continue to rely on the existing functionality and not pay for Purge Ports. In that regard, Members may currently cancel individual orders through the existing functionality, such as through the use of a mass cancel message by which a Market Maker may request that the Exchange remove all or a subset of its quotations and block all or a subset of its new inbound quotations. Already Members can also cancel orders individually and by utilizing Exchange protocols that allow them to develop proprietary systems that can send cancel messages at a high rate.
Further, like Purge Ports, Members may also cancel all or a subset of its orders in the System, by firm name or
Similarly, Members may use cancel-on-disconnect control when they experience a disruption in their connection to the Exchange and immediately cancel all pending quotes in the Exchange's System.
The Exchange also believes that offering Purge Ports at the Matching Engine level promotes risk management across the industry, and thereby facilitates investor protection. Some market participants, in particular the larger firms, could and do build similar risk functionality (as described above) in their trading systems that permit the flexible cancellation of orders entered on the Exchange at a high rate. Offering Matching Engine level protections ensures that such functionality is widely available to all firms, including smaller firms that may otherwise not be willing to incur the costs and development work necessary to support their own customized mass cancel functionality.
As noted above, the Exchange is not the only exchange to offer dedicated Purge Ports, and the proposed rate is lower than that charged by other exchanges for similar functionality. The Exchange also believes that moving to a per Matching Engine fee is reasonable due to the Exchange's architecture that provides it the ability to provide two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for a fee that would still be lower than competing exchanges that charge on a per port basis. Generally speaking, restricting the Exchange's ability to charge fees for these services discourages innovation and competition. Specifically in this case, the Exchange's inability to offer similar services to those offered by other exchanges, and charge reasonable and equitable fees for such services, would put the Exchange at a significant competitive disadvantage and, therefore, serve to restrict competition in the market—especially when other exchanges assess comparable fees higher than those proposed by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Purge Port fees are equitable because the proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary as they relate solely to optional risk management functionality.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule are not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Members that choose to use the optional Purge Ports. Purge Ports are completely voluntary and, as they relate solely to optional risk management functionality, no Market Maker is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. All Members that voluntarily select this service option will be charged the same amount for the same services. All Members have the option to select any connectivity option, and there is no differentiation among Members with regard to the fees charged for the services offered 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. Purge Ports are completely voluntary and are available to all Members on an equal basis at the same cost. While the Exchange believes that Purge Ports provide a valuable service, Members can choose to purchase, or not purchase, these ports based on their own determination of the value and their business needs. No Member is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize Purge Ports. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that Purge Ports offer appropriate risk management functionality to firms that trade on the Exchange without imposing an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition.
Furthermore, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price the Purge Ports is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar functionality. As discussed, there are currently a number of similar offers available to market participants for higher fees at other exchanges. Proposing fees that are excessively higher than established fees for similar functionality would simply serve to reduce demand for the Purge Ports, which as discussed, market participants are under no obligation to utilize. It could also cause firms to shift trading to other exchanges that offer similar functionality at a lower cost, adversely impacting the overall trading on the Exchange and reducing market share. In this competitive environment, potential purchasers are free to choose which, if any, similar product to purchase to satisfy their need for risk management. As a result, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change permits fair competition among national securities exchanges.
The Exchange also does not believe the proposal would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition as other exchanges are free to introduce their own purge port functionality and lower their prices to better compete with the Exchange's offering. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition. Particularly, the proposal would apply uniformly to any market participant, in that it does not differentiate between Members. The proposal would allow any interested Members to purchase Purge Port functionality based on their business needs.
The Exchange received one comment letter on the Initial Proposal and one comment letter on the Second Proposal, both from the same commenter.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 14, 2023, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange” or “BZX”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to issue an order approving or disapproving the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange is filing a proposal to update an internal cross reference in Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to update an internal cross reference in paragraph (a) of Rule 404, Series of Option Contracts Open for Trading.
The Exchange believes the proposed rules changes are consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to its rules to correct an internal cross reference would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because the proposed change is designed to update correct an erroneous internal cross reference. The Exchange believes that Members
The Exchange believes that the proposed rules changes would not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The proposed rules change is not intended to address a competitive issue but rather would modify an Exchange rule to update an incorrect cross reference. Since the proposal does not substantively modify System
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed pursuant to Rule 19b-4(f)(6) under the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“EDGX Equities”) as follows: (1) by modifying the rate associated with fee code DX; (2) by introducing a new Add Volume Tier and new Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier; (3) by modifying certain Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers; (4) by modifying the Cross Asset Tier; and (5) by discontinuing Growth Tier 5, Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume Tier 3, and Retail Growth Tier 3. The Exchange proposes to implement these changes effective February 1, 2024.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
The Exchange currently offers fee code DX, which is appended to Midpoint Discretionary Orders (“MDOs”)
Under footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently offers various Add/Remove Volume Tiers. In particular, the Exchange offers seven Add Volume Tiers that each provide an enhanced rebate for Members' qualifying orders yielding fee codes 3,
• Add Volume Tier 8 provides a rebate of $0.0034 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
In addition to the Add Volume Tiers offered under footnote 1, the Exchange also offers a Cross Asset Tier, which is designed to incentivize Members to achieve certain levels of participation on both the Exchange's equities and options platform (“EDGX Options”). The Exchange now proposes to amend
• The Cross Asset Tier provides a rebate of $0.0029 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 for qualifying orders (
The proposed Cross Asset Tier will no longer have an expiration date as it will no longer contain a component criteria requiring Members to grow their volume over a certain baseline month. In conjunction with the proposed modifications to the Cross Asset Tier, the Exchange also proposes to remove the definition of Market Maker Add
Also under footnote 1, the Exchange offers four Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers that each provide an enhanced rebate for Members' qualifying orders yielding fee codes DM,
• Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 5 provides a rebate of $0.0026 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 for qualifying orders (
In addition to introducing proposed Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 5, the Exchange also proposes to amend Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers 1-3 by removing the second prong of criteria from each of the three tiers and modifying the TCV requirement for Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers 2 and 3. Currently, the criteria for Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers 1-3 is as follows:
• Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 provides a rebate of $0.0015 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 for qualifying orders (
• Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 2 provides a rebate of $0.0020 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 for qualifying orders (
• Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 3 provides a rebate of $0.0025 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 for qualifying orders (
The proposed criteria for Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers 1-3 is as follows:
• Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 provides a rebate of $0.0015 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 for qualifying orders (
• Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 2 provides a rebate of $0.0020 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 for qualifying orders (
• Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 3 provides a rebate of $0.0025 per share for securities priced at or above $1.00 for qualifying orders (
Together, the proposed addition of Add Volume Tier 8 and Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 5, proposed amendment to the Cross Asset Tier, and proposed amendments to Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers 1-3 are each intended to provide Members an opportunity to earn an enhanced rebate by increasing their order flow to the Exchange, which further contributes to a deeper, more liquid market and provides even more execution opportunities for active market participants. Incentivizing an increase in liquidity adding volume through enhanced rebate opportunities encourages liquidity adding Members on the Exchange to contribute to a deeper, more liquid market, providing for overall enhanced price discovery and price improvement opportunities on the Exchange. As such, increased overall order flow benefits all Members by contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
In addition to the proposed additions and modifications to footnote 1 discussed above, the Exchange now proposes to discontinue Growth Tier 5 and Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume Tier 3 as the Exchange no longer wishes to, nor is required to, maintain such tiers. More specifically, the proposed change removes these tiers as the Exchange would rather redirect future resources and funding into other programs and tiers intended to incentivize increased order flow.
Under footnote 2 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange currently offers various Retail Volume Tiers which provide an enhanced rebate for Retail Member Organizations (“RMOs”)
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange believes that its proposal to: (1) introduce a new Add Volume Tier and new Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier; (2) modify certain Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers; and (3) modify the Cross Asset Tier reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all Members. Additionally, the Exchange notes that relative volume-based incentives and discounts have been widely adopted by exchanges,
In particular, the Exchange believes its proposal to: (1) introduce a new Add Volume Tier and new Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier; (2) modify certain Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers; and (3) modify the Cross Asset Tier is reasonable because the new and revised tiers will be available to all Members and provide all Members with an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate, including additional opportunities to receive an enhanced rebate with the addition of proposed Add Volume Tier 8 and proposed Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 5. The Exchange further believes its proposal to: (1) introduce a new Add Volume Tier and new Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier; (2) modify certain Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers; and (3) modify the Cross Asset Tier will provide a reasonable means to encourage liquidity adding displayed orders in Members' order flow to the Exchange and to incentivize Members to continue to provide liquidity adding volume to the Exchange by offering them an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate on qualifying orders. While the modified criteria in proposed Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers 1-3 and the Cross Asset Tier is slightly more difficult than the current criteria found in those respective tiers, the proposed criteria is not a significant departure from existing criteria, is reasonably correlated to the enhanced rebate offered by the Exchange, and will continue to incentivize Members to submit order flow to the Exchange. An overall increase in activity would deepen the Exchange's liquidity pool, offers additional cost savings, support the quality of price discovery, promote market transparency and improve market quality, for all investors.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to eliminate current Growth Tier 5, Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume Tier 3, and Retail Growth Tier 3 is reasonable because the Exchange is not required to maintain these tiers, nor is it required to provide Members an opportunity to receive enhanced rebates. The Exchange believes its proposal to eliminate these tiers is also equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because it applies to all Members (
Further, the Exchange believes that its proposal to modify the fee associated with fee code DX is reasonable, equitable, and consistent with the Act because such change is designed to decrease the Exchange's expenditures with respect to transaction pricing in order to offset some of the costs associated with the Exchange's current pricing structure, which provides various rebates for liquidity-adding orders, and the Exchange's operations generally, in a manner that is consistent with the Exchange's overall pricing philosophy of encouraging added liquidity. The proposed increased fee of $0.0015 per share is reasonable and appropriate because while it is slightly higher than the existing fee, it remains lower than other fees assessed by the Exchange in order to remove liquidity.
Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would definitely result in any Members qualifying the new proposed tiers. While the Exchange has no way of
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes would encourage the submission of additional order flow to a public exchange, thereby promoting market depth, execution incentives and enhanced execution opportunities, as well as price discovery and transparency for all Members. As a result, the Exchange believes that the proposed changes further the Commission's goal in adopting Regulation NMS of fostering competition among orders, which promotes “more efficient pricing of individual stocks for all types of orders, large and small.”
The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed changes to: (1) introduce a new Add Volume Tier and new Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier; (2) modify certain Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers; and (3) modify the Cross Asset Tier will apply to all Members equally in that all Members are eligible for the proposed new and revised tiers, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the proposed new and revised tiers' criteria and will receive the enhanced rebate on their qualifying orders if such criteria is met. Further, the proposed change to the fee associated with fee code DX do not impose an unnecessary burden as all Members will be subject to the higher fee assessed to orders appended with fee code DX. The Exchange does not believe the proposed changes burden competition, but rather, enhances competition as it is intended to increase the competitiveness of EDGX by amending existing pricing incentives and adopting new pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange, providing for additional execution opportunities for market participants and improved price transparency. Greater overall order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency benefits all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
The Exchange believes the proposed elimination of Growth Tier 5, Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume Tier 3, and Retail Growth Tier 3 do not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the proposed changes to eliminate Growth Tier 5, Non-Displayed Step-Up Volume Tier 3, and Retail Growth Tier 3 will not impose any burden on intramarket competition because the changes apply to all Members uniformly, as in, the tiers will no longer be available to any Member.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than 14% of the market share.
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) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Options Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to amend fees for Purge Ports.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for Purge Ports, which is a function enabling Market Makers
The Exchange initially filed the proposal on September 29, 2023 (SR-MIAX-2023-37) (the “Initial Proposal”).
The Exchange is including a cost analysis in this filing to justify the proposed fees. As described more fully below, the cost analysis includes, among other things, descriptions of how the Exchange allocated costs among it and its affiliated exchanges for similar proposed fee changes (separately between MIAX Pearl Options
Unlike other options exchanges that charge fees for Purge Ports on a per port basis,
The Exchange now proposes to amend the fee for Purge Ports to align more closely with other exchanges who charge on a per port basis by providing two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for a monthly flat fee of $300 per month per Matching Engine. The only difference with a per port structure is that Market Makers receive two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for the same proposed monthly fee, rather than being charged a separate fee for each Purge Port. The Exchange proposes to charge the proposed fee for Purge Ports per Matching Engine, instead on a per Purge Port basis, due to its System architecture which provides two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for redundancy purposes. In addition, the proposed fee is lower than the comparable fee charged by competing exchanges that also charge on a per port basis, notwithstanding that the Exchange is providing up to two (2) Purge Ports for that same lower fee.
Similar to a per port charge, Market Makers are able to select the Matching Engines that they want to connect to,
A logical port represents a port established by the Exchange within the Exchange's System for trading and billing purposes. Each logical port grants a Member
Purge Ports are designed to assist Market Makers
The Exchange operates highly performant systems with significant throughput and determinism which allows participants to enter, update and cancel quotes at high rates. Market Makers may currently cancel individual quotes through the existing functionality, such as through the use of a mass cancel message by which a Market Maker may request that the Exchange remove all or a subset of its quotations and block all or a subset of its new inbound quotations.
Similarly, Market Makers may also use cancel-on-disconnect control when they experience a disruption in connection to the Exchange to automatically cancel all quotes, as configured or instructed by the Member or Market Maker.
The Exchange believes that market participants benefit from a dedicated purge mechanism for specific Market Makers and to the market as a whole. Market Makers will have the benefit of efficient risk management and purge tools. The market will benefit from potential increased quoting and liquidity as Market Makers may use Purge Ports to manage their risk more robustly. Only Market Makers that
The proposed fees are effective beginning February 1, 2024.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In general, the Exchange believes that exchanges, in setting fees of all types, should meet very high standards of transparency to demonstrate why each new fee or fee increase meets the Exchange Act requirements that fees be reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not create an undue burden on competition among members and markets. In particular, the Exchange believes that each exchange should take extra care to be able to demonstrate that these fees are based on its costs and reasonable business needs.
In proposing to charge fees for port services, the Exchange is especially diligent in assessing those fees in a transparent way against its own aggregate costs of providing the related service, and in carefully and transparently assessing the impact on Members—both generally and in relation to other Members,
As detailed below, the Exchange recently calculated its aggregate annual costs for providing Purge Ports to be $910,413 (or approximately $75,868 per month, rounded to the nearest dollar when dividing the annual cost by 12 months). In order to cover the aggregate costs of providing Purge Ports to its Market Makers going forward and to make a modest profit, as described below, the Exchange proposes to modify its Fee Schedule to charge a fee of $300 per Matching Engine for Purge Ports.
In 2019, the Exchange completed a study of its aggregate costs to produce market data and connectivity (the “Cost Analysis”).
As an initial step, the Exchange determined the total cost for the Exchange and the affiliated markets for each cost driver as part of its 2024 budget review process. The 2024 budget review is a company-wide process that occurs over the course of many months, includes meetings among senior management, department heads, and the Finance Team. Each department head is required to send a “bottom up” budget to the Finance Team allocating costs at the profit and loss account and vendor levels for the Exchange and its affiliated markets based on a number of factors, including server counts, additional hardware and software utilization, current or anticipated functional or non-functional development projects, capacity needs, end-of-life or end-of-service intervals, number of members, market model (
The next step involves determining what portion of the cost allocated to the Exchange pursuant to the above methodology is to be allocated to each core service,
This next level of the allocation methodology at the individual exchange level also took into account factors similar to those set forth under the first step of the allocation methodology process described above, to determine the appropriate allocation to connectivity or market data versus allocations for other services. This allocation methodology was developed through an assessment of costs with senior management intimately familiar with each area of the Exchange's operations. After adopting this allocation methodology, the Exchange then applied an allocation of each cost driver to each core service, resulting in the cost allocations described below. Each of the below cost allocations is unique to the Exchange and represents a percentage of overall cost that was allocated to the Exchange pursuant to the initial allocation described above.
By allocating segmented costs to each core service, the Exchange was able to estimate by core service the potential margin it might earn based on different fee models. The Exchange notes that as a non-listing venue it has five primary sources of revenue that it can potentially use to fund its operations: transaction fees, fees for connectivity and port services, membership fees, regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the Exchange must cover its expenses from these five primary sources of revenue. The Exchange also notes that as a general matter each of these sources of revenue is based on services that are interdependent. For instance, the Exchange's system for executing transactions is dependent on physical hardware and connectivity; only Members and parties that they sponsor to participate directly on the Exchange may submit orders to the Exchange; many Members (but not all) consume market data from the Exchange in order to trade on the Exchange; and, the Exchange consumes market data from external sources in order to comply with regulatory obligations. Accordingly, given this interdependence, the allocation of costs to each service or revenue source required judgment of the Exchange and was weighted based on estimates of the Exchange that the Exchange believes are reasonable, as set forth below. While there is no standardized and generally accepted methodology for the allocation of an exchange's costs, the Exchange's methodology is the result of an extensive review and analysis and will be consistently applied going forward for any other potential fee proposals. In the absence of the Commission attempting to specify a methodology for the allocation of exchanges' interdependent costs, the Exchange will continue to be left with its best efforts to attempt to conduct such an allocation in a thoughtful and reasonable manner.
Through the Exchange's extensive updated Cost Analysis, which was again recently further refined, the Exchange analyzed every expense item in the Exchange's general expense ledger to determine whether each such expense relates to the provision of connectivity and port services, and, if such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports the provision of Purge Port services, and thus bears a relationship that is, “in nature and closeness,” directly related to Purge Port services. In turn, the Exchange allocated certain costs more to physical connectivity and others to ports, while certain costs were only allocated to such services at a very low percentage or not at all, using consistent allocation methodologies as described above. Based on this analysis, the Exchange estimates that the aggregate monthly cost to provide Purge Port services is $75,868, as further detailed below.
