Forest Service
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
Coast Guard
Indian Affairs Bureau
Land Management Bureau
Antitrust Division
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration
Federal Railroad 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 https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USGPOOFR/subscriber/new, enter your e-mail address, then follow the instructions to join, leave, or manage your subscription.
U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA).
Notification of public webinar.
The SBA is holding a webinar to educate the public on the new Reinvestor SBIC License introduced to the market as part of the
The public webinar will be held on Friday, March 22, 2024, from 1 p.m. to 2 p.m. Eastern Time.
Information about applying for and managing a Reinvestor (“fund-of-funds”) SBIC License. The Webinar will be live streamed on Microsoft Teams for the public.
The meeting will be live streamed to the public, and anyone wishing to attend or needing accommodations because of a disability can contact Gretchen Kittel, SBA, Office of Investment & Innovation (OII), (202) 578-5502,
On August 17, 2023, the U.S. Small Business Administration (“SBA”) implemented new regulations for the Small Business Investment Company (“SBIC”) program as part of the SBIC Investment Diversification and Growth rulemaking. The new regulations significantly reduce barriers to program participation for new SBIC fund managers and funds investing in underserved communities and geographies, capital intensive investments, and technologies critical to national security and economic development. The proposed rule introduced two additional types of SBIC Licensees, Reinvestor SBICs and Accrual SBICs, to increase program investment diversification and equity-oriented financing for American small businesses and innovative startups. Reinvestor SBICs expand SBA's network of emerging fund managers, micro-funds, and funds addressing underserved communities and geographies and undercapitalized industries.
For the public webinar, OII strongly encourages questions be submitted in advance by March 20, 2024. Individuals may email
For information on services for individuals with disabilities or to request special assistance, contact Gretchen Kittel at the telephone number or email address indicated under the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions.
These special conditions are issued for the Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation (Gulfstream) Model GVIII-G700 and GVIII-G800 series airplanes. These airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design feature is side-facing seats oriented in the aircraft with the occupant facing 90 degrees to the direction of aircraft travel. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Effective March 13, 2024.
Myra Kuck, Cabin Safety, AIR-624, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Policy and Standards, 3960 Paramount Blvd., Suite 100, Lakewood, CA 90712; telephone and fax 405-666-1059; email
On December 31, 2019, Gulfstream applied for an amendment to Type Certificate No. T00015AT to include the new Model GVIII-G700 and GVIII-G800 series airplanes. These airplanes, which will be derivatives of the Model GVI currently approved under Type Certificate No. T00015AT, are twin-engine, transport-category airplanes, with seating for 19 passengers, and a maximum take-off weight of 107,600 pounds (GVIII-G700) and 105,600 pounds (GVIII-G800).
Under the provisions of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) 21.101, Gulfstream must show that the Model GVIII-G700 and GVIII-G800 series airplanes meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00015AT, or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Gulfstream Model GVIII-G700 and GVIII-G800 series airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16.
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the type certificate for that model be amended later to include any other model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special conditions, the Gulfstream Model GVIII-G700 and GVIII-G800 series airplanes must comply with the exhaust-emission requirements of 14 CFR part 34, and the noise-certification requirements of 14 CFR part 36.
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with 14 CFR 11.38, and they become part of the type certification basis under § 21.101.
The Gulfstream Model GVIII-G700 and GVIII-G800 airplanes will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
Side-facing seats, oriented in the aircraft with the occupant facing 90 degrees to the direction of aircraft travel, with or without incorporation of an airbag systems or inflatables.
On June 16, 1988, 14 CFR part 25 was amended to revise the emergency landing conditions that must be considered in the design of transport category airplanes. This amendment (25-64) revised the static load conditions in § 25.561 and added a new § 25.562 that required dynamic testing for all seats approved for occupancy during takeoff and landing. The intent of Amendment 25-64 was to provide an improved level of safety for occupants on transport category airplanes; however, because most seating on transport category airplanes is forward-facing, the pass/fail criteria developed in Amendment 25-64 focused primarily on these seats.