The following chart details the individual line-item costs considered by the Exchange to be related to offering Purge Ports as well as the percentage of the Exchange's overall costs that such costs represent for each cost driver (
Below are additional details regarding each of the line-item costs considered by the Exchange to be related to offering Purge Ports. While some costs were attempted to be allocated as equally as possible among the Exchange and its affiliated markets, the Exchange notes that some of its cost allocation percentages for certain cost drivers differ when compared to the same cost drivers for the Exchange's affiliated markets in their similar proposed fee changes for Purge Ports. This is because the Exchange's cost allocation methodology utilizes the actual
The Exchange notes that it and its affiliated markets anticipate that by year-end 2024, there will be 289 employees (excluding employees at non-options/equities exchange subsidiaries of Miami International Holdings, Inc. (“MIH”), the holding company of the Exchange and its affiliated markets), and each department leader has direct knowledge of the time spent by each employee with respect to the various tasks necessary to operate the Exchange. Specifically, twice a year, and as needed with additional new hires and new project initiatives, in consultation with employees as needed, managers and department heads assign a percentage of time to every employee and then allocate that time amongst the Exchange and its affiliated markets to determine each market's individual Human Resources expense. Then, managers and department heads assign a percentage of each employee's time allocated to the Exchange into buckets including network connectivity, ports, market data, and other exchange services. This process ensures that every employee is 100% allocated, ensuring there is no double counting between the Exchange and its affiliated markets.
For personnel costs (Human Resources), the Exchange calculated an allocation of employee time for employees whose functions include providing and maintaining Purge Ports and performance thereof (primarily the Exchange's network infrastructure team, which spends most of their time performing functions necessary to provide port and connectivity services). As described more fully above, the Exchange's parent company allocates costs to the Exchange and its affiliated markets and then a portion of the Human Resources costs allocated to the Exchange is then allocated to port services. From that portion allocated to the Exchange that applied to ports, the Exchange then allocated a weighted average of 2.7% of each employee's time from the above group to Purge Ports.
The Exchange also allocated Human Resources costs to provide Purge Ports to a limited subset of personnel with ancillary functions related to establishing and maintaining such ports (such as information security, sales, membership, and finance personnel). The Exchange allocated cost on an employee-by-employee basis (
The estimates of Human Resources cost were therefore determined by consulting with such department leaders, determining which employees are involved in tasks related to providing Purge Ports, and confirming that the proposed allocations were reasonable based on an understanding of the percentage of time such employees devote to those tasks. This includes personnel from the Exchange departments that are predominately involved in providing Purge Ports: Business Systems Development, Trading Systems Development, Systems Operations and Network Monitoring, Network and Data Center Operations, Listings, Trading Operations, and Project Management. Again, the Exchange allocated 2.7% of each of their employee's time assigned to the Exchange for Purge Ports, as stated above. Employees from these departments perform numerous functions to support Purge Ports, such as the installation, re-location, configuration, and maintenance of Purge Ports and the hardware they access. This hardware includes servers, routers, switches, firewalls, and monitoring devices. These employees also perform software upgrades, vulnerability assessments, remediation and patch installs, equipment configuration and hardening, as well as performance and capacity management. These employees also engage in research and development analysis for equipment and software supporting Purge Ports and design, and support the development and on-going maintenance of internally-developed applications as well as data capture and analysis, and Member and internal Exchange reports related to network and system performance. The above list of employee functions is not exhaustive of all the functions performed by Exchange employees to support Purge Ports, but illustrates the breath of functions those employees perform in support of the above cost and time allocations.
Lastly, the Exchange notes that senior level executives' time was only allocated to the Purge Ports related Human Resources costs to the extent that they are involved in overseeing tasks related to providing Purge Ports. The Human Resources cost was calculated using a blended rate of compensation reflecting salary, equity and bonus compensation, benefits, payroll taxes, and 401(k) matching contributions.
The Connectivity cost driver includes external fees paid to connect to other exchanges and third parties, cabling and switches required to operate the Exchange. The Connectivity cost driver is more narrowly focused on technology used to complete connections to the Exchange and to connect to external markets. The Exchange notes that its connectivity to external markets vendors is required in order to receive market data to run the Exchange's matching engine and basic operations compliant with existing regulations, primarily Regulation NMS.
The Exchange relies on various connectivity providers for connectivity to the entire U.S. options industry, and infrastructure services for critical components of the network that are necessary to provide and maintain its System Networks and access to its System Networks via 10Gb ULL connectivity. Specifically, the Exchange utilizes connectivity providers to connect to other national securities exchanges and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”). The Exchange understands that these service providers provide services to most, if not all, of the other U.S. exchanges and other market participants. Connectivity provided by these service providers is critical to the Exchanges daily operations and performance of its System Networks which includes Purge Ports. Without these services providers, the Exchange would not be able to connect to other national securities exchanges, market data providers or OPRA and, therefore, would not be able to operate and support its System Networks, including Purge Ports. In addition, the connectivity is necessary for the Exchange to notify OPRA and other market participants that an order has been cancelled, and that quotes may have been cancelled as a result of a Member purging quotes via their Purge Port. Also, like other types of ports
The next cost driver consists of internet services and external market data. Internet services includes third-party service providers that provide the internet, fiber and bandwidth connections between the Exchange's networks, primary and secondary data centers, and office locations in Princeton and Miami. For purposes of Purge Ports, the Exchange also includes a portion of its costs related to external market data. External market data includes fees paid to third parties, including OPRA, to receive and consume market data from other markets. The Exchange includes external market data costs towards Purge Ports because such market data is necessary to offer certain services related to such ports, such as checking for market conditions (
For the reasons set forth above, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate a small amount of such costs to Purge Ports since market data from other exchanges is consumed at the Exchange's Purge Port level to validate purge messages and the necessity to cancel a resting quote via a purge message or via some other means.
Data Center costs includes an allocation of the costs the Exchange incurs to provide Purge Ports in the third-party data centers where it maintains its equipment as well as related costs for market data to then enter the Exchange's system (the Exchange does not own the Primary Data Center or the Secondary Data Center, but instead, leases space in data centers operated by third parties).
Hardware and Software Licenses includes hardware and software licenses used to operate and monitor physical assets necessary to offer Purge Ports for each Matching Engine of the Exchange.
The vast majority of the software the Exchange uses to provide Ports has been developed in-house and the cost of such development, which takes place over an extended period of time and includes not just development work, but also quality assurance and testing to ensure the software works as intended, is depreciated over time once the software is activated in the production environment. Hardware used to provide Purge Ports includes equipment used for testing and monitoring of order entry infrastructure and other physical equipment the Exchange purchased and is also depreciated over time.
All hardware and software, which also includes assets used for testing and monitoring of order entry infrastructure, were valued at cost, depreciated or leased over periods ranging from three to five years. Thus, the depreciation cost primarily relates to servers necessary to operate the Exchange, some of which is owned by the Exchange and some of which is leased by the Exchange in order to allow efficient periodic technology refreshes. The Exchange allocated 1.9% of all depreciation costs to providing Purge Ports. The Exchange allocated depreciation costs for depreciated software necessary to operate the Exchange because such software is related to the provision of Purge Ports. As with the other allocated costs in the Exchange's updated Cost Analysis, the Depreciation cost driver was therefore narrowly tailored to depreciation related to Purge Ports.
Finally, a portion of general shared expenses was allocated to overall Purge Port costs as without these general shared costs the Exchange would not be able to operate in the manner that it does and provide Purge Ports. The costs included in general shared expenses include general expenses of the Exchange, including office space and office expenses (
Based on projected 2024 data, the total monthly cost allocated to Purge Ports of $75,868 was divided by the total number of Matching Engines in which Market Makers used Purge Ports for the month of December 2023, which was 291, resulting in an approximate cost of $261 per Matching Engine per month for Purge Port usage (when rounding to the nearest dollar). The Exchange notes that the flat fee of $300 per month per Matching Engine entitles each Market Maker to two Purge Ports per Matching Engine. The majority of Market Makers are connected to all twenty-four of the Exchange's Matching Engines and utilize Purge Ports on each Matching Engine, except one Market Maker, which only utilizes Purge Ports on three Matching Engines.
In conducting its Cost Analysis, the Exchange did not allocate any of its expenses in full to any core services (including Purge Ports) and did not double-count any expenses. Instead, as described above, the Exchange allocated applicable cost drivers across its core services and used the same Cost Analysis to form the basis of this proposal. For instance, in calculating the Human Resources expenses to be allocated to Purge Ports based upon the above described methodology, the Exchange has a team of employees dedicated to network infrastructure and with respect to such employees the Exchange allocated network infrastructure personnel with a higher percentage of the cost of such personnel (19.6%) given their focus on functions necessary to provide Ports. The salaries of those same personnel were allocated only 2.7 to Purge Ports and the remaining 97.3% was allocated to connectivity, other port services, transaction services, membership
In total, the Exchange allocated 2.2% of its personnel costs to providing Purge Ports. In turn, the Exchange allocated the remaining 97.8% of its Human Resources expense to membership services, transaction services, connectivity services, other port services and market data. Thus, again, the Exchange's allocations of cost across core services were based on real costs of operating the Exchange and were not double-counted across the core services or their associated revenue streams.
As another example, the Exchange allocated depreciation expense to all core services, including Purge Ports, but in different amounts. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of such expense because such expense includes the actual cost of the computer equipment, such as dedicated servers, computers, laptops, monitors, information security appliances and storage, and network switching infrastructure equipment, including switches and taps that were purchased to operate and support the network. Without this equipment, the Exchange would not be able to operate the network and provide Purge Port services to its Market Makers. However, the Exchange did not allocate all of the depreciation and amortization expense toward the cost of providing Purge Port services, but instead allocated approximately 1.9% of the Exchange's overall depreciation and amortization expense to Purge Ports. The Exchange allocated the remaining depreciation and amortization expense (approximately 98.1%) toward the cost of providing transaction services, membership services, connectivity services, other port services, and market data.
The Exchange notes that its revenue estimates are based on projections across all potential revenue streams and will only be realized to the extent such revenue streams actually produce the revenue estimated. The Exchange does not yet know whether such expectations will be realized. For instance, in order to generate the revenue expected from Purge Ports, the Exchange will have to be successful in retaining existing Market Makers that wish to maintain Purge Ports or in obtaining new Market Makers that will purchase such services. Similarly, the Exchange will have to be successful in retaining a positive net capture on transaction fees in order to realize the anticipated revenue from transaction pricing.
The Exchange notes that the Cost Analysis is based on the Exchange's 2024 fiscal year of operations and projections. It is possible, however, that actual costs may be higher or lower. To the extent the Exchange sees growth in use of connectivity services it will receive additional revenue to offset future cost increases. However, if use of port services is static or decreases, the Exchange might not realize the revenue that it anticipates or needs in order to cover applicable costs. Accordingly, the Exchange is committing to conduct a one-year review after implementation of these fees. The Exchange expects that it may propose to adjust fees at that time, to increase fees in the event that revenues fail to cover costs and a reasonable mark-up of such costs. Similarly, the Exchange may propose to decrease fees in the event that revenue materially exceeds our current projections. In addition, the Exchange will periodically conduct a review to inform its decision making on whether a fee change is appropriate (
The proposed fees will allow the Exchange to cover certain costs incurred by the Exchange associated with providing and maintaining necessary hardware and other network infrastructure as well as network monitoring and support services; without such hardware, infrastructure, monitoring and support the Exchange would be unable to provide port services. Much of the cost relates to monitoring and analysis of data and performance of the network via the subscriber's connection(s). The above cost, namely those associated with hardware, software, and human capital, enable the Exchange to measure network performance with nanosecond granularity. These same costs are also associated with time and money spent seeking to continuously improve the network performance, improving the subscriber's experience, based on monitoring and analysis activity. The Exchange routinely works to improve the performance of the network's hardware and software. The costs associated with maintaining and enhancing a state-of-the-art exchange network is a significant expense for the Exchange, and thus the Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to help offset those costs by amending fees for Purge Port services. Subscribers, particularly those of Purge Ports, expect the Exchange to provide this level of support so they continue to receive the performance they expect. This differentiates the Exchange from its competitors. As detailed above, the Exchange has five primary sources of revenue that it can potentially use to fund its operations: transaction fees, fees for connectivity services (connections and ports), membership and regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the Exchange must cover its expenses from these five primary sources of revenue.
The Exchange's Cost Analysis estimates the annual cost to provide Purge Port services will equal $910,413. Based on current Purge Port services usage, the Exchange would generate annual revenue of approximately $1,047,600. The Exchange believes this represents a modest profit of 13.1% when compared to the cost of providing Purge Port services, which could decrease over time.
Based on the above discussion, the Exchange believes that even if the Exchange earns the above revenue or incrementally more or less, the
The Exchange further supports the proposed fee change based on a recent 2023 proposal filed with the Commission by another national securities exchange, Phlx, to adopt fees for purge ports, which the Commission deemed acceptable by not suspending that filing during the applicable 60-day review period.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because offering Market Makers optional service and flexible fee structures which promotes choice, flexibility, efficiency, and competition. The Exchange believes Purge Ports enhance Market Makers' ability to manage quotes, which would, in turn, improve their risk controls to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that Purge Ports foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities because designating Purge Ports for purge messages may encourage better use of such ports. This may, concurrent with the ports that carry quotes and other information necessary for market making activities, enable more efficient, as well as fair and reasonable, use of Market Makers' resources. Similar connectivity and functionality is offered by options exchanges, including the Exchange's own affiliated options exchanges, and other equities exchanges.
Purge Ports do not relieve Market Makers of their quoting obligations or firm quote obligations under Regulation NMS Rule 602.
The Exchange is not the only exchange to offer this functionality and to charge associated fees.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge $300 per month for Purge Ports as proposed because such ports were specially developed to allow Market Makers to send a single message to cancel multiple quotes, thereby assisting firms in effectively managing risk. The Exchange also believes that a Member that chooses to utilize Purge Ports may, in the future, reduce their need for additional ports by consolidating cancel messages to their dedicated Purge Port and thus freeing up some capacity of the existing logical ports and, therefore, allowing for increased message traffic without paying for additional logical ports. Purge Ports provide the ability to cancel multiple quotes with a single message over a dedicated port, and, therefore, may create efficiencies for firms and provide a more efficient solution for them based on their risk management needs. In addition, Purge Port requests may cancel quotes submitted over numerous ports and contain added functionality to purge only a subset of these quotes. Effective risk management is important both for individual market participants that choose to utilize risk features provided by the Exchange, as well as for the market in general. As a result, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to charge fees for such functionality as doing so aids in the maintenance of a fair and orderly market.
The Exchange also believes that its ability to set fees for Purge Ports is subject to significant substitution-based forces because Market Makers are able to rely on currently available services both free and those they receive when using existing trading protocols. If the value of the efficiency introduced through the Purge Port functionality is not worth the proposed fees, Market Makers will simply continue to rely on the existing functionality and not pay for Purge Ports. In that regard, Market Makers may currently cancel individual quotes through the existing functionality, such as through the use of a mass cancel message by which a Market Maker may request that the Exchange remove all or a subset of its quotations and block all or a subset of its new inbound quotations. Already Market Makers can also cancel quotes individually and by utilizing Exchange protocols that allow them to develop proprietary systems that can send cancel messages at a high rate.
Similarly, Market Makers may use cancel-on-disconnect control when they experience a disruption in their connection to the Exchange and immediately cancel all pending quotes in the Exchange's System.
The Exchange also believes that offering Purge Ports at the Matching Engine level promotes risk management across the industry, and thereby facilitates investor protection. Some market participants, in particular the larger firms, could and do build similar risk functionality (as described above) in their trading systems that permit the flexible cancellation of quotes entered on the Exchange at a high rate. Offering Matching Engine level protections ensures that such functionality is widely available to all firms, including smaller firms that may otherwise not be willing to incur the costs and development work necessary to support their own customized mass cancel functionality.
As noted above, the Exchange is not the only exchange to offer dedicated Purge Ports, and the proposed rate is lower than that charged by other exchanges for similar functionality. The Exchange also believes that moving to a per Matching Engine fee is reasonable due to the Exchange's architecture that provides it the ability to provide two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for a fee that would still be lower than competing exchanges that charge on a per port basis. Generally speaking, restricting the Exchange's ability to charge fees for these services discourages innovation and competition. Specifically in this case, the Exchange's inability to offer similar services to those offered by other exchanges, and charge reasonable and equitable fees for such services, would put the Exchange at a significant competitive disadvantage and, therefore, serve to restrict competition in the market—especially when other exchanges assess comparable fees higher than those proposed by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Purge Port fees are equitable because the proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary as they relate solely to optional risk management functionality.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule are not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Market Makers that choose to use the optional Purge Ports. Purge Ports are completely voluntary and, as they relate solely to optional risk management functionality, no Market Maker is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. All Market Makers that voluntarily select this service option will be charged the same amount for the same services. All Market Makers have the option to select any connectivity option, and there is no differentiation among Market Makers with regard to the fees charged for the services offered 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. Purge Ports are completely voluntary and are available to all Market Makers on an equal basis at the same cost. While the Exchange believes that Purge Ports provide a valuable service, Market Makers can choose to purchase, or not purchase, these ports based on their own determination of the value and their business needs. No Market Maker is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize Purge Ports. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that Purge Ports offer appropriate risk management functionality to firms that trade on the Exchange without imposing an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition.