Prior to 2012, the FAA granted exemptions
Due to the novelty of side-facing seats in transport category airplanes, acceptable safety measures for § 25.562 were unknown. The FAA conducted research to develop an acceptable method of compliance with §§ 25.562 and 25.785(b) for side-facing seat installations. That research has identified injury considerations and evaluation criteria in addition to those previously used to approve side-facing seats (see published report DOT/FAA/AR-09/41, July 2011
On November 5, 2012, the FAA released PS-ANM-25-03-R1, “Technical Criteria for Approving Side-Facing Seats,” to update existing FAA certification policy on §§ 25.562 and 25.785(a) and (b) at Amendment 25-64 for single- and multiple-place side-facing seats. This policy addressed both the technical criteria for approving side-facing seats and the implementation of those criteria. The FAA methodology detailed in PS-ANM-25-03-R1 has been used to develop these special conditions. Some of the conditions issued for previous exemptions are still relevant and are included in these special conditions; however, others have been replaced by different criteria that reflect current research findings described above, as well as design features from the Gulfstream GVII model side-facing seat design.
The special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-23-07-SC for the Gulfstream Model GVIII-G700 and GVIII-G800 airplanes, which was published in the
The FAA received responses from two anonymous commenters. One commenter stated that they support the special conditions as proposed. The second commenter requested the FAA make the following changes to the proposed special conditions:
1. The commenter requested the FAA replace the term “airbag” with “automatically deploying safety system.” The commenter stated that it should be clear that the installation of a different kind of automatically deploying safety system would necessitate the issuance of a new special condition. The FAA acknowledges that the current automatically-deploying safety systems proposed by applicants are airbag systems. If in the future the technology proposed by applicants should change, then there may be need for another special condition. No changes were made to these special conditions as a result of this comment.
2. The commenter stated that the proposed special conditions paragraph 1.e(1)(b) may cause confusion, in that the word “bottom” is singular and the word “feet” is plural. This wording, according to the commenter, could lead to an interpretation that the force of about 20 pounds (lbs) may be applied to each foot, plus it is not specified that the force be applied uniformly. The commenter also suggested a specific revision to the text of this paragraph to address these concerns. The FAA disagrees that there is ambiguity or that a change is necessary. The 20 lbs of force is the total force applied to the bottom of the feet. The text of the special condition is similar to the language of FAA Policy Statement PS-ANM-25-03-R1 “Technical Criteria for Approving Side-Facing Seats.” No changes were made to these special conditions as a result of this comment.
3. The commenter suggested several changes to the formatting and technical
4. The commenter made two comments regarding paragraph 4.a. of these special conditions. The commenter suggested the FAA revise the phrase “that range of occupants” because it is missing explanation as to which range of occupants is being referred to. The FAA disagrees. The range of occupants is provided in Paragraph 3.b. Paragraph 3. states that “For all airbag systems in the shoulder harness and for leg flail the following apply” . . . Paragraph b. states that the means of protection must take into consideration a range of stature from a 2-year-old child to a 95th percentile male.
The commenter further stated that in paragraph 4.a., the situations that must be considered do not account for the possibility that the seat occupant is a child in a child restraint device or booster seat. The FAA disagrees. Booster seats are not allowed. If a child restraint device is installed, the installation must show it would not harm the occupant, otherwise an operating limitation would need to limit to no child restraint device per condition 4.b. No changes were made to these special conditions as a result of this comment.
Except as discussed above, the special conditions are adopted as proposed.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Gulfstream Model GVIII-G700 and GVIII-G800 series airplanes. Should Gulfstream apply at a later date for a change to the type certificate to include another model that incorporates the same novel or unusual design feature, or should any other model already included on the same type certificate be modified to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to the other model as well.
Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on Gulfstream Model GVIII-G700 and GVIII-G800 series of airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Gulfstream Model GVIII-G700 and GVIII-G800 series airplanes.