Furthermore, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price the Purge Ports is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar functionality. As discussed, there are currently a number of similar offers available to market participants for higher fees at other exchanges. Proposing fees that are excessively higher than established fees for similar functionality would simply serve to reduce demand for the Purge Ports, which as discussed, market participants are under no obligation to utilize. It could also cause firms to shift trading to other exchanges that offer similar functionality at a lower cost, adversely impacting the overall trading on the Exchange and reducing market share. In this competitive environment, potential purchasers are free to choose which, if any, similar product to purchase to satisfy their need for risk management. As a result, the Exchange believes this proposed rule change permits fair competition among national securities exchanges.
The Exchange also does not believe the proposal would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition as other exchanges are free to introduce their own purge port functionality and lower their prices to better compete with the Exchange's offering. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition. Particularly, the proposal would apply uniformly to any market participant, in that it does not differentiate between Market Makers. The proposal would allow any interested Market Makers to purchase Purge Port functionality based on their business needs.
The Exchange received one comment letter on the Initial Proposal and one comment letter on the Second Proposal, both from the same commenter.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the MIAX Emerald Options Exchange Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to amend fees for Purge Ports.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the fees for Purge Ports, which is a function enabling Market Makers
The Exchange initially filed the proposal on September 29, 2023 (EMERALD-2023-26) (the “Initial Proposal”).
The Exchange is including a cost analysis in this filing to justify the proposed fees. As described more fully below, the cost analysis includes, among other things, descriptions of how the Exchange allocated costs among it and its affiliated exchanges for similar proposed fee changes (separately between MIAX Pearl Options
Unlike other options exchanges that charge fees for Purge Ports on a per port basis,
The Exchange now proposes to amend the fee for Purge Ports to align more closely with other exchanges who charge on a per port basis by providing two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for a monthly flat fee of $600 per month per Matching Engine. The only difference with a per port structure is that Market Makers receive two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for the same proposed monthly fee, rather than being charged a separate fee for each Purge Port. The Exchange proposes to charge the proposed fee for Purge Ports per Matching Engine, instead on a per Purge Port basis, due to its System architecture which provides two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for redundancy purposes. In addition, the proposed fee is lower than the comparable fee charged by competing exchanges that also charge on a per port basis, notwithstanding that the Exchange is providing up to two (2) Purge Ports for that same lower fee.
Similar to a per port charge, Market Makers are able to select the Matching Engines that they want to connect to,
A logical port represents a port established by the Exchange within the Exchange's System for trading and billing purposes. Each logical port grants a Member
Purge Ports are designed to assist Market Makers
The Exchange operates highly performant systems with significant throughput and determinism which allows participants to enter, update and cancel quotes at high rates. Market Makers may currently cancel individual quotes through the existing
Similarly, Market Makers may also use cancel-on-disconnect control when they experience a disruption in connection to the Exchange to automatically cancel all quotes, as configured or instructed by the Member or Market Maker.
The Exchange believes that market participants benefit from a dedicated purge mechanism for specific Market Makers and to the market as a whole. Market Makers will have the benefit of efficient risk management and purge tools. The market will benefit from potential increased quoting and liquidity as Market Makers may use Purge Ports to manage their risk more robustly. Only Market Makers that request Purge Ports would be subject to the proposed fees, and other Market Makers can continue to operate in exactly the same manner as they do today without dedicated Purge Ports, but with the additional purging capabilities described above.
The proposed fees are effective beginning February 1, 2024.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
In general, the Exchange believes that exchanges, in setting fees of all types, should meet very high standards of transparency to demonstrate why each new fee or fee increase meets the Exchange Act requirements that fees be reasonable, equitably allocated, not unfairly discriminatory, and not create an undue burden on competition among members and markets. In particular, the Exchange believes that each exchange should take extra care to be able to demonstrate that these fees are based on its costs and reasonable business needs.
In proposing to charge fees for port services, the Exchange is especially diligent in assessing those fees in a transparent way against its own aggregate costs of providing the related service, and in carefully and transparently assessing the impact on Members—both generally and in relation to other Members,
As detailed below, the Exchange recently calculated its aggregate annual costs for providing Purge Ports to be $822,969 (or approximately $68,581 per month, rounded to the nearest dollar when dividing the annual cost by 12 months). In order to cover the aggregate costs of providing Purge Ports to its Market Makers going forward and to make a modest profit, as described below, the Exchange proposes to modify its Fee Schedule to charge a fee of $600 per Matching Engine for Purge Ports.
In 2019, the Exchange completed a study of its aggregate costs to produce market data and connectivity (the “Cost Analysis”).
As an initial step, the Exchange determined the total cost for the Exchange and the affiliated markets for each cost driver as part of its 2024 budget review process. The 2024 budget review is a company-wide process that occurs over the course of many months, includes meetings among senior management, department heads, and the
The next step involves determining what portion of the cost allocated to the Exchange pursuant to the above methodology is to be allocated to each core service,
This next level of the allocation methodology at the individual exchange level also took into account factors similar to those set forth under the first step of the allocation methodology process described above, to determine the appropriate allocation to connectivity or market data versus allocations for other services. This allocation methodology was developed through an assessment of costs with senior management intimately familiar with each area of the Exchange's operations. After adopting this allocation methodology, the Exchange then applied an allocation of each cost driver to each core service, resulting in the cost allocations described below. Each of the below cost allocations is unique to the Exchange and represents a percentage of overall cost that was allocated to the Exchange pursuant to the initial allocation described above.
By allocating segmented costs to each core service, the Exchange was able to estimate by core service the potential margin it might earn based on different fee models. The Exchange notes that as a non-listing venue it has five primary sources of revenue that it can potentially use to fund its operations: transaction fees, fees for connectivity and port services, membership fees, regulatory fees, and market data fees. Accordingly, the Exchange must cover its expenses from these five primary sources of revenue. The Exchange also notes that as a general matter each of these sources of revenue is based on services that are interdependent. For instance, the Exchange's system for executing transactions is dependent on physical hardware and connectivity; only Members and parties that they sponsor to participate directly on the Exchange may submit orders to the Exchange; many Members (but not all) consume market data from the Exchange in order to trade on the Exchange; and, the Exchange consumes market data from external sources in order to comply with regulatory obligations. Accordingly, given this interdependence, the allocation of costs to each service or revenue source required judgment of the Exchange and was weighted based on estimates of the Exchange that the Exchange believes are reasonable, as set forth below. While there is no standardized and generally accepted methodology for the allocation of an exchange's costs, the Exchange's methodology is the result of an extensive review and analysis and will be consistently applied going forward for any other potential fee proposals. In the absence of the Commission attempting to specify a methodology for the allocation of exchanges' interdependent costs, the Exchange will continue to be left with its best efforts to attempt to conduct such an allocation in a thoughtful and reasonable manner.
Through the Exchange's extensive updated Cost Analysis, which was again recently further refined, the Exchange analyzed every expense item in the Exchange's general expense ledger to determine whether each such expense relates to the provision of connectivity and port services, and, if such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports the provision of Purge Port services, and thus bears a relationship that is, “in nature and closeness,” directly related to Purge Port services. In turn, the Exchange allocated certain costs more to physical connectivity and others to ports, while certain costs were only allocated to such services at a very low percentage or not at all, using consistent allocation methodologies as described above. Based on this analysis, the Exchange estimates that the aggregate monthly cost to provide Purge Port services is $68,581, as further detailed below.
The following chart details the individual line-item costs considered by the Exchange to be related to offering Purge Ports as well as the percentage of the Exchange's overall costs that such costs represent for each cost driver (
Below are additional details regarding each of the line-item costs considered by the Exchange to be related to offering Purge Ports. While some costs were attempted to be allocated as equally as possible among the Exchange and its affiliated markets, the Exchange notes that some of its cost allocation percentages for certain cost drivers differ when compared to the same cost drivers for the Exchange's affiliated markets in their similar proposed fee changes for Purge Ports. This is because the Exchange's cost allocation methodology utilizes the actual projected costs of the Exchange (which are specific to the Exchange and are independent of the costs projected and utilized by the Exchange's affiliated markets) to determine its actual costs, which may vary across the Exchange and its affiliated markets based on factors that are unique to each marketplace. The Exchange provides additional explanation below (including the reason for the deviation) for the significant differences.
The Exchange notes that it and its affiliated markets anticipate that by year-end 2024, there will be 289 employees (excluding employees at non-options/equities exchange subsidiaries of Miami International Holdings, Inc. (“MIH”), the holding company of the Exchange and its affiliated markets), and each department leader has direct knowledge of the time spent by each employee with respect to the various tasks necessary to operate the Exchange. Specifically, twice a year, and as needed with additional new hires and new project initiatives, in consultation with employees as needed, managers and department heads assign a percentage of time to every employee and then allocate that time amongst the Exchange and its affiliated markets to determine each market's individual Human Resources expense. Then, managers and department heads assign a percentage of each employee's time allocated to the Exchange into buckets including network connectivity, ports, market data, and other exchange services. This process ensures that every employee is 100% allocated, ensuring there is no double counting between the Exchange and its affiliated markets.
For personnel costs (Human Resources), the Exchange calculated an allocation of employee time for employees whose functions include providing and maintaining Purge Ports and performance thereof (primarily the Exchange's network infrastructure team, which spends most of their time performing functions necessary to provide port and connectivity services). As described more fully above, the Exchange's parent company allocates costs to the Exchange and its affiliated markets and then a portion of the Human Resources costs allocated to the Exchange is then allocated to port services. From that portion allocated to the Exchange that applied to ports, the Exchange then allocated a weighted average of 2.6% of each employee's time from the above group to Purge Ports.
The Exchange also allocated Human Resources costs to provide Purge Ports to a limited subset of personnel with ancillary functions related to establishing and maintaining such ports (such as information security, sales, membership, and finance personnel). The Exchange allocated cost on an employee-by-employee basis (
The estimates of Human Resources cost were therefore determined by consulting with such department leaders, determining which employees are involved in tasks related to providing Purge Ports, and confirming that the proposed allocations were reasonable based on an understanding of the percentage of time such employees devote to those tasks. This includes personnel from the Exchange departments that are predominately involved in providing Purge Ports: Business Systems Development, Trading Systems Development, Systems Operations and Network Monitoring, Network and Data Center Operations, Listings, Trading Operations, and Project Management. Again, the Exchange allocated 2.6% of each of their employee's time assigned to the Exchange for Purge Ports, as stated above. Employees from these departments perform numerous functions to support Purge Ports, such as the installation, re-location, configuration, and maintenance of Purge Ports and the hardware they access. This hardware includes servers, routers, switches, firewalls, and monitoring devices. These employees also perform software upgrades, vulnerability assessments, remediation and patch installs, equipment configuration and hardening, as well as performance and capacity management. These employees also engage in research and development analysis for equipment and software supporting Purge Ports and design, and support the development and on-going maintenance of internally-developed applications as well as data capture and analysis, and Member and internal Exchange reports related to network and system performance. The above list of employee functions is not exhaustive of all the functions performed by Exchange employees to support Purge Ports, but illustrates the breath of functions those employees perform in support of the above cost and time allocations.
Lastly, the Exchange notes that senior level executives' time was only allocated to the Purge Ports related
The Connectivity cost driver includes external fees paid to connect to other exchanges and third parties, cabling and switches required to operate the Exchange. The Connectivity cost driver is more narrowly focused on technology used to complete connections to the Exchange and to connect to external markets. The Exchange notes that its connectivity to external markets vendors is required in order to receive market data to run the Exchange's matching engine and basic operations compliant with existing regulations, primarily Regulation NMS.
The Exchange relies on various connectivity providers for connectivity to the entire U.S. options industry, and infrastructure services for critical components of the network that are necessary to provide and maintain its System Networks and access to its System Networks via 10Gb ULL connectivity. Specifically, the Exchange utilizes connectivity providers to connect to other national securities exchanges and the Options Price Reporting Authority (“OPRA”). The Exchange understands that these service providers provide services to most, if not all, of the other U.S. exchanges and other market participants. Connectivity provided by these service providers is critical to the Exchanges daily operations and performance of its System Networks which includes Purge Ports. Without these services providers, the Exchange would not be able to connect to other national securities exchanges, market data providers or OPRA and, therefore, would not be able to operate and support its System Networks, including Purge Ports. In addition, the connectivity is necessary for the Exchange to notify OPRA and other market participants that an order has been cancelled, and that quotes may have been cancelled as a result of a Member purging quotes via their Purge Port. Also, like other types of ports offered by the Exchange, Purge Ports leverage the Exchange's existing 10Gb ULL connectivity, which also relies on connectivity to other national securities exchanges and OPRA. The Exchange does not employ a separate fee to cover its connectivity provider expense and recoups that expense, in part, by charging for Purge Ports.
The next cost driver consists of internet services and external market data. Internet services includes third-party service providers that provide the internet, fiber and bandwidth connections between the Exchange's networks, primary and secondary data centers, and office locations in Princeton and Miami. For purposes of Purge Ports, the Exchange also includes a portion of its costs related to external market data. External market data includes fees paid to third parties, including OPRA, to receive and consume market data from other markets. The Exchange includes external market data costs towards Purge Ports because such market data is necessary to offer certain services related to such ports, such as checking for market conditions (
For the reasons set forth above, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate a small amount of such costs to Purge Ports since market data from other exchanges is consumed at the Exchange's Purge Port level to validate purge messages and the necessity to cancel a resting quote via a purge message or via some other means.
Data Center costs includes an allocation of the costs the Exchange incurs to provide Purge Ports in the third-party data centers where it maintains its equipment as well as related costs for market data to then enter the Exchange's system (the Exchange does not own the Primary Data Center or the Secondary Data Center, but instead, leases space in data centers operated by third parties).
Hardware and Software Licenses includes hardware and software licenses used to operate and monitor physical assets necessary to offer Purge Ports for each Matching Engine of the Exchange.
The vast majority of the software the Exchange uses to provide Ports has been developed in-house and the cost of such development, which takes place over an extended period of time and includes not just development work, but also quality assurance and testing to ensure the software works as intended, is depreciated over time once the software is activated in the production environment. Hardware used to provide Purge Ports includes equipment used for testing and monitoring of order entry infrastructure and other physical equipment the Exchange purchased and is also depreciated over time.
All hardware and software, which also includes assets used for testing and monitoring of order entry infrastructure, were valued at cost, depreciated or leased over periods ranging from three to five years. Thus, the depreciation cost primarily relates to servers necessary to operate the Exchange, some of which is owned by the Exchange and some of which is leased by the Exchange in order to allow efficient periodic technology refreshes. The Exchange allocated 1.0% of all depreciation costs to providing Purge Ports. The Exchange allocated depreciation costs for depreciated software necessary to operate the Exchange because such software is related to the provision of Purge Ports. As with the other allocated costs in the Exchange's updated Cost Analysis, the Depreciation cost driver was therefore narrowly tailored to depreciation related to Purge Ports.
Finally, a portion of general shared expenses was allocated to overall Purge Port costs as without these general shared costs the Exchange would not be able to operate in the manner that it does and provide Purge Ports. The costs included in general shared expenses include general expenses of the Exchange, including office space and office expenses (
Based on projected 2024 data, the total monthly cost allocated to Purge Ports of $68,581 was divided by the total number of Matching Engines in which Market Makers used Purge Ports for the month of December 2023, which was 132, resulting in an approximate cost of $522 per Matching Engine per month for Purge Port usage (when rounding to the nearest dollar). The Exchange notes that the flat fee of $600 per month per Matching Engine entitles each Market Maker to two Purge Ports per Matching Engine. The majority of Market Makers are connected to all twenty-four of the Exchange's Matching Engines and utilize Purge Ports on each Matching Engine, except one Market Maker, which only utilizes Purge Ports on three Matching Engines.
In conducting its Cost Analysis, the Exchange did not allocate any of its expenses in full to any core services (including Purge Ports) and did not double-count any expenses. Instead, as described above, the Exchange allocated applicable cost drivers across its core services and used the same Cost Analysis to form the basis of this proposal. For instance, in calculating the Human Resources expenses to be allocated to Purge Ports based upon the above described methodology, the Exchange has a team of employees dedicated to network infrastructure and with respect to such employees the Exchange allocated network infrastructure personnel with a higher percentage of the cost of such personnel (19.3%) given their focus on functions necessary to provide Ports. The salaries of those same personnel were allocated only 2.6% to Purge Ports and the remaining 97.4% was allocated to connectivity, other port services, transaction services, membership services and market data. The Exchange did not allocate any other Human Resources expense for providing Purge Ports to any other employee group, outside of a smaller allocation of 1.3% for Purge Ports, of the cost associated with certain specified personnel who work closely with and support network infrastructure personnel. This is because a much wider range of personnel are involved in functions necessary to offer, monitor and maintain Purge Ports but the tasks necessary to do so are not a primary or full-time function.
In total, the Exchange allocated 2.2% of its personnel costs to providing Purge Ports. In turn, the Exchange allocated the remaining 97.8% of its Human Resources expense to membership services, transaction services, connectivity services, other port services and market data. Thus, again, the Exchange's allocations of cost across core services were based on real costs of operating the Exchange and were not double-counted across the core services or their associated revenue streams.
As another example, the Exchange allocated depreciation expense to all core services, including Purge Ports, but in different amounts. The Exchange believes it is reasonable to allocate the identified portion of such expense because such expense includes the actual cost of the computer equipment, such as dedicated servers, computers, laptops, monitors, information security appliances and storage, and network switching infrastructure equipment, including switches and taps that were purchased to operate and support the network. Without this equipment, the Exchange would not be able to operate the network and provide Purge Port services to its Market Makers. However, the Exchange did not allocate all of the depreciation and amortization expense toward the cost of providing Purge Port services, but instead allocated approximately 1.0% of the Exchange's overall depreciation and amortization expense to Purge Ports. The Exchange allocated the remaining depreciation and amortization expense (approximately 99%) toward the cost of providing transaction services, membership services, connectivity services, other port services, and market data.
The Exchange notes that its revenue estimates are based on projections across all potential revenue streams and will only be realized to the extent such revenue streams actually produce the revenue estimated. The Exchange does not yet know whether such expectations will be realized. For instance, in order to generate the revenue expected from Purge Ports, the Exchange will have to be successful in retaining existing Market Makers that wish to maintain Purge Ports or in obtaining new Market Makers that will purchase such services. Similarly, the Exchange will have to be successful in retaining a positive net capture on transaction fees in order to realize the anticipated revenue from transaction pricing.
The Exchange notes that the Cost Analysis is based on the Exchange's 2024 fiscal year of operations and projections. It is possible, however, that actual costs may be higher or lower. To the extent the Exchange sees growth in use of connectivity services it will receive additional revenue to offset future cost increases. However, if use of port services is static or decreases, the Exchange might not realize the revenue that it anticipates or needs in order to cover applicable costs. Accordingly, the Exchange is committing to conduct a one-year review after implementation of these fees. The Exchange expects that it may propose to adjust fees at that time, to increase fees in the event that revenues fail to cover costs and a reasonable mark-up of such costs. Similarly, the Exchange may propose to decrease fees in the event that revenue materially exceeds our current projections. In addition, the Exchange will periodically conduct a review to inform its decision making on whether a fee change is appropriate (
The proposed fees will allow the Exchange to cover certain costs incurred by the Exchange associated with providing and maintaining necessary hardware and other network infrastructure as well as network monitoring and support services; without such hardware, infrastructure, monitoring and support the Exchange would be unable to provide port services. Much of the cost relates to
The Exchange's Cost Analysis estimates the annual cost to provide Purge Port services will equal $822,969. Based on current Purge Port services usage, the Exchange would generate annual revenue of approximately $950,400. The Exchange believes this represents a modest profit of 13.4% when compared to the cost of providing Purge Port services, which could decrease over time.
Based on the above discussion, the Exchange believes that even if the Exchange earns the above revenue or incrementally more or less, the proposed fees are fair and reasonable because they will not result in pricing that deviates from that of other exchanges or a supra-competitive profit, when comparing the total expense of the Exchange associated with providing Purge Port services versus the total projected revenue of the Exchange associated with network Purge Port services.
The Exchange further supports the proposed fee change based on a recent 2023 proposal filed with the Commission by another national securities exchange, Phlx, to adopt fees for purge ports, which the Commission deemed acceptable by not suspending that filing during the applicable 60-day review period.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change would promote just and equitable principles of trade and remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market because offering Market Makers optional service and flexible fee structures which promotes choice, flexibility, efficiency, and competition. The Exchange believes Purge Ports enhance Market Makers' ability to manage quotes, which would, in turn, improve their risk controls to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange believes that Purge Ports foster cooperation and coordination with persons engaged in facilitating transactions in securities because designating Purge Ports for purge messages may encourage better use of such ports. This may, concurrent with the ports that carry quotes and other information necessary for market making activities, enable more efficient, as well as fair and reasonable, use of Market Makers' resources. Similar connectivity and functionality is offered by options exchanges, including the Exchange's own affiliated options exchanges, and other equities exchanges.
Purge Ports do not relieve Market Makers of their quoting obligations or firm quote obligations under Regulation NMS Rule 602.
The Exchange is not the only exchange to offer this functionality and to charge associated fees.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge $600 per month for Purge Ports as proposed because such ports were specially developed to allow Market Makers to send a single message to cancel multiple quotes, thereby assisting firms in effectively managing risk. The Exchange also believes that a Member that chooses to utilize Purge Ports may, in the future, reduce their need for additional ports by consolidating cancel messages to their dedicated Purge Port and thus freeing up some capacity of the existing logical ports and, therefore, allowing for
The Exchange also believes that its ability to set fees for Purge Ports is subject to significant substitution-based forces because Market Makers are able to rely on currently available services both free and those they receive when using existing trading protocols. If the value of the efficiency introduced through the Purge Port functionality is not worth the proposed fees, Market Makers will simply continue to rely on the existing functionality and not pay for Purge Ports. In that regard, Market Makers may currently cancel individual quotes through the existing functionality, such as through the use of a mass cancel message by which a Market Maker may request that the Exchange remove all or a subset of its quotations and block all or a subset of its new inbound quotations. Already Market Makers can also cancel quotes individually and by utilizing Exchange protocols that allow them to develop proprietary systems that can send cancel messages at a high rate.
Further, like Purge Ports, Members may also cancel all or a subset of its orders in the System, by firm name or by MPID, over their existing ports, or by requesting the Exchange staff to effect such cancellations.
Similarly, Market Makers may use cancel-on-disconnect control when they experience a disruption in their connection to the Exchange and immediately cancel all pending quotes in the Exchange's System.
The Exchange also believes that offering Purge Ports at the Matching Engine level promotes risk management across the industry, and thereby facilitates investor protection. Some market participants, in particular the larger firms, could and do build similar risk functionality (as described above) in their trading systems that permit the flexible cancellation of quotes entered on the Exchange at a high rate. Offering Matching Engine level protections ensures that such functionality is widely available to all firms, including smaller firms that may otherwise not be willing to incur the costs and development work necessary to support their own customized mass cancel functionality.
As noted above, the Exchange is not the only exchange to offer dedicated Purge Ports, and the proposed rate is lower than that charged by other exchanges for similar functionality. The Exchange also believes that moving to a per Matching Engine fee is reasonable due to the Exchange's architecture that provides it the ability to provide two (2) Purge Ports per Matching Engine for a fee that would still be lower than competing exchanges that charge on a per port basis. Generally speaking, restricting the Exchange's ability to charge fees for these services discourages innovation and competition. Specifically in this case, the Exchange's inability to offer similar services to those offered by other exchanges, and charge reasonable and equitable fees for such services, would put the Exchange at a significant competitive disadvantage and, therefore, serve to restrict competition in the market—especially when other exchanges assess comparable fees higher than those proposed by the Exchange.
The Exchange believes that the proposed Purge Port fees are equitable because the proposed Purge Ports are completely voluntary as they relate solely to optional risk management functionality.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed amendments to its Fee Schedule are not unfairly discriminatory because they will apply uniformly to all Market Makers that choose to use the optional Purge Ports. Purge Ports are completely voluntary and, as they relate solely to optional risk management functionality, no Market Maker is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize them. All Market Makers that voluntarily select this service option will be charged the same amount for the same services. All Market Makers have the option to select any connectivity option, and there is no differentiation among Market Makers with regard to the fees charged for the services offered 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. Purge Ports are completely voluntary and are available to all Market Makers on an equal basis at the same cost. While the Exchange believes that Purge Ports provide a valuable service, Market Makers can choose to purchase, or not purchase, these ports based on their own determination of the value and their business needs. No Market Maker is required or under any regulatory obligation to utilize Purge Ports. Accordingly, the Exchange believes that Purge Ports offer appropriate risk management functionality to firms that trade on the Exchange without imposing an unnecessary or inappropriate burden on competition.
Furthermore, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment, and its ability to price the Purge Ports is constrained by competition among exchanges that offer similar functionality. As discussed, there are currently a number of similar offers available to market participants for higher fees at other exchanges. Proposing fees that are excessively higher than established fees for similar functionality would simply serve to reduce demand for the Purge Ports, which as discussed, market participants are under no obligation to utilize. It could also cause firms to shift trading to other exchanges that offer similar
The Exchange also does not believe the proposal would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intermarket competition as other exchanges are free to introduce their own purge port functionality and lower their prices to better compete with the Exchange's offering. The Exchange does not believe the proposed rule change would cause any unnecessary or inappropriate burden on intramarket competition. Particularly, the proposal would apply uniformly to any market participant, in that it does not differentiate between Market Makers. The proposal would allow any interested Market Makers to purchase Purge Port functionality based on their business needs.
The Exchange received one comment letter on the Initial Proposal and one comment letter on the Second Proposal, both from the same commenter.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act,
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to modify the NYSE Arca Options Fee Schedule (“Fee Schedule”) regarding the Limit of Fees on Options Strategy Executions. The Exchange proposes to implement the fee change effective February 12, 2024.
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The purpose of this filing is to amend the Fee Schedule to modify the Limit of Fees on Options Strategy Executions (the “Strategy Cap” or “Cap”), effective February 12, 2024.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 17 options venues to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information, no single options exchange has more than 16% of the market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades. Therefore, no exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of multiply-listed equity and ETF options order flow. More specifically, in December 2023, the Exchange had less than 13% market share of executed volume of multiply-listed equity and ETF options trades. Thus, in such a low-concentrated and highly competitive market, no single options exchange possesses significant pricing power in the execution of option order flow.
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow, or discontinue use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain the Exchange's transaction fees, and market participants can readily trade on competing venues if they deem pricing levels at those other venues to be more favorable. In response to the competitive environment, the Exchange offers specific rates and credits in its Fees Schedule, as do other competing options exchanges, which the Exchange believes provide incentive to OTP Holder and OTP Firms (collectively, “OTP Holders”) to increase order flow of certain qualifying orders—the Strategy Cap (as described below) is one such incentive.
Currently, the Fee Schedule provides that transaction fees for OTP Holders are limited or capped at $1,000 for certain options strategy executions “on the same trading day,” meaning the Strategy Cap is a daily fee cap.
The Exchange proposes to reduce the Strategy Cap from $1,000 to $200 and to remove the minimum billable sides requirement to qualify for this lower $200 daily Cap. Put another way, the Exchange proposes to cap daily fees for Strategy Executions at $200 for each day of the month regardless of an OTP Holder's monthly billable volume in Strategy Executions.
The Exchange notes that the proposed fee change is designed to compete with other options exchanges that likewise cap fees on certain options strategies.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that the proposed change to the Strategy Cap is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory. As noted above, the Exchange operates in highly competitive market. The Exchange is only one of several options venues to which market participants may direct their order flow, and it represents a small percentage of the overall market. As such, market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is reasonable, equitable, and not unfairly discriminatory in that the Exchange and competing options exchanges currently offer reduced fees or credits in connection with strategy orders.
The Exchange notes that the proposed change would be applied uniformly to all similarly-situated OTP Holders. Moreover, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would further incentivize OTP Holder [sic] to direct Strategy Executions to the Exchange and may encourage them to aggregate their Strategy Executions at the Exchange as the primary execution venue. For example, this proposed change may encourage OTP Holders to increase their Strategy Execution volumes by executing (often smaller) strategies that are not necessarily economically viable on a per symbol basis, but which may be profitable when fees on Strategy Executions—regardless of symbol—are capped for the trading day. To the extent that the proposed change attracts more Strategy Executions, this increased order flow may make the Exchange a more competitive venue for order execution. In addition, the Exchange notes that all market participants stand to benefit from increased volume, which promotes market depth, facilitates tighter spreads, and enhances price discovery, and may lead to a corresponding increase in order flow from other market participants.
The Exchange believes that the ever-shifting market share among the exchanges from month to month demonstrates that market participants can shift order flow or discontinue or reduce use of certain categories of products, in response to fee changes. Accordingly, competitive forces constrain options exchange transaction fees. Stated differently, changes to exchange transaction fees can have a direct effect on the ability of an exchange to compete for order flow. The Exchange believes the proposed change is a reasonable attempt to effectively compete for Strategy Executions. The Exchange believes that the proposed change may encourage OTP Holders to conduct Strategy Executions on the Exchange and, in turn, may increase the depth of the market to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange notes that OTP Holders may avail themselves of the Exchange's proposed Strategy Cap or they can opt for similar offerings at another exchange.
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change would impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposed change is designed to attract additional order flow to the Exchange, particularly Strategy Executions. In particular, the Exchange believes that the proposed change could further incentivize market participants to direct their Strategy Executions to the Exchange. As noted herein, the proposed Strategy Cap would be applicable to all similarly-situated market participants, and, as such, the proposed change would not impose a disparate burden on competition among OTP Holders. The Exchange believes that the proposed change may continue to encourage OTP Holders to conduct Strategy Executions on the Exchange, which increased liquidity and quote competition on the Exchange benefits all market participants.
The Exchange also does not believe that the proposed Strategy Cap will impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the Act because, as noted above, other competing options exchanges currently has [sic] a similar fee cap in place in connection with strategy orders.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change is effective upon filing pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing,
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to amend its Corporate Governance Requirements, as provided under Exchange Rule 14.10 and make certain other changes to its listing rules as provided under Exchange Rules 14.3, 14.6, 14.7, and 14.12. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend the corporate governance requirements as provided under Exchange Rule 14.10 and make certain other related changes to its listing rules as provided under Exchange Rules 14.3, 14.6, 14.7, and 14.12. The proposed changes are substantively similar to the equivalent rule on another exchange.
First, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14.10 to require a Company listed on the Exchange to have a compensation committee and to update its requirements for a compensation committee. In addition to being consistent with the rules of another exchange,
The Exchange's current listing rules require that compensation of the chief executive officer and all other Executive Officers
The proposal would rename existing Rule 14.10(c)(4) “Compensation Committee Requirements” and would describe such requirements, many of which are included under existing Rule 14.10(c)(4), as discussed further below. The proposal to require Exchange-listed Companies to have a standing compensation committee with the responsibility for determining, or recommending to the full board for determination, the compensation of the chief executive officer and all other Executive Officers of the Company, is substantively similar to existing rules of another Exchange
The Exchange proposes to require each Company to certify that it has adopted a formal written compensation committee charter and that the compensation committee will review and reassess the adequacy of the formal written charter on an annual basis, as provided under proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(A).
The Exchange proposes that the compensation committee charter must specify:
• the scope of the compensation committee's responsibilities, and how it carries out those responsibilities, including structure, processes and membership requirements;
• the compensation committee's responsibility for determining, or recommending to the board for determination, the compensation of the chief executive officer and all other Executive Officers of the Company;
• that the chief executive officer of the Company may not be present during voting or deliberations by the compensation committee on his or her compensation; and
• the specific compensation committee responsibilities and authority set forth in proposed Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(4)(D).
The requirement for the charter to specify the scope of the compensation committee's responsibilities, and how it carries out those responsibilities, including structure, processes and membership requirements, is copied from the Exchange's similar listing rule relating to audit committee charters.
The requirement for the charter to specify the compensation committee's responsibility for determining, or recommending to the board for determination, the compensation of the chief executive officer and all other Executive Officers of the Company, is based upon the Exchange's current compensation-related listing rules.
The requirement for the charter to specify that the chief executive officer of the Company may not be present during voting or deliberations by the compensation committee on his or her compensation is based upon the Exchange's current compensation-related listing rules.
Finally, the requirement for the charter to specify the specific compensation committee responsibilities and authority set forth in proposed Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(4)(D) is modeled after the Exchange's similar listing rule relating to audit committee charters.
Next, the Exchange proposes to impose a minimum size requirement of the compensation committee of at least two members under proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(B). The proposal would move existing Rule 14.10(c)(4)(A) to paragraph (B) and incorporate the proposed compensation committee size requirement. Given the importance of compensation decisions to stockholders, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to have more than one director responsible for these decisions. No Company currently listed on the Exchange has a compensation committee of fewer than two members. Given this, combined with the fact that another exchange
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 14.10(c)(4)(C), which will provide that notwithstanding proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(B) (Compensation Committee Composition) if the compensation committee is comprised of at least three members, one director who does not meet the requirements of paragraph 14.10(c)(4)(B) and is not currently an Executive Officer or employee or a Family Member of an Executive Officer, may be appointed to the compensation committee if the board, under exceptional and limited circumstances, determines that such individual's membership on the committee is required by the best interests of the Company and its Shareholders. A Company that relies on this exception must disclose either on or through the Company's website or in the proxy statement for the next annual meeting subsequent to such determination (or, if the Company does not file a proxy, in its Form 10-K or 20-F), the nature of the relationship and the reasons for the determination. In addition, the Company must provide any disclosure required by Instruction 1 to Item 407(a) of Regulation S-K regarding its reliance on this exception. A member appointed under this exception may not serve longer than two years.
The Exchange's current listing rules include similar exceptions for audit and nominations committees.
The Exchange proposes to keep the Compensation Committee Responsibilities and Authority provided under existing Rule 14.10(c)(4)(C) largely the same under proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(D), but to make small modifications to restructure and organize the rule. Specifically, the Exchange proposes to add a paragraph following proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(D)(iv) providing that for the purposes of this Rule, the compensation committee is not required to conduct an independence assessment for a compensation adviser that acts in a role limited to the following activities for which no disclosure is required under Item 407(e)(3)(iii) of Regulation S-K: (a) consulting on any broad-based plan that does not discriminate in scope, terms, or operation, in favor of Executive Officers or directors of the Company, and that is available generally to all salaried employees; and/or (b) providing information that either is not customized for a particular issuer or that is customized based on parameters that are not developed by the adviser, and about which the adviser does not provide advice. The proposed language is identical to that included in another exchanges rules.