In addition to the airworthiness standards in §§ 25.562 and 25.785, the FAA issues the following special conditions as part of the type certification basis for the Gulfstream Model GVIII-G700 and GVIII-G800 series aircraft. Items 1 through 3 are applicable to all side-facing seat installations on these airplanes. Item 4 imposes additional requirements applicable to side-facing seats equipped with an airbag system in the shoulder belt. Item 5 imposes additional requirements applicable to side-facing seats equipped with leg-flail airbag systems.
1. Additional requirements applicable to tests or rational analysis conducted to show compliance with §§ 25.562 and 25.785 for side-facing seats:
a. The longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with § 25.562(b)(2) to show compliance with the seat-strength requirements of § 25.562(c)(7) and (8), and these special conditions must have an ES-2re anthropomorphic test dummy (ATD) (49 CFR part 572 subpart U) or equivalent, or a Hybrid-II ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart B as specified in § 25.562) or equivalent, occupying each seat position and including all items contactable by the occupant (
b. The longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with § 25.562(b)(2), to show compliance with the injury assessments required by § 25.562(c) and these special conditions, may be conducted separately from the test(s) to show structural integrity. Structural-assessment tests must be conducted as specified in paragraph 1.a., above, and the injury-assessment test must be conducted without yaw or floor misalignment. Injury assessments may be accomplished by testing with ES-2re ATD (49 CFR part 572 subpart U) or equivalent at all places. Alternatively, these assessments may be accomplished by multiple tests that use an ES-2re at the seat place being evaluated, and a Hybrid-II ATD (49 CFR part 572, subpart B, as specified in § 25.562) or equivalent used in all seat places forward of the one being assessed, to evaluate occupant interaction. Seat places aft of the one being assessed may be unoccupied. If a seat installation includes adjacent items that are contactable by the occupant, the injury potential of that contact must be assessed. To make this assessment, tests may be conducted that include the actual item, located, and attached in a representative fashion. Alternatively, the injury potential may be assessed by a combination of tests with items having
c. If a seat is installed aft of structure (
d. To accommodate a range of occupant heights (5th percentile female to 95th percentile male), the surface of items contactable by the occupant must be homogenous 7.3 inches (185 mm) above and 7.9 inches (200 mm) below the point (center of area) that is contacted by the 50th percentile male size ATD's head during the longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with paragraphs a, b, and c, above. Otherwise, additional head-injury criteria (HIC) assessment tests may be necessary. Any surface (inflatable or otherwise) that provides support for the occupant of any seat place must provide that support in a consistent manner regardless of occupant stature. For example, if an inflatable shoulder belt is used to mitigate injury risk, then it must be demonstrated by inspection to bear against the range of occupants in a similar manner before and after inflation. Likewise, the means of limiting lower-leg flail must be demonstrated by inspection to provide protection for the range of occupants in a similar manner.
e. For longitudinal test(s) conducted in accordance with § 25.562(b)(2) and these special conditions, the ATDs must be positioned, clothed, and have lateral instrumentation configured as follows:
(1)
Lower the ATD vertically into the seat while simultaneously (see Figure 2 for illustration):
(a) Aligning the midsagittal plane (a vertical plane through the midline of the body; dividing the body into right and left halves) with approximately the middle of the seat place.
(b) Applying a horizontal x-axis direction (in the ATD coordinate system) force of about 20 pounds (lbs) (89 Newtons [N]) to the bottom of the feet of the ATD with the legs straight, to compress the seat back cushion.
(c) Keeping the legs nearly horizontal by supporting them just behind the ankles.
(d) Once all lifting devices have been removed from the ATD:
(i) Rock it slightly to settle it in the seat.
(ii) Gently lower the ankles of the ATD bending the legs at the knee joints. Do not allow the pelvis of the ATD to be moved when the lower legs are lowered. The seat back cushion must remain compressed. Separate the knees by about 4 inches (100 mm).
(iii) Set the ES-2re's head at approximately the midpoint of the available range of z-axis rotation (to align the head and torso midsagittal planes).