Existing Rule 14.10(c)(4)(A)(i) provides that in addition to meeting the criteria listed under Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B), in evaluating the independence of a director to determine if such director is permitted to determine the compensation of Executive Officers as described in Rule 14.10(c)(4)(B), the board of directors of a Company shall consider the following factors: (a) the source of compensation of the director, including any consulting, advisory or other compensatory fee paid by the Company to such director; and (b) whether the director is affiliated with the Company, a subsidiary of the Company, or an affiliate of a subsidiary of the company. Now, the Exchange proposes to move existing Rule 14.10(c)(4)(A)(i) to Rule 14.10(c)(4)(B) and to note within the paragraph the requirement that each Company must have and certify that it has and will continue to have a compensation committee of at least two members. The Exchange also proposes to make other non-substantive changes to Rule 14.10(c)(4)(B) to add clarity and so that it is substantively identical to the equivalent Nasdaq rule.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 14.10 so that it is substantively identical to Nasdaq Listing IM-5605-6. Currently, Interpretation and Policy .07 provides that independent director oversight of executive officer compensation helps assure that appropriate incentives are in place, consistent with the board's responsibility to maximize shareholder value. The rule is intended to provide
In addition, proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(B) includes an additional independence test for compensation committee members. When considering the sources of a director's compensation for this purpose, the board should consider whether the director receives compensation from any person or entity that would impair the director's ability to make independent judgments about the Company's executive compensation. Similarly, when considering any affiliate relationship a director has with the Company, a subsidiary of the Company, or an affiliate of a subsidiary of the Company, in determining independence for purposes of compensation committee service, the board should consider whether the affiliate relationship places the director under the direct or indirect control of the Company or its senior management, or creates a direct relationship between the director and members of senior management, in each case of a nature that would impair the director's ability to make independent judgments about the Company's executive compensation. In that regard, while a board may conclude differently with respect to individual facts and circumstances, the Exchange does not believe that ownership of Company stock by itself, or possession of a controlling interest through ownership of Company stock by itself, precludes a board finding that it is appropriate for a director to serve on the compensation committee. In fact, it may be appropriate for certain affiliates, such as representatives of significant stockholders, to serve on compensation committees since their interests are likely aligned with those of other stockholders in seeking an appropriate executive compensation program.
For purposes of the additional independence test for compensation committee members described in proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(B), any reference to the “Company” includes any parent or subsidiary of the Company. The term “parent or subsidiary” is intended to cover entities the Company controls and consolidates with the Company's financial statements as filed with the Commission (but not if the Company reflects such entity solely as an investment in its financial statements).
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .07 would set forth the compensation committee composition requirements for Smaller Reporting Companies. Specifically, a Smaller Reporting Company must have a compensation committee with a minimum of two members. Each compensation committee member must be an Independent Director as defined under Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B). In addition, each such Smaller Reporting Company must have a formal written compensation committee charter or board resolution that specifies the committee's responsibilities and authority set forth in proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(A)(i)-(iii). However, in recognition of the fact that Smaller Reporting Companies may have fewer resources than larger Companies, Smaller Reporting Companies are not required to adhere to the additional compensation committee eligibility requirements in proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(B), or to incorporate into their formal written compensation committee charter or board resolution the specific compensation committee responsibilities and authority set forth in proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(D).
The Exchange also proposes to allow a Company that has ceased to be a Smaller Reporting Company to phase-in a fully-compliant compensation committee. Pursuant to Rule 12b-2 under the Act, a Company tests its status as a Smaller Reporting Company on an annual basis at the end of its most recently completed second fiscal quarter.
By six months from the Start Date (
The Exchange proposes to move existing Rule 14.10(e)(1)(F) to proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(F) with amendments to conform to Nasdaq Listing Rule 5605(d)(5). Current Rule 14.10(e)(1)(F) provides that Smaller reporting companies, as defined in Rule 12b-2 under the Act, are exempt from the Independent Director Oversight of Executive Officer Compensation requirements set forth in Rule 14.10(c)(4), except that compensation of the chief executive officer and all other Executive Officers of the Company must be determined, or recommended to the Board for determination, either by: (i) Independent Directors constituting a majority of the Board's Independent Directors in a vote in which only Independent Directors meeting the definition of Independent Director in Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B) participate; or (ii) a compensation committee comprised solely of Independent Directors meeting the definition of Independent Director in Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B). The rule further provides that the chief executive officer may not be present during voting or deliberations.
Now, the Exchange proposes to delete subparagraphs (i) and (ii) in existing Rule 14.10(e)(1)(F) and modify the proposed Rule to provide that a Smaller Reporting Company is not subject to the requirements of Rule 14.10(c)(4) except that a Smaller Reporting Company must have, and certify that it has and will continue to have, a compensation committee of at least two members, each of whom must be an Independent Director as defined under Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B). Proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(F) would also provide that a Smaller Reporting Company may rely on the exception in Rule 14.10(c)(4)(C) and the cure period in Rule 14.10(c)(4)(E). In addition, a Smaller Reporting Company must certify that it has adopted a formal written compensation committee charter or board resolution that specifies the content set forth in Rule 14.10(c)(4)(A)(i)-(iii). A Smaller Reporting Company does not need to include in its formal written compensation committee charter or board resolution the specific compensation committee responsibilities and authority set forth in Rule 14.10(c)(4)(D). As discussed above, the proposed amendments to Interpretation and Policy .07 to Rule 14.10 would provide additional clarity to the requirements for Smaller Reporting Companies and would make the policy substantively similar to Nasdaq IM-5605-6.
The Exchange proposes to capitalize the term “Independent Director” throughout Rule 14.10(c)(3)(B) (Audit Committee Composition) and the term “Company” throughout Rule 14.10.
The Exchange proposes to modify the Audit Committee Charter requirement provided in Rule 14.10(c)(3)(A) to require a prospective review of the adequacy of the formal written charter on an annual basis,
Existing Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B) includes a paragraph that provides that in addition to the requirements contained in this Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B), directors of a Company, in determining compensation of Executive Officers as described in Rule 14.10(c)(4)(B) (relating to compensation of Executive Officers), are also subject to additional factors for determining independence under Rule 14.10(c)(4). The Exchange proposes to delete this paragraph to conform to Nasdaq Rule 5605(a)(2)(G) and because the proposed compensation committee rules would already address this issue in proposed Rule14.10(c)(4)(B).
The Exchange also proposes to correct certain typographical errors in Rule 14.10(c)(1)(3) to maintain a clear Rulebook.
As discussed above, the Exchange notes that all of the proposed changes to Rule 14.10(c) described above are substantively similar to existing rules of another Exchange
Exchange Rules 14.3(b)(3) and 14.7(c) provide that all securities listed on the Exchange, with certain exceptions, must be eligible for a DRP operated by a clearing agency registered under Section 17A of the Act.
The Exchange now proposes to amend this exemption to extend its application to all “foreign issuers” as that term is used in Securities Exchange Act Rule 3b-4
The Exchange also proposes to amend the exemptions provided under Rule 14.3(b)(3) to conform with those provided in existing Rule 14.7. Specifically, Exchange Rule 14.7(a) provides that except as indicated in Rule 14.7(c), all securities listed on the Exchange (except securities which are book-entry only) must be eligible for a DRP operated by a clearing agency registered under Section 17A of the Act. Existing Rule 14.3(b)(3) provides that all securities initially listing on the Exchange must be eligible for a DRP operated by a clearing agency registered under Section 17A of the Act. It also provides that this provision does not extend to: (i) additional classes of securities of Companies which already have securities listed on the Exchange; (ii) Companies which immediately prior to such listing had securities listed on another registered securities exchange in the U.S.; or, (iii) non-equity securities that are book-entry only. As these exemptions are not provided in existing Rule 14.7 or other exchange rules, the Exchange proposed to delete them from Rule 14.3(b)(3). The proposed rule changes are substantively similar to existing rules on another exchange.
Exchange Rule 14.10(e)(1)(C) provides limited exemptions with respect to certain corporate governance and reporting requirements for Foreign Private Issuers and also provides that a Foreign Private Issuer may follow its home country practice in lieu of the DRP requirement set forth in Rules 14.3(b)(3) and 14.7. As the proposed exemption to the DRP requirement expands beyond Foreign Private Issuers, the Exchange proposes to delete the reference to Rules 14.3(b)(3) and 14.7
The Exchange also proposes to correct Rule inaccurate references in Interpretation and Policy .12 to Rule 14.10 and Rule 14.10(e)(1)(C)(i). Specifically, the Exchange proposes to make non-substantive changes to modify incorrect references from Rule 14.7 to Rule 14.10 and from Rule 14.3(e)(4) to 14.6(d). Additionally, the Exchange proposes to correct a title reference in Exchange Rule 14.10(e)(1)(C)(i) to correctly reflect the title of Rule 14.10(g) (Notification of Noncompliance). The Exchange also proposes to amend Interpretation and Policy .12 to Rule 14.10 to provide a more granular and accurate rule cite to the applicable audit committee requirement for Foreign Private Issuers provided under Rule 14.10(c)(3)(B)(i)(b). As discussed above, the Exchange also proposes to delete references to the Exchange's DRP from Interpretation and Policy .12. In place of the reference to the DRP provided in Interpretation and Policy .12, the Exchange proposes to reiterate the requirement that a Foreign Private Issuer must comply with the voting rights requirement under Rule 14.10(j). Further, as discussed below, the Exchange also proposes to add references to proposed Rule 14.6(b)(3) to proposed Interpretation and Policy .12. These proposed changes are also substantively similar to existing rules on another exchange.
The Exchange proposes to add an additional obligation to make public disclosure under proposed Rule 14.6(b)(3), which would require the disclosure of third party director and nominee compensation,
As noted above, now the Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 14.6(b)(3) which would require the disclosure of third party director and nominee compensation. The preamble to proposed Rule 14.6(b)(3) would provide that Companies must disclose all agreements and arrangements in accordance with this rule by no later than the date on which the Company files or furnishes a proxy or information statement subject to Regulation 14A or 14C under the Act in connection with the Company's next shareholders' meeting at which directors are elected (or, if they do not file proxy or information statements, no later than when the Company files its next Form 10-K or Form 20-F).
Proposed Rule 14.6(b)(3)(A) would require a Company to disclose either on or through the Company's website or in the proxy or information statement for the next shareholders' meeting at which directors are elected (or, if the Company does not file proxy or information statements, in its Form 10-K or 20-F), the material terms of all agreements and arrangements between any director or nominee for director, and any person or entity other than the Company (the “Third Party”), relating to compensation or other payment in connection with such person's candidacy or service as a director of the Company. A Company need not disclose pursuant to this rule agreements and arrangements that: (i) relate only to reimbursement of expenses in connection with candidacy as a director; (ii) existed prior to the nominee's candidacy (including as an employee of the other person or entity) and the nominee's relationship with the Third Party has been publicly disclosed in a proxy or information statement or annual report (such as in the director or nominee's biography); or (iii) have been disclosed under Item 5(b) of Schedule 14A of the Act or Item 5.02(d)(2) of Form 8-K in the current fiscal year. Proposed Rule 14.6(b)(3)(A) would further provide that disclosure pursuant to Commission rule shall not relieve a Company of its annual obligation to make disclosure under proposed subparagraph (B).
Proposed Rule 14.6(b)(3)(B) would provide that a Company must make the disclosure required in proposed subparagraph (A) at least annually until the earlier of the resignation of the director or one year following the termination of the agreement or arrangement.
Proposed Rule 14.6(b)(3)(D) would provide that a Company shall not be considered deficient with respect to this paragraph for purposes of Rule 14.12 if the Company has undertaken reasonable efforts to identify all such agreements or arrangements, including asking each director or nominee in a manner designed to allow timely disclosure, and makes the disclosure required by proposed subparagraph (C) promptly upon discovery of the agreement or arrangement. In all other cases, the Company must submit a plan sufficient to satisfy Exchange staff that the Company has adopted processes and procedures designed to identify and disclose relevant agreements or arrangements.
Finally, proposed Rule 14.6(b)(3)(E) would provide that a Foreign Private Issuer may follow its home country practice in lieu of the requirements of Rule 14.6(b)(3) by utilizing the process described in Rule 14.10(e)(1)(C). Consistent with other exemptions afforded certain types of companies, the Exchange is also proposing to amend Exchange Rule 14.10(e)(1)(C) to provide that a Foreign Private Issuer may follow home country practice in lieu of the requirements of proposed Rule 14.6(b)(3). The proposal for this exemption is identical to an existing exemption provided on another exchange.
The Exchange also proposes to adopt Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 14.6 to add clarity and additional guidance to the requirements of proposed Rule 14.6(b)(3). Specifically, proposed Interpretation and Policy .03 would provide that the terms “compensation” and “other payment” as used in this proposed rule are intended to be construed broadly. Therefore, the terms would apply to agreements and arrangements that provide for non-cash compensation and other payment obligations, such as health insurance premiums or indemnification, made in connection with a person's candidacy or service as a director. Further, at a minimum, the disclosure should identify the parties to and the material terms of the agreement or arrangement relating to compensation.
Proposed Interpretation and Policy .03 to Rule 14.6 would also provide that Subject to exceptions provided in the rule, the disclosure must be made on or through the Company's website or in the proxy or information statement for the next shareholders' meeting at which directors are elected in order to provide shareholders with information and sufficient time to help them make meaningful voting decisions. A Company posting the requisite disclosure on or through its website must make it publicly available no later than the date on which the Company files a proxy or information statement in connection with such shareholders' meeting (or, if they do not file proxy or information statements, no later than when the Company files its next Form 10-K or Form 20-F). Disclosure made available on the Company's website or through it by hyperlinking to another website, must be continuously accessible. If the website hosting the disclosure subsequently becomes inaccessible or that hyperlink inoperable, the company must promptly restore it or make other disclosure in accordance with this rule. Rule 14.6(b)(3) does not separately require the initial disclosure of newly entered into agreements or arrangements, provided that disclosure is made pursuant to this rule for the next shareholders' meeting at which directors are elected. In addition, for publicly disclosed agreements and arrangements that existed prior to the nominee's candidacy and thus not required to be disclosed in accordance with proposed Rule 14.6(b)(3)(A)(ii) but where the director or nominee's remuneration is thereafter materially increased specifically in connection with such person's candidacy or service as a director of the Company, only the difference between the new and previous level of compensation or other payment obligation needs be disclosed. All references in this rule to proxy or information statements are to the definitive versions thereof.
Exchange Rule 14.10(i) sets forth the circumstances under which shareholder approval is required prior to an issuance of securities in connection with (1) the acquisition of the stock or assets of another company; (2) a change of control; (3) equity-based compensation of officers, directors, employees or consultants; and (4) private placements. Specifically, under current Rule 14.10(i)(4), shareholder approval is required prior to the issuance of securities in connection with a transaction other than a public offering involving:
(A) the sale, issuance or potential issuance by the Company of common stock (or securities convertible into or exercisable for common stock) at a price less than the greater of book or market value which together with sales by officers, directors or Substantial Shareholders
The Exchange also proposes to amend the preamble and to Rule 14.10(i) and
The Exchange notes that the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 14.10(i) and Interpretation and Policy .18 to Rule 14.10 are substantively similar to rules of another Exchange that were previously approved by the Commission.
The BZX Official Closing Price refers to the price disseminated to the consolidated tape as the market center closing trade, which is derived from the closing auction on the Exchange if a closing auction occurs.
In addition, because prices are displayed from numerous data sources on different websites, to provide transparency within the rule to the appropriate price and assure that companies and investors use the BZX Official Closing Price when pricing transactions, the Exchange proposes to codify within the proposed Rule 14.10(i)(4)(A)(i) that
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14.10(i)(4) to define a new concept as the “Minimum Price” and eliminate references to book value and eliminating the current definition of market value
The Exchange believes that while investors and companies sometimes prefer to use an average when pricing transactions, there are potential negative consequences to using a five-day average as the sole measure of whether shareholder approval is required. For example, in a declining market, the five-day average closing price will be above the current market price, which could make it difficult for companies to close transactions because investors could buy shares at a lower price in the market. Conversely, using a five-day average in a rising market the five-day average closing price will appear to be at a discount to the closing current market price. Further, if material news is announced during the five-day period, the average price could be a worse reflection of market value than the closing price after the news is disclosed. The Exchange believes that these risks of using the five-day average closing price are already accepted by the market, as evidenced by the use of an average price in transactions that do not require shareholder approval, such as those transactions where less than 20% of the outstanding shares are being issued. Nonetheless, the Exchange believes the proposal balances this risk because an issuance would not require shareholder approval as long as the issuance occurs at a price greater than the lower of the two proposed measures.
To improve the readability of the rule, the Exchange proposes to eliminate references to book value and current definition of market value from Rule 14.10(i)(4) and to instead reference the defined term Minimum Price. The Exchange notes that the proposal is substantively similar to existing rules of another exchange.
The Exchange proposes to eliminate the requirement for shareholder approval of issuances at a price less than book value but greater than market value. Book value is an accounting measure and its calculation is based on the historic cost of assets, not their current value. As such the Exchange believes that book value is not an appropriate measure of whether a transaction is dilutive or should otherwise require shareholder approval. Further, the proposal is substantively similar to existing rules of another exchange.
The Exchange proposes to revise Exchange Rule 14.10(i)(4) to provide that shareholder approval is required prior to a 20% issuance at a price that is less than the Minimum Price. To improve the readability of Exchange Rule 14.10(i)(4), the Exchange proposes to define “20% Issuance” as “a transaction, other than a public offering
Finally, the Exchange proposes to amend Rule 14.10 Interpretations and Policies .18 and .19, which describe how the Exchange applies the shareholder approval requirements, to conform references to book and market value with the new definition of Minimum Price, as described above, and to utilize the newly defined term 20% Issuance. The Exchange also proposes to correct an incorrect reference to the Exchange's rules relating to a Company's failure to meeting listing standards from Rule 14.9 to 14.12.
As noted above, the proposed changes to Exchange Rule 14.10(i) and Interpretation and Policy .18 to Rule 14.10 are substantively similar to rules of another Exchange that were previously approved by the Commission.