(iv) Position the ES-2re's arms at the joint's mechanical detent that puts them at approximately a 40-degree angle with respect to the torso. Position the Hybrid-II ATD hands on top of its upper legs.
(v) Position the feet such that the centerlines of the lower legs are approximately parallel to a lateral vertical plane (in the aircraft coordinate system).
(2)
(3)
f. The combined horizontal/vertical test, required by § 25.562(b)(1) and these special conditions, must be conducted with a Hybrid II ATD (49 CFR part 572 subpart B as specified in § 25.562), or equivalent, occupying each seat position.
g.
(1) If inflatable restraint systems are used, they must be active during all dynamic tests conducted to show compliance with § 25.562.
(2) The design and installation of seat-belt buckles must prevent unbuckling due to applied inertial forces or impact of the hands/arms of the occupant during an emergency landing.
2. Additional performance measures applicable to tests and rational analysis conducted to show compliance with §§ 25.562 and 25.785 for side-facing seats:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
(1) The upper-neck tension force at the occipital condyle (O.C.) location must be less than 405 lb (1,800 N).
(2) The upper-neck compression force at the O.C. location must be less than 405 lb (1,800 N).
(3) The upper-neck bending torque about the ATD x-axis at the O.C. location must be less than 1,018 in-lb (115 Nm).
(4) The upper-neck resultant shear force at the O.C. location must be less than 186 lb (825 N).
g.
(1) A measurement of the belt loop load during the time when the belt moves above the pelvis (submarining) must not exceed 500 lbs (2,225 N)
(a) A clear indication of when the belt moves above the pelvis. Loose clothing can make it difficult to determine where the top of the pelvis is, and in turn make it hard to discern exactly when the belt moved above it. This can be improved by marking the top of the pelvis clearly and by positioning the cameras so that
(b) A measurement of the belt tension during the time when the belt moves above the pelvis. Place the webbing transducer to measure the total tension in the forward lap belt segment. If a split (combined body-centered and conventional) leading belt is used, measure the tension in the common section so that it reflects the contribution of each segment. Since this placement typically produces contact between the ATD and the transducer, it is important to use a webbing transducer that is not sensitive to contact.
(c) Record useful video and belt load data until significant ATD rebound motion stops. Extra recording time is necessary because submarining usually occurs later in the test than other injury criteria maximums. To completely capture ATD rebound, the necessary time could exceed 500 ms.
h.
(1)
(2)
3. For all airbag systems in the shoulder harness and for leg flail, the following apply:
a. Show that the airbag system will deploy and provide protection under crash conditions where it is necessary to prevent serious injury.
b. The means of protection must take into consideration a range of stature from a 2-year-old child to a 95th percentile male.
c. The airbag system must provide adequate protection for each occupant regardless of the number of occupants of the seat assembly, considering that unoccupied seats may have an active airbag system.
d. It must be shown that the airbag system is not susceptible to inadvertent deployment as a result of wear and tear, or inertial loads resulting from in-flight or ground maneuvers (including gusts and hard landings), and other operating and environmental conditions (vibrations, moisture, etc.) likely to occur in service.
e. Deployment of the airbag system must not introduce injury mechanisms to the seated occupant, or result in injuries that could impede rapid egress. This assessment should include an occupant whose seat belt is loosely fastened.
f. It must be shown that inadvertent deployment of the airbag system, during the most critical part of the flight, will either meet the requirement of § 25.1309(b) or not cause a hazard to the airplane or its occupants.
g. It must be shown that the airbag system will not impede rapid egress of occupants 10 seconds after airbag deployment.
h. The airbag system must be protected from lightning and high-intensity radiated fields (HIRF). The threats to the airplane specified in existing regulations regarding lighting, § 25.1316, and HIRF, § 25.1317, are adopted by reference for the purpose of measuring lightning and HIRF protection.