The Exchange proposes to amend and expand the exemptions available to issuers of certain securities from some of the Exchange's corporate governance requirements and to define certain of those securities as “Derivative Securities”. The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 14.10 Interpretation and Policy .15 to modify the exemptions from the annual meeting requirements. The Exchange notes that the proposed changes would result in rules that are substantively similar to the existing rules of other exchanges.
Exchange Rule 14.10(e) currently provides exemptions to issuers of certain securities listed on the Exchange from portions of the corporate governance requirements. Specifically, Exchange Rule 14.10(e)(1)(A) provides exemptions for asset-backed issuers
Currently, products that can rely on the exemptions within Exchange Rule 14.10(e)(1)(E) are Index Fund Shares (Exchange Rule 14.11(c)), Managed Fund Shares (Exchange Rule 14.11(i)), Managed Portfolio Shares (Exchange Rule 14.11(k)), ETF Shares (Exchange Rule 14.11(l)), and Tracking Fund Shares (Exchange Rule 14.11(m)). Additionally, Rule 14.10 Interpretation and Policy .15 provides exemptions to issuers of certain securities listed pursuant to the requirements of Exchange Rule 14.10(f) (Meetings of Shareholders). Currently, Portfolio Depositary Receipts (Exchange Rule 14.11(b)), Index Fund Shares (Exchange Rule 14.11(c)), and Trust Issued Receipts (Exchange Rule 14.11(f)) are exempt from the annual meeting requirements.
The Exchange now proposes to add a definition of “Derivative Securities” to Exchange Rule 14.10(e)(1)(F)(ii) (the “Proposed Definition”), as discussed in the “Definition of Derivative Securities” section below. Further, the Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 14.10(e)(1)(F)(i), which would provide that issuers whose only securities listed on the Exchange are non-voting preferred securities, debt securities or Derivative Securities, are exempt from the requirements relating to Independent Directors (as set forth in Rule 14.10(c)(2)), Independent Director Oversight of Executive Officer Compensation (as set forth in Rule 14.10(c)(4)), Director Nominations (as set forth in Rule 14.10(c)(5)), Code of Conduct (as set forth in Rule 14.10(d)), and Meetings of Shareholders (as set forth in Rule 14.10(f)). In addition, these issuers are exempt from the requirements relating to Audit Committees (as set forth in Rule 14.10(c)(3)), except for the applicable requirements of SEC Rule 10A-3. Notwithstanding, if the issuer also lists its common stock or voting preferred stock, or their equivalent on the Exchange it will be subject to all the requirements of Exchange Rule 14.10. Rule 14.10(e)(1)(F)(i) will continue to require such companies to comply with the requirements of Exchange Rule 14.10(g), pursuant to which an issuer will provide the Exchange with prompt notification after an executive officer of the company becomes aware of any noncompliance by the company with the requirements of Exchange Rule 14.10. The Exchange notes that proposed Rule 14.10(e)(1)(F)(i) and (ii) are substantively similar to rules on other exchanges.
The Exchange also proposes to amend Exchange Rule 14.10 Interpretation and Policy .15 to amend the annual meeting requirements of Exchange Rule 14.10(f) to clarify that issuers of only non-voting preferred securities, debt securities or Derivative Securities
The proposed definition of Derivative Security will include: Commodity Futures Trust Shares; Commodity Index Trust Shares; Commodity-Based Trust Shares; Commodity-Linked Securities; Currency Trust Shares; Equity Gold Shares; Equity Index-Linked Securities; ETF Shares; Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities; Futures-Linked Securities; Index Fund Shares; Index-Linked Exchangeable Notes; Managed Fund Shares; Managed Portfolio Shares; Managed Trust Securities; Multifactor Index-Linked Securities; Partnership Units; Portfolio Depository Receipts; Selected Equity-linked Debt Securities (“SEEDS”); Tracking Fund Shares; Trust Certificates; and Trust Issued Receipts. Each of these types of securities is similarly exempt from the corporate governance requirements as proposed herein on another exchange,
The Exchange believes it is appropriate that Portfolio Depositary Receipts and Index Fund Shares are included in the Proposed Definition and, therefore, entitled to the exemptions proposed herein because these securities are currently exempt from the provisions Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(2) (Independent Directors), Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(4) (Independent Director Oversight of Executive Officer Compensation), Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(5) (Independent Director Oversight of Director Nominations), Exchange Rule 14.10(d) (Code of Conduct), and Exchange Rule 14.10(f) (Meetings of Shareholders).
The Exchange also believes it is appropriate that Equity Index-Linked Securities, Commodity-Linked Securities, Fixed Income Index-Linked Securities, Futures-Linked Securities, Multifactor Index-Linked Securities,
If the issuer is listed on the Exchange, it is already subject to the requirements of Exchange Rule 14.10. If the issuer is listed on Nasdaq or NYSE Arca, it is already subject to corporate governance standards that are substantively similar to the Exchange's corporate governance rules as proposed herein. In addition, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate to exempt these securities from the annual meeting requirements of Exchange Rule 14.10(f) because the holders of these securities have economic interests and other limited rights that do not include voting rights. The Exchange notes that these issuers may still be required to hold shareholder meetings, including special meetings, as required by federal or state law or their governing documents.
In addition, while unlike traditional debt securities, these securities derive their value from the performance of an underlying index or reference asset, they retain many of the same characteristics as traditional debt securities
The Exchange notes that these securities are already similarly exempted from the same corporate governance requirements on other exchanges.
Similarly, the Exchange believes it is appropriate that Equity Gold Shares are included in the Proposed Definition and, therefore, entitled to the exemptions proposed herein because like such classes of derivative securities, Equity Gold Shares are passive investment vehicles that hold a beneficial interest in a specified commodity trust. In addition, Equity Gold Shares are treated in a similar fashion to Index Fund Shares under the existing Exchange rules.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate that Trust Certificates are included in the Proposed Definition and, therefore, entitled to the exemptions proposed herein because these securities represent an interest in a passive investment vehicle that are issued by entities created solely to issue securities and invest in the underlying index or reference assets. The trust does not have a board of directors and the holders of Trust Certificates have no voting rights, unless required under state law, with regard to corporate matters, including election of trustees. Therefore, the Exchange believes that Trust Certificates should be included in the Proposed Definition and should not be subject to the annual meeting requirements of Exchange Rule 14.10(f). The Exchange notes that these issuers may still be required to hold shareholder meetings, including special meetings, as required by federal or state law or their governing documents. The Exchange further notes that Trust Certificates are already similarly exempted from the same corporate governance requirements on other exchanges.
The Exchange also believes it is appropriate that Commodity-Based Trust Shares, Currency Trust Shares, Commodity Index Trust Shares, and Commodity Futures Trust Shares are included in the Proposed Definition and, therefore, entitled to the exemptions proposed herein because shares of these securities are passive investment vehicles that hold a beneficial interest in a specified commodity trust that is not managed like a corporation and does not have officers or a board of directors. These securities are already exempt from Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(2) (Independent Directors), Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(4) (Independent Director Oversight of Executive Officer Compensation), Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(5) (Independent Director Oversight of Director Nominations), and Exchange Rule 14.10(d) (Code of Conduct). In addition, while shareholders may have limited voting rights in certain circumstances, they do not have the right to elect directors. Therefore, given the limited voting rights, lack of directors or officers, and the passive nature of the trust, the Exchange believes these securities should not be subject to the annual meeting requirements of Exchange Rule 14.10(f). The Exchange notes that these issuers may still be required to hold shareholder meetings, including special meetings, as required by federal or state law or their governing documents. The Exchange also notes that these securities are already similarly exempted from the same corporate governance requirements on other exchanges.
The Exchange also believes that it is appropriate that Partnership Units are included in the Proposed Definition and, therefore, entitled to the exemptions proposed herein because Partnership Units are passive
The Exchange believes it is appropriate that Trust Issued Receipts are included in the Proposed Definition and, therefore, entitled to the exemptions proposed herein because Trust Issued Receipts are passive investment vehicles that hold a beneficial interest in a specified partnership that is not managed like a corporation and does not have a board of directors. In addition, the Exchange believes that Trust Issued Receipts should not be subject to the annual meeting requirements of Exchange Rule 14.10(f) because these securities are currently exempt from this rule.
The Exchange believes it is appropriate that Managed Fund Shares and ETF Shares are included in the Proposed Definition and, therefore, entitled to the exemptions proposed herein because they currently exempt from the provisions of Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(2) (Independent Directors), Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(4) (Independent Director Oversight of Executive Officer Compensation), Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(5) (Independent Director Oversight of Director Nominations), and Exchange Rule 14.10(d) (Code of Conduct).
The Exchange believes it is appropriate that Managed Portfolio Shares and Tracking Fund Shares are included in the Proposed Definition and, therefore, entitled to the exemptions proposed herein because it is currently exempt from certain provisions of Rule 14.10.
The Exchange believes that it is appropriate to exempt Managed Trust Securities from the annual meeting requirements of Exchange Rule 14.10(f) because like Index Fund Shares (which are currently provided an exemption from the annual meeting) the aforementioned securities are issued by an open-end investment company registered under the 1940 Act that are available for creation and redemption on a continuous basis and require dissemination of an intraday portfolio value. These requirements provide important investor protections and ensure that the net asset value and the market price remain closely tied to one another while maintaining a liquid market for the security. These protections, along with the disclosure documents regularly received by investors, allow shareholders of Managed Trust Securities to value their holdings on an ongoing basis and lessen the need for shareholders to directly deal with management at an annual meeting. Therefore, the Exchange further believes it is appropriate that these be afforded the proposed exemptions to the annual meeting requirements. The Exchange notes that these issuers may still be required to hold shareholder meetings, including special meetings, as required by federal or state law or their governing documents. The Exchange also notes that Managed Trust Securities are already similarly exempted from the same corporate governance requirements on other exchanges.
The Exchange is proposing to modify the definition of “Family Member” for purposes of director independence under Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B) to mean a person's spouse, parents, children, siblings, mothers and fathers-in-law, sons and daughters-in-law, brothers and sisters-in-law, and anyone (other than domestic employees) who shares such person's home. The purpose of this rule change is to exclude domestic employees who share the director's home, and stepchildren who do not share the director's home, from the type of relationships that always preclude a board from finding that a director is independent, as described below. The proposed definition is substantively similar to a proposal that has been considered and approved by the Commission.
Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B) provides a list of certain relationships that preclude a board from finding that a director is independent (the “Bright-Line Independence Test”). These objective measures provide transparency to investors and companies, facilitate uniform application of the rules, and ease administration. The Exchange's Rules preclude a director from being considered independent if the director has a family member who, among other things, (i) accepted any compensation from the Company in excess of $120,000 during any period of twelve consecutive months within the three years preceding the determination of independence (with certain exceptions);
Currently, for purposes of the Exchange's Rules, Family Member means a person's spouse, parents, children and siblings, whether by blood, marriage or adoption, or anyone residing in such person's home.
As noted above, the Exchange proposes to define a Family Member to mean a person's spouse, parents, children, siblings, mothers and fathers-in-law, sons and daughters-in-law, brothers and sisters-in-law, and anyone (other than domestic employees) who shares such person's home. The Exchange also proposes to interpret the term “children” to exclude stepchildren except that a relationship with a stepchild who shares a home with the director would continue to fall under the Bright-line Independence Test because the definition of a Family Member will include anyone (other than domestic employees) who shares the director's home. To comply with the Exchange's rules, it will expect the Boards of its listed companies to continue to elicit through director questionnaires the information necessary to make independence determinations, which will need to include questions about stepchild relationships. As noted in the order approving a substantively similar rule, the Commission stated that it “believes that this should help to ensure that listed companies inquire about stepchild relationships so that such companies can discern the essential facts and circumstances to be able to make the affirmative findings necessary under Nasdaq rules to determine a director is independent.”
The Exchange has concluded that inclusion of stepchildren in the definition of a Family Member makes the definition over-inclusive. The Bright-line Independence Test is intended to identify relationships that are likely to interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the director's responsibilities. In that regard the Exchange believes that a director's relationship with their stepchildren may or may not interfere
In addition, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would align the language in its definition of a Family Member with the comparable definition of a Family Member or an immediate family member of the Nasdaq.
The Exchange is also proposing to modify the definition of a “Family Member” for purposes of director independence under Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B) to exclude domestic employees who share a director's home. The Exchange believes that the definition of a Family Member should not include a domestic employee who shares a director's home because this definition is not intended to capture commercial relationships.
Accordingly, as described above the Exchange is proposing to modify the definition of a Family Member for purposes of director independence under Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B) to mean a person's spouse, parents, children, siblings, mothers and fathers-in-law, sons and daughters-in-law, brothers and sisters-in-law, and anyone (other than domestic employees) who shares such person's home. This definition is identical to the Nasdaq definition of a Family Member.
Additionally, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change to Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B) will not affect the additional independence criteria for audit committee members set forth in Rule 14.10(c)(3), which incorporate the independence requirements of SEC Rule 10A-3.
Notwithstanding these changes, the Exchange notes that a company's board must, under 14.10(c)(3)(B) and Interpretation and Policy .05, affirmatively determine that no relationship exists that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the director's responsibilities. To comply with the Exchange's rules, the Exchange will expect listed companies' boards to continue to elicit through director and officer questionnaires the information necessary for the boards to make such determinations, which will need to include questions about stepchild relationships. The Exchange believes that it is appropriate for the board to review a relationship between a director and a stepchild who does not share a home with the director or a relationship between a director and a domestic employee under such facts and circumstances test.
The Exchange is proposing to modify Exchange Rules 14.10(e)(1)(D)(iv) and 14.10(f)(3)(ii) (the “Quorum Rules”) to allow the Exchange to accept a quorum less than 33
Exchange Rule 14.10(f)(3) establishes quorum requirements for an annual meeting of shareholders for Exchange Companies listing common stock or voting preferred stock, and their equivalents.
Now, the Exchange proposes to modify the Exchange Quorum Requirement to allow the Exchange to accept any quorum requirement for a non-U.S. company if such company's home country law mandates such quorum for the shareholders' meeting and prohibits the company from establishing the higher quorum required
In addition, to help assure continuous transparency, the Exchange proposes to require that such website disclosure is maintained for the period of time the company continues to rely on the exception from the quorum requirements. Finally, to help assure the exception remains appropriate, the Exchange proposes to require the company to update the website disclosure at least annually to indicate that the company continues to be prohibited under its home country law from complying with the Exchange's quorum requirements as of the date of such update.
The Exchange also proposes to modify Exchange Rule 14.10(e)(1)(D)(iv) governing the quorum requirements for limited partnerships listed on the Exchange to also reflect this change to the Exchange Quorum Requirement.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
The proposal first requires that the compensation of Executive Officers must be determined by a compensation committee and eliminates the existing Alternative for such compensation. Although the Alternative to a formal committee in the Exchange's current rules may be useful to a small number of prospective companies, the Exchange believes that the heightened importance of compensation decisions and oversight of executive compensation in today's environment, as well as the benefits that can result for investors of having a standing committee overseeing compensation matters, makes it appropriate and consistent with investor protection and the public interest under Section 6(b)(5) of the Act for the Exchange to raise its standards in this regard.
In making this determination the Commission is aware that Rule 10C-1 does not require listed companies of national securities exchanges to have a committee dedicated to compensation matters. Nevertheless, it is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act for Nasdaq to require all its listed companies to have an independent compensation committee overseeing executive compensation matters because of the importance and accountability to investors that such a formal structure can provide. The Commission also notes that some of the other requirements of Rule 10C-1 apply only when a company has a committee overseeing compensation matters. Thus, the requirement to have a compensation committee will trigger the additional protections for shareholders created by these requirements.
The Exchange also believes it is appropriate to raise its standards to require the compensation committee of each issuer to have at least two members, instead of permitting a sole individual to be responsible for compensation policy, and that this furthers investor protection and the public interest in accordance with Section 6(b)(5).
In light of the importance of compensation matters, the added thought and objectivity that is likely to result when two or more individuals deliberate over how much a listed company should pay its executives, and what form such compensation should take, is consistent with the goal of promoting more accountability to shareholders on executive compensation matters. Moreover, given the complexity of executive compensation packages for corporate executives, it is reasonable for Nasdaq to require listed companies to have the input of more than one committee member on such matters.
Moreover, no Companies currently listed on the Exchange has a compensation committee of only one member. Therefore, the two-member requirement will not be an onerous burden for Companies listed on the Exchange and should strength their review of compensation matters.
The Exchange's proposal to require a compensation committee to have a written charter detailing the committee's authority and responsibility is also consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act and will provide added transparency for shareholders regarding how a company determines compensation and may clarify and improved the process itself. In an approval order for a substantively similar rule on Nasdaq, the Commission stated that “the requirement that listed companies review and reassess the adequacy of the compensation's
The Exchange believes that the proposed “Exceptional and Limited Circumstances” provision, which allows one director who fails to meet the Exchange's Independent Director definition to serve on a compensation committee under certain conditions, is an appropriate means to allow Companies flexibility as to board and committee membership and composition in unusual circumstances, which may be particularly important for smaller Companies. Further, the Commission long ago approved as consistent with the Act the same exception and concept in the context of the Exchange's Independent Director under Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B), with respect to nominations committees and audit committees, and approved a substantively similar provision on another exchange.
The Exchange believes the proposal to provide under proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(D), that for purposes of this Rule, the compensation committee is not required to conduct an independence assessment for a compensation adviser that acts in a role limited to certain activities provided under Item 407(e)(3)(iii) of Regulation S-K will add clarity to the Exchange's rules.
The Exchange believes its proposal to prohibit a director who receives compensation or fees from a listed company (other than, among other things, director compensation) from serving on the Company's compensation committee will protect investors and the public interest. Specifically, a director's receipt of compensatory fees from a company (other than compensation for board and board committee service or compensation under a retirement plan or prior service with the company as described above) could render the member unwilling or unable to provide a truly independent voice on executive compensation decisions. The Exchange believes the restriction is warranted given the heightened importance of executive compensation decisions in today's business environment. Moreover, in its approval order of a similar Nasdaq proposal,
The Exchange believes its proposal to move Rule 14.10(e)(1)(F) to proposed Rule 14.10(c)(4)(F) and to clarify the specific provisions under which a Smaller Reporting Company is exempt from the requirements of Rule 14.10(c) will provide additional clarity to the Exchange's rulebook. As discussed above, Smaller Reporting Companies will continue to be subject to the same requirements as all other Companies, except the requirements relating to compensatory fees, affiliation and the specific compensation committee responsibilities and authority set forth in proposed Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(4)(C)(iv). The Exchange believes that this hybrid approach does not discriminate unfairly between issuers because it recognizes the fact that the “ `executive compensation arrangements of [Smaller Reporting Companies] generally are so much less complex than those of other public companies that they do not warrant the more extensive disclosure requirements imposed on companies that are not [Smaller Reporting Companies] and related regulatory burdens that could be disproportionate for [Smaller Reporting Companies].' ”
Finally, the Exchange believes the proposed non-substantive ministerial changes to the language of Rule 14.10(c) will add clarity to the Exchange's rulebook.
As noted above, all of the proposed changes to the Exchange's compensation committee requirements are substantively similar to proposed rules already considered and approved by the Commission.
The proposed rule change as it pertains to the Exchange's DRP is consistent with the investor protection objectives of the Act in that it will provide a very limited exemption to the Exchange's DRP eligibility requirements for foreign issuers that provide a letter from home country counsel certifying that compliance with that requirement is prohibited by home country law or regulation. Further, the proposed rule change should facilitate cooperation and coordination among clearing agencies, transfer agents, and broker-dealers by explaining the basis upon which certain foreign issuers are not required to participate in the DRP. This, in turn, should facilitate better efficiency in the clearance and settlement of securities transactions involving the securities of these foreign issuers and should facilitate better efficiency in the transfer of such securities. The Exchange notes that its proposal is substantively similar to proposed amendments Nasdaq made to its Rules 5210(c) and 5255(c),
The proposal to require an additional public disclosure accomplishes the objectives of the Act by enhancing transparency around third party compensation and payments made in connection with board service. The Exchange believes such disclosure has several benefits. First, it would provide information to investors to help them make meaningful investing and voting decisions. It would also address potential concerns that undisclosed third-party compensation arrangements may lead to conflicts of interest among directors and call into question their ability to satisfy fiduciary duties. In an approval for a substantively similar proposed rule change on another exchange, the Commission stated “to the extent that [the proposal] would, in certain situations, provide investors and market participants additional information to make informed investment and voting decisions, we believe it is consistent with the requirements of Section 6(b)(5) of the Act.”
While there may be some overlap in the proposed disclosure requirement with existing Commission disclosure requirements, it is not unusual for a national securities exchange to adopt disclosure requirements in their listing rules that supplement or overlap with disclosure requirements otherwise imposed under federal securities laws. Such disclosure-related listing standards “help to ensure that listed companies maintain compliance with the disclosure requirements under the federal securities laws and contribute to the maintenance of fair and orderly markets by providing investors with material and current information necessary for informed investment and voting decisions.”
The Exchange believes that the proposal to modify the measure of market value for the purpose of Rule 14.10(i)(4) from the closing bid price to the lower of: (i) the closing price (as reflected on
First, the Exchange believes using the proposed method for determining the market value has the potential to provide a better indication of the actual market value than the current use of closing bid price under certain market conditions. The Exchange also believes that the BZX Official Closing Price is less prone to manipulation than are bid prices. In addition, the Exchange believes the proposal to use the BZX Official Closing Price for purposes of market value should help to ensure transparency to investors in calculating market value for purposes of the proposed rule.
Second, allowing share issuances to be priced at the five-day average of the closing price will further align the Exchange's requirements with how many transactions are structured, such as transactions where Exchange Rule 14.10(i) is not implicated because the issuance is for less than 20% of the common stock and the parties rely on the five-day average for pricing to smooth out unusual fluctuations in price. In so doing, the proposed rule change will perfect the mechanism of a free and open market. Further, allowing a five-day average price continues to protect investors and the public interest because it will allow companies and investors to price transactions in a manner designed to eliminate aberrant pricing resulting from unusual transactions on the day of a transaction. Maintaining the allowable average at just a five-day period also protects investors by ensuring the period is not too long, such that it would result in the price being distorted by ordinary past market movements and other outdated events. In a market that rises each day of the period, the five-day average will be less than the price at the end of the period, but would still be higher than the price at the start of such period. The Exchange believes that where two alternative measures of value exist that both reasonably approximate the value of listed securities, defining the Minimum Price as the lower of those values allows issuers the flexibility to use either measure because they can also sell securities at a price greater than the Minimum Price without needing shareholder approval. This flexibility, and the certainty that a transaction can be structured at either value in a manner that will not require shareholder approval, further perfects the mechanism of a free and open market without diminishing the existing investor protections of the 14.10(i).
The Exchange also believes that eliminating the requirement for shareholder approval of issuances at a price less than book value but greater than market value does not diminish the existing investor protections of Exchange Rule 14.10(i)(4). Book value is primarily an accounting measure calculated based on historic cost and is generally perceived as an inappropriate measure of the current value of a stock. Because book value is not an appropriate measure of the current value of a stock, the elimination of the requirement for shareholder approval of issuances at a price less than book value but greater than market value will remove an impediment to, and perfect the mechanism of, a free and open market, which currently unfairly burdens companies in certain industries, without meaningfully diminishing investor protections of Exchange Rule 14.10(i)(4).
The Exchange also believes that amending the title of 14.10(i)(4) and the preamble to replace references to “private placements” to “transactions other than public offerings” to conform the language in the title of 14.10(i)(4) and the preamble to the language in the rule text and that of Rule 14.10 Interpretation and Policy .18, which provides the definition of a public offering, will perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by making the rule easier to understand and apply. Private placements would continue to be considered “transactions other than public offerings” under the proposed rule change, and the proposed change does not change the essence of the current rule.
The Exchange believes that amending Exchange Rule 14.10 Interpretation and Policy .18 and .19, which describe how the Exchange applies the shareholder approval requirements, to conform references to book and market value with the new definition of Minimum Price, as described above, and to utilize the newly defined term 20% Issuance will perfect the mechanism of a free and open market by eliminating confusion caused by references to a measure that is no longer applicable and by making the rule easier to understand and apply.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to modify and expand the exemptions available to issuers of certain securities from some of the Exchange's corporate governance requirements are consistent with the protection of investors. The Exchange believes that the proposed exemptions for issuers of only non-voting preferred
Additionally, the net asset value of Derivative Securities that the Exchange proposes to exclude from its annual meeting requirement is determined by the market price of each fund's underlying securities or other reference asset. Shareholders of such securities products listed on the Exchange receive regular disclosure documents describing the pricing mechanism for their securities and detailing how they can value their holdings. Accordingly, holders of such securities can value their investment on an ongoing basis. Because of these factors, the Exchange believes there is a reduced need for shareholders to engage with management of issuers of these securities and thus no need for the issuers of such securities to hold annual shareholder meetings absent the existence of other listed securities with director election voting rights. Further, although the Exchange proposes to exclude issuers of such securities from holding an annual meeting, such issuers may still be required to hold special meetings as required by state or federal law or their governing documents. The Exchange further notes that issuers of only non-voting preferred stock, debt securities and Derivative Securities are excluded from complying with substantially similar requirements on other national securities exchanges.
An issuer that has non-voting preferred stock, debt securities and Derivative Securities listed on the Exchange that also lists the issuers common stock or voting preferred stock or their equivalent on the Exchange will be subject to all the requirements of Exchange Rule 14.10.
The Exchange believes the proposal to modify the definition of Family Member as provided in Exchange Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B) will remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system, and, in general, to protect investors and the public interest. In particular, the Exchange's rules currently prohibit a director from being deemed independent in certain circumstances by including director's stepchildren in the definition of a Family Member, as described in more detail above. The rule also includes a domestic employee who shares the director's home in the definition of a Family Member, even though the relationship between the director and such employee is commercial in nature.
Independent directors over time became a linchpin in the American corporate governance. It is important for investors to have confidence that individuals serving as independent directors do not have a relationship with the listed company that would impair their independence. As the importance of independent directors for listed companies increased, so did the directors' workload and the risk of litigation. In this environment, the Exchange believes that it is appropriate not to prohibit directors from being considered independent based on the aforementioned commercial or attenuated stepchild relationships, but instead allow the board to review such a relationship and determine whether a relationship exists that would interfere with the exercise of independent judgment in carrying out the director's responsibilities.
Additionally, the Exchange notes that the proposed rule change to Rule 14.10(c)(1)(B) will not affect the additional independence criteria for audit committee members set forth in Rule 14.10(c)(3), which incorporate the independence requirements of SEC Rule 10A-3.
Following the proposed rule change, the Exchange's definition of Family Member will become identical with Nasdaq definition of a Family Member, which the Commission has previously approved.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to Exchange Rules 14.10(e)(1)(D)(iv) and 14.10(f)(3)(ii) are designed to protect interests and the public interest because the proposal would eliminate a conflict forcing a company to choose between following the Exchange's rules or the law in its home jurisdiction. Further, while the Exchange's Quorum Requirement would not apply, there would continue to be other protections for shareholders provided by the company's home country laws. The Exchange also believes the proposed amendments to Exchange Rules 14.10(e)(1)(D)(iv) and 14.10(f)(3)(ii) are designed to protect investors and the public interest because any company relying on the proposed exception from the Exchange's Quorum Requirement will be required to make public disclosure on or through the Company's website and either by filing a Form 8-K, where required by SEC rules, or by issuing a press release explaining the company's reliance on the exception.
The Exchange believes that the proposed requirement that such website disclosure is maintained for the period of time the company continues to rely on the exception from the quorum requirements is designed to protect investors and the public interest because such website disclosure would help assure continuous transparency. The Exchange also believes that the proposed requirement to update the website disclosure at least annually to indicate that the company continues to be prohibited under its home country law from complying with the Exchange's quorum requirements as of the date of such update is designed to protect investors and the public interest because such disclosure would help the Exchange assure that the exception remains appropriate.
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments to correct grammatical errors or incorrect rule references will improve the readability and clarity of the Exchanges rulebook. The Exchange notes that the proposed changes to the Exchange's quorum requirements are substantively similar to existing rules on Nasdaq, and thus do not present any new or novel issues.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Instead, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes to conform certain applicable listing rules so that they are substantively similar to corresponding Nasdaq rules may enhance intermarket competition since the Exchange and Nasdaq will have substantially similar listing requirements for issuers.
Moreover, none of the proposed changes will unduly burden intra-market competition. Participants will experience no competitive impact from the proposed amendments as they are merely intended to the Exchange's corporate governance requirements so that they are substantively similar to those of other exchanges. Further, the Exchange anticipates that all issuers with Companies listed on the Exchange already comply with the proposed rules. Thus, the proposal will have no material impact to such issuers.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Notice of an arrangement through a Memorandum of
In accordance with the requirements of the Exchange Visitor Program regulations, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs (ECA), U.S. Department of State, has waived certain regulatory provisions to establish an exchange of German principals to secondary schools overseen and financed by the government of the Federal Republic of Germany within the United States.
This action was effective on November 15, 2023.
Rebecca Pasini, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Private Sector Exchange at 2200 C Street NW, SA-5, 5th Floor, Washington, DC 20522 or via email at
The arrangement between the United States and the Federal Republic of Germany, establishing an exchange of German principals, fosters long-term international cooperation with U.S. communities across the United States. German exchange principals, through their leadership, promote an intercultural environment and strong bonds that last through their students' years at school, university, and beyond. The principals are instrumental in creating a global network of well-connected German and American alumni.
This exchange has been established in accordance with the existing Exchange Visitor Program regulations (22 CFR part 62), including the regulations applying to the Specialist category (22 CFR 62.26). These exchange visitors are experts in a field with specialized knowledge or skills. Program participants are required to be German citizens, hold a valid German passport, and have teaching certification for the secondary level or an advanced degree equivalent to a Master's degree in school administration or a similar field. Program participants are selected by the Federal German Foreign Office and its subordinate authority, the Central Agency for Schools Abroad. Participants are placed as principals in German schools in the United States that are recognized and overseen by the Federal Foreign Office.
Consistent with the arrangement, the Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs waives certain provisions set forth in 22 CFR 62.26. Regulations at 22 CFR 62.26(i) provide that specialists shall be authorized to participate in the Exchange Visitor Program for the length of time necessary to complete the program, which shall not exceed one year. Regulations at 22 CFR 62.26(d)(3) establish that a foreign national is eligible to participate in an exchange visitor program as a specialist if that individual does not fill a permanent or long-term position of employment while in the United States. Through the arrangement with the Federal Republic of Germany, the United States supports the purposes of the Fulbright-Hayes Act by facilitating administrative support for German schools in the United States and recognizing that international schools are an important way to allow the possibility of young people to be educated in a unique multicultural environment. The arrangement allows German principals to promote intercultural exchange throughout their program, which is permitted to be three years, subject to the terms of the principal's visa.
Subject to the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), participants may be eligible for one-time repeat participation in the program upon the exchange visitor's valid application and after meeting any other applicable requirements. Although the principal position filled by the participant may remain a long-term one for the school, varying individual principals, including program participants, may serve in that role. Accordingly, the Department waives subsections (d)(3) and (i) of 22 CFR 62.26 with respect to this program.
The Department of State will conduct a public meeting at 1:00 p.m. on Tuesday, February 27, 2024, 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 Systems and Equipment (SSE 10) to be held at IMO Headquarters in London, United Kingdom from Monday, March 4 to Friday, March 8, 2024.
Members of the public may participate up to the capacity of the teleconference phone line, which can handle 500 participants, and the teleconference line will be provided to those who RSVP. To RSVP, participants should contact the meeting coordinator, LT Jeffrey Bors by email at
The agenda items to be considered at SSE 10 include:
Those who plan to participate should contact the meeting coordinator, LT Jeffrey Bors, by email at
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice.
The Board is instituting a proceeding to determine the railroad industry's cost of capital for 2023. The decision solicits comments on the following issues: the railroads' 2023 current cost of debt capital, the railroads' 2023 current cost of preferred equity capital (if any), the railroads' 2023 cost of common equity capital, and the 2023 capital structure mix of the railroad industry on a market value basis.
Notices of intent to participate are due by April 2, 2024. Statements of the railroads are due by April 23, 2024. Statements of other interested persons are due by May 14, 2024. Rebuttal statements by the railroads are due by June 4, 2024.
Comments may be filed with the Board via e-filing on the Board's website.
Pedro Ramirez at (202) 245-0333. If you require an accommodation under the Americans with Disabilities Act, please call (202) 245-0245.
The decision in this proceeding is posted at
By the Board, Board Members Fuchs, Hedlund, Oberman, Primus, and Schultz.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
notice of limitations on claims for judicial review of action by FHWA and other Federal agencies.
This notice announces actions taken by FHWA and other Federal agencies that are final. This final agency action relates to a proposed interchange reconstruction and widening project, the I-285 at I-20 Interchange Reconstruction Project. Along I-20, the proposed project begins at the Thornton Road interchange eastbound I-20 on-ramp and ends at the Hamilton E. Holmes interchange for a total length of approximately 6.5-miles. Along I-285, the proposed project begins just south of the Martin Luther King (MLK) Jr. Drive interchange and extends north to the Donald Lee (DL) Hollowell Parkway interchange for a total length of approximately 2.4-miles. The FHWA's Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) provides details on the Selected Alternative for the proposed interchange and will be used by Federal Agencies in subsequent proceedings, including decisions whether to grant licenses, permits, and approvals for the highway project.
By this notice, FHWA is advising the public of the final agency actions subject to 23 U.S.C. 139(
For FHWA: Ms. Sabrina David, Division Administrator, Georgia Division, Federal Highway Administration, 75 Ted Turner Drive, Suite 1000, Atlanta, Georgia 30303; telephone (404) 562-3630; email:
Notice is hereby given that FHWA has taken a final agency action by issuing a FONSI for the following new highway project in the State of Georgia:
The I-285 at I-20 Interchange Reconstruction Project located in Cobb, Douglas, and Fulton Counties, Georgia. The Selected Alternative will reconstruct the interchange to remove left hand exits and improve design speed, and also includes modification and/or replacement of existing bridges and ramps. An I-20 westbound collector-distributor (CD) system would be constructed from the interchange to Fulton Industrial Boulevard. Along I-20, the proposed project begins at the Thornton Road interchange eastbound I-20 on-ramp/acceleration lane (which is located at approximately the Factory Shoals Road overpass) and ends at the Hamilton E. Holmes interchange (approximate 6.5-mile length). Along I-285, the proposed project begins just south of the Martin Luther King (MLK) Jr. Drive interchange and extends north to the Donald Lee (DL) Hollowell Parkway interchange (approximate 2.4-mile length). The purpose of the project is listed below:
• Improve traffic flow within the I-285/I-20 West Interchange.
• Improve operations and safety along approximately 6.5 miles of I-20, from Factory Shoals Road to Hamilton E. Holmes Drive, and approximately 2.4 miles of I-285 from just south of the MLK Jr. Drive interchange to the DL Hollowell Parkway interchange.
• Accelerate project delivery through the Major Mobility Investment Program, which is advancing projects across the state to create additional capacity, improve freight movement, provide transportation improvements and efficiencies, enhance safety, and decrease travel times.
The FHWA's action, related actions by other Federal Agencies, and the laws under which such actions were taken, are described in the Environmental Assessment (EA) for the project, approved on November 8, 2022, the FONSI issued on February 14, 2024, and
This notice applies to all Federal agency decisions as of the issuance date of this notice and all laws under which such actions were taken, including but not limited to:
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition; grant of application for exemption.
FMCSA announces its decision to grant an exemption to the State of Hawaii allowing the State to waive specific portions of the commercial driver's license (CDL) skills test for CDL applicants who take the skills test on the islands of Lanai and Molokai and issue these drivers a restricted CDL. The Agency grants this exemption because the islands of Lanai and Molokai do not have the highway infrastructure to support a demonstration of certain on-road safe driving skills required by the CDL skills test requirements. FMCSA concludes that granting the exemption, subject to the terms and conditions set forth below is likely to maintain a level of safety equivalent to or greater than the level of safety that would be maintained absent the exemption.
The exemption is effective from February 20, 2024 through February 20, 2026.
Mr. Richard Clemente, FMCSA Driver and Carrier Operations Division; Office of Carrier, Driver and Vehicle Safety Standards; (202) 366-2722;
To view comments, go to
If you do not have access to the internet, you may view the docket by visiting Dockets Operations on the ground floor of the DOT West Building, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call (202) 366-9317 or (202) 366-9826 before visiting Dockets Operations.
FMCSA has authority under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b) to grant exemptions from certain Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs). FMCSA must publish a notice of each exemption request in the
The Agency reviews safety analyses and public comments submitted and determines whether granting the exemption would likely maintain a level of safety equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by the current regulation (49 CFR 381.305(a)). The decision of the Agency must be published in the
The safe on-road driving skills applicants must possess and demonstrate to obtain a CDL for a vehicle class are identified in 49 CFR 383.113(c). Under 49 CFR 383.113(c)(2) and (4), CDL applicants must demonstrate, respectively, the ability to signal appropriately when changing direction in traffic and to choose a safe gap for changing lanes, passing other vehicles, and crossing or entering traffic.
As prescribed in 49 CFR 383.153(a)(10)(ix), a State has the discretion to impose restrictions on a
The State of Hawaii applied for an exemption from the requirements that a CDL applicant demonstrate the following safe on-road driving skills: the ability to signal appropriately when changing direction in traffic (49 CFR 383.113(c)(2)); and the ability to choose a safe gap for changing lanes, passing other vehicles, and crossing or entering traffic (49 CFR 383.113(c)(4). The applicant states that the islands of Lanai and Molokai do not have the highway infrastructure to support a demonstration of these safe on-road driving skills as required by 49 CFR 383.113(c)(2) and (4). The islands do not have at least two miles of a straight section of urban business street and at least two miles of an expressway or highway section with multiple lanes going in each direction to allow the ability to legally change lanes. The State of Hawaii proposed to establish a new CDL restriction “R,” limiting the CDL's validity to the islands of Lanai and Molokai only and would be applied to these drivers who pass a CDL skills test without demonstrating those two skills. The applicant stated that if it stops offering CDL road tests on both islands it will be a significant barrier for CDL applicants to meet all of the required skills test standards and obtain a CDL. Furthermore, there will be a negative economic impact on the communities' livelihood.
On August 25, 2023, FMCSA published a notice of the State of Hawaii's application and requested public comment (88 FR 58434). The Agency received one comment that was not responsive to the request.
The Agency believes allowing Hawaii to issue restricted CDLs to drivers operating a commercial motor vehicle (CMV) on the islands of Lanai and Molokai is likely to maintain a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemption (49 CFR 381.305(a)). The exemption applies only to CDL applicants taking the skills test on the islands of Lanai and Molokai and limits these drivers to operating a CMV on those two islands only.
FMCSA reviewed the information in the State's application and the exhibits submitted including aerial and map views of the testing routes. The information provided by the State supports the State's assertion that the islands of Lanai and Molokai lack the highway infrastructure to permit CDL applicants to demonstrate their ability to signal appropriately when changing direction in traffic, and the ability to choose a safe gap for changing lanes, passing other vehicles, and crossing or entering traffic. Therefore, CDL applicants who drive a CMV only on the islands of Lanai and Molokai do not need to demonstrate those skills to obtain their restricted CDL.
FMCSA has evaluated the State of Hawaii's application for exemption and exhibits and the public comment. Based on its analysis, FMCSA hereby grants Hawaii an exemption from 49 CFR 383.113(c)(2) and (4) for CDL applicants taking the CDL skills test on the islands of Lanai and Molokai and allowing Hawaii to issue restricted CDLs limiting these drivers to operating a CMV on the islands of Lanai and Molokai. Allowing the State of Hawaii to conduct an abbreviated safe on-road driving skills test and issue restricted CDLs permitting the driver to operate a CMV only on the islands of Lanai and Molokai where the roadways do not require drivers to demonstrate such skills will bypass the infrastructure barriers CDL applicants on these two islands experience while establishing safeguards to maintain an equivalent level of safety.
FMCSA grants an exemption from 49 CFR 383.113(c)(2) and (c)(4) for a period of two years subject to the terms and conditions of this decision.
The State of Hawaii may issue restricted CDLs under this exemption only to drivers who take the CDL skills test on the islands of Lanai and Molokai.
The State of Hawaii and drivers operating under this exemption are subject to the following terms and conditions:
1. The State of Hawaii may waive only the following portions of the CDL skills test, as set forth in 49 CFR 383.113(c), that cannot be performed due to infrastructure limitations on the identified islands:
a. ability to signal appropriately when changing direction in traffic (49 CFR 383.113(c)(2)); and
b. ability to choose a safe gap for changing lanes, passing other vehicles, and for crossing or entering traffic (49 CFR 383.113(c)(4)).
2. The State of Hawaii must comply with 49 CFR 383.133(b) and 383.135(a) of the knowledge tests standards for testing procedures and methods set forth in 49 CFR part 383, subpart H, and must continue to administer knowledge tests that fulfill the content requirements of subpart G.
3. Drivers applying for a CDL to be issued under this exemption must take the CDL skills test on either the island of Lanai or Molokai.
4. Drivers issued a restricted CDL under this exemption may operate a CMV only on the islands of Lanai and or Molokai. The State of Hawaii must establish a new state CDL restriction, “R—Restriction”, with the following description printed on the back of the license “Restricted to Lanai and Molokai”. These restrictive CDLs will not be valid for use on Kauai, Oahu, Maui, Hawaii island, the U.S. Mainland and anywhere else U.S. CDLs are valid for use.
5. The drivers must comply with all other applicable Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (49 CFR part 350-399).
6. The State of Hawaii must include notice on a restricted CDL issued pursuant to this exemption of the geographical area(s) in which the CDL holder may operate a commercial motor vehicle in accordance with 49 CFR 383.153(a)(10)(ix).
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(d), as implemented by 49 CFR 381.600, during the period this exemption is in effect, no State shall enforce any law or regulation that conflicts with or is inconsistent with this exemption with respect to a person operating under the exemption.
The State of Hawaii must provide to FMCSA, upon request, a list of all drivers issued restricted CDLs under this exemption.
FMCSA does not believe that drivers covered by this exemption will experience any deterioration of their safety record. The Agency will, however, rescind the exemption if: (1) the State of Hawaii or drivers operating under the exemption fail to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption results in a lower level of safety than was maintained before it was granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of final disposition.
FMCSA announces its decision to renew exemptions for three individuals from the requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations (FMCSRs) that interstate commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” The exemptions enable these individuals who have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication to continue to operate CMVs in interstate commerce.
The exemptions were applicable on January 10, 2024. The exemptions expire on January 10, 2026. Each group of renewed exemptions were applicable on the dates stated in the discussions below and will expire on the dates provided below.
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On January 3, 2024, FMCSA published a notice announcing its decision to renew exemptions for three individuals from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8) to operate a CMV in interstate commerce and requested comments from the public (89 FR 430). The public comment period ended on February 2, 2024, and no comments were received.
FMCSA has evaluated the eligibility of these applicants and determined that renewing these exemptions would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved by complying with § 391.41(b)(8).
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in § 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
FMCSA received no comments in this proceeding.
Based on its evaluation of the three renewal exemption applications and comments received, FMCSA announces its decision to exempt the following drivers from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8).
As of January 3, 2024, and in accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), the following three individuals have satisfied the renewal conditions for obtaining an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in the FMCSRs for interstate CMV drivers (89 FR 430):
The drivers were included in docket number FMCSA-2013-0443, FMCSA-2014-0380, or FMCSA-2021-0025. Their exemptions were applicable as of January 10, 2024 and will expire on January 10, 2026.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b), each exemption will be valid for 2 years from the effective date unless revoked earlier by FMCSA. The exemption will be revoked if the following occurs: (1) the person fails to comply with the terms and conditions of the exemption; (2) the exemption has resulted in a lower level of safety than was maintained prior to being granted; or (3) continuation of the exemption would not be consistent with the goals and objectives of 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b).
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of applications for exemption; request for comments.
FMCSA announces receipt of applications from 11 individuals for an
Comments must be received on or before March 21, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by the Federal Docket Management System Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0256 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Public Participation” portion of the
Ms. Christine A. Hydock, Chief, Medical Programs Division, FMCSA, DOT, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001, (202) 366-4001,
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this notice (Docket No. FMCSA-2023-0256), indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation. You may submit your comments and material online or by fax, mail, or hand delivery, but please use only one of these means. FMCSA recommends that you include your name and a mailing address, an email address, or a phone number in the body of your document so that FMCSA can contact you if there are questions regarding your submission.
To submit your comment online, go to
If you submit your comments by mail or hand delivery, submit them in an unbound format, no larger than 8
To view comments go to
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31315(b)(6), DOT solicits comments from the public on the exemption request. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Under 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA may grant an exemption from the FMCSRs for no longer than a 5-year period if it finds such exemption would likely achieve a level of safety that is equivalent to, or greater than, the level that would be achieved absent such exemption. The statutes also allow the Agency to renew exemptions at the end of the 5-year period. FMCSA grants medical exemptions from the FMCSRs for a 2-year period to align with the maximum duration of a driver's medical certification.
The 11 individuals listed in this notice have requested an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in 49 CFR 391.41(b)(8). Accordingly, the Agency will evaluate the qualifications of each applicant to determine whether granting the exemption will achieve the required level of safety mandated by statute.
The physical qualification standard for drivers regarding epilepsy found in § 391.41(b)(8) states that a person is physically qualified to drive a CMV if that person has no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.
In addition to the regulations, FMCSA has published advisory criteria
The criteria states that if an individual has had a sudden episode of a non-epileptic seizure or loss of consciousness of unknown cause that did not require anti-seizure medication, the decision whether that person's condition is likely to cause the loss of consciousness or loss of ability to control a CMV should be made on an individual basis by the ME in consultation with the treating physician. Before certification is considered, it is suggested that a 6-month waiting period elapse from the time of the episode. Following the waiting period, it is suggested that the individual have a complete neurological examination. If the results of the examination are negative and anti-seizure medication is not required, then the driver may be qualified.
In those individual cases where a driver has had a seizure or an episode of loss of consciousness that resulted from a known medical condition (
Drivers who have a history of epilepsy/seizures, off anti-seizure medication, and seizure-free for 10 years, may be qualified to operate a CMV in interstate commerce. Interstate drivers with a history of a single unprovoked seizure may be qualified to drive a CMV in interstate commerce if seizure-free and off anti-seizure medication for a 5-year period or more.
As a result of MEs misinterpreting advisory criteria as regulation, numerous drivers have been prohibited from operating a CMV in interstate commerce based on the fact that they have had one or more seizures and are taking anti-seizure medication, rather than an individual analysis of their circumstances by a qualified ME based on the physical qualification standards and medical best practices.
On January 15, 2013, FMCSA announced in a notice of final disposition titled, “Qualification of Drivers; Exemption Applications; Epilepsy and Seizure Disorders,” (78 FR 3069), its decision to grant requests from 22 individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement that interstate CMV drivers have “no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of epilepsy or any other condition which is likely to cause loss of consciousness or any loss of ability to control a CMV.” Since that time, the Agency has published additional notices granting requests from individuals for exemptions from the regulatory requirement regarding epilepsy found in § 391.41(b)(8).
To be considered for an exemption from the epilepsy and seizure disorders prohibition in § 391.41(b)(8), applicants must meet the criteria in the 2007 recommendations of the Agency's Medical Expert Panel (78 FR 3069).
Regina Botros is a 34-year-old class A commercial driver's license (CDL) holder in North Carolina. They had a single provoked seizure and have been seizure free since 2016. They have never taken anti-seizure medication. Their physician states that they are supportive of Regina Botros receiving an exemption.
James Crady is a 48-year-old class D license holder in Ohio. They have a history of seizure disorder and have been seizure free since 2012. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2012. Their physician states that they are supportive of James Crady receiving an exemption.
Monte Fischer is a 47-year-old class D license holder in North Dakota. They have a history of localization epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2000. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2020. Their physician states that they are supportive of Monte Fischer receiving an exemption.
Anthony Fraulo is a 33-year-old class D license holder in Connecticut. They have a history of an idiopathic generalized seizures and have been seizure free since 2010. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since February 2012. Their physician states that they are supportive of Anthony Fraulo receiving an exemption.
Ernestina Garcia is a 55-year-old class A CDL holder in California. They have a history of epilepsy and have been seizure free since 1983. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 1983. Their physician states that they are supportive of Ernestina Garcia receiving an exemption.
Anthony Hoffman is a 39-year-old class D license holder in Minnesota. They have a history of seizure disorder and have been seizure free since May 2007. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since May 2016. Their physician states that they are supportive of Anthony Hoffman receiving an exemption.
Anthony Martin is a 55-year-old class A CDL holder in Virginia. They have a history of seizure disorder and have been seizure free for more than 40 years. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2013. Their physician states that they are supportive of Anthony Martin receiving an exemption.
Levi Read is a 31-year-old class A CDL holder in Maine. They have a history of seizure disorder and have been seizure free since 2015. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2015. Their physician states that they are supportive of Levi Read receiving an exemption.
Mark Shirkey is a 47-year-old class A CDL holder in Indiana. They have a history of seizure and have been seizure free for over 20 years. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since July 2020. Their physician states that they are supportive of Mark Shirkey receiving an exemption.
Dustin Sumner is a 33-year-old class DA CDL holder in Kentucky. They have a history of a single provoked seizure and have been seizure free since July 22, 2014. They have never taken anti-seizure medication. Their physician states that they are supportive of Dustin Sumner receiving an exemption.
Jaycee VanHouten is a 52-year-old class R license holder in Colorado. They have a history of generalized epilepsy and have been seizure free since 2014. They take anti-seizure medication with the dosage and frequency remaining the same since 2014. Their physician states that they are supportive of Jaycee VanHouten receiving an exemption.
In accordance with 49 U.S.C. 31136(e) and 31315(b), FMCSA requests public comment from all interested persons on the exemption petitions described in this notice. We will consider all comments received before the close of business on the closing date indicated under the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice.
The Charter for the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Committee (TAP), has been renewed for a two-year period beginning February 12, 2024.
Ms. Shawn Collins, Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Acting Director, at
Notice is hereby given under section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App. (1988), and with the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury to announce the charter renewal for the Taxpayer Advocacy Panel Committee (TAP). The TAP purpose is to provide a taxpayer perspective to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on critical tax administrative programs. The TAP shall provide listening opportunities for taxpayers to independently identify suggestions or comments to improve IRS customer service through grass roots outreach efforts, and have direct access to elevate improvement recommendations to the appropriate operating divisions. The TAP shall also serve as a focus group to provide suggestions and/or recommendations directly to IRS management on IRS strategic initiatives.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning, Miscellaneous Changes Under the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022.
Written comments should be received on or before April 22, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Martha R. Brinson, at (202) 317-5753, or at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning CPEO online system Identity Verification Application, Responsible Individual Personal Attestation (RIPA), Certified Professional Employer Organization Application, Form 14751, Form 8973, and TD 9860.
Written comments should be received on or before April 22, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Direct all written comments to Andres Garcia, Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or by email to
Requests for additional information or copies of this collection should be directed to Jon Callahan, (737) 800-7639, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through email at
The IRS is currently seeking comments concerning
The following paragraph applies to all of the collections of information covered by this notice:
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a valid OMB control number. Books or records relating to a collection of information must be retained as long as their contents may become material in the administration of any internal revenue law. Generally, tax returns and tax return information are confidential, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6103.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Submit written comments on the collection of information through Federal Docket Management System (FDMS) at
Maribel Aponte, Office of Enterprise and Integration, Data Governance Analytics (008), 810 Vermont Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20420, (202) 266-4688 or email
Under the PRA of 1995, Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA.
With respect to the following collection of information, VBA invites comments on: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary
By direction of the Secretary.
(1) who have voluntarily returned to the Palestinian territories after the date of this memorandum;
(2) who have not continuously resided in the United States since the date of this memorandum;
(3) who are inadmissible under section 212(a)(3) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)) or deportable under section 237(a)(4) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1227(a)(4));
(4) who have been convicted of any felony or two or more misdemeanors committed in the United States, or who meet any of the criteria set forth in section 208(b)(2)(A) of the INA (8 U.S.C. 1158(b)(2)(A));
(5) who are subject to extradition;
(6) whose presence in the United States the Secretary of Homeland Security has determined is not in the interest of the United States or presents a danger to public safety; or
(7) whose presence in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable grounds to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.