i. The airbag system must function properly after loss of normal aircraft electrical power, and after a transverse separation of the fuselage at the most critical location. A separation at the location of the airbag system does not have to be considered.
j. It must be shown that the airbag system will not release hazardous quantities of gas or particulate matter into the cabin.
k. The airbag system installation must be protected from the effects of fire such that no hazard to occupants will result.
l. A means must be available for a crewmember to verify the integrity of the airbag system prior to each flight, or it must be demonstrated to reliably operate between inspection intervals. The FAA considers that the loss of the airbag-system deployment function alone (
m. The inflatable material may not have an average burn rate of greater than 2.5 inches/minute when tested using the horizontal flammability test defined in part 25, appendix F, part I, paragraph (b)(5).
n. The airbag system, once deployed, must not adversely affect the emergency-lighting system (
o. The airbag system must perform its intended function after impact from other proximate assemblies (
4. For seats with an airbag system in the shoulder belts, the following apply:
a. The airbag system in the shoulder belt must provide a consistent approach to energy absorption throughout that range of occupants. The airbag system must be included in each of the certification tests as it would be installed in the airplane. In addition, the following situations must be considered:
(1) The seat occupant is holding an infant.
(2) The seat occupant is a pregnant woman.
b. The design must prevent the airbag system in the shoulder belt from being either incorrectly buckled or incorrectly installed, such that the airbag system in the shoulder belt would not properly deploy. Alternatively, it must be shown that such deployment is not hazardous to the occupant, and will provide the required injury protection.
5. For seats using an airbag system to meet the leg-flail conditions of 2.e. the following apply:
a. At some buttock popliteal length and effective seat bottom depth the lower legs will not be able to make a 90-degree angle with the upper leg; at this point the lower leg flail would not occur. The leg flail airbag system must provide a consistent approach to prevention of leg flail throughout that range of occupants whose lower legs can make a 90-degree angle with the upper legs when seated upright in the seat. Items that need to be considered include, but are not limited to the range of occupants' popliteal height, the range of occupants' buttock popliteal length, the design of the seat effective height above the floor, and the effective depth of the seat bottom cushion.
b. For all g-levels, if the design of the leg flail limited device does absorb some of the impact energy and returns only a portion to the legs (a qualitative assessment), then a rebound leg flail of greater than 35 degrees is acceptable.
c. Threshold test severity must be shown to be non-injurious (less than the post-mortem human subject (PMHS) low-g research testing) for g-levels up to the point where the leg flail airbag is designed to deploy.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
The FAA is superseding Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2022-13-16 for all GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (GEAC) (type certificate previously held by WALTER Engines a.s., Walter a.s., and MOTORLET a.s.) Model M601D-11 engines; and AD 2022-14-12, for certain GEAC Model M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S, and M601F engines. AD 2022-13-16 required revising the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the existing engine maintenance manual (EMM) to incorporate a visual inspection of the centrifugal compressor case for cracks. AD 2022-14-12 required replacing the propeller shaft for Model M601F engines. AD 2022-14-12 also required calculating the accumulated life of the propeller shaft and replacing the propeller shaft, if necessary, for model M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, and M601E-11S engines. Since the FAA issued AD 2022-13-16 and AD 2022-14-12, the manufacturer revised the ALS of the existing EMM to introduce new and more restrictive tasks and limitations, expand the applicability to all Model M601 engines, and incorporate certain requirements addressed by AD 2021-13-07 and AD 2023-01-10, which prompted this AD. This AD requires revising the ALS of the existing EMM and the operator's existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new and more restrictive tasks and limitations, as specified in a European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective April 17, 2024.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication listed in this AD as of April 17, 2024.
• For service information identified in this final rule, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
• You may view this service information at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110. It is also available at
Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (781) 238-7146; email:
The FAA issued a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to amend 14 CFR part 39 to supersede AD 2022-13-16, Amendment 39-22102 (87 FR 37986, June 27, 2022) (AD 2022-13-16); and AD 2022-14-12, Amendment 39-22117 (87 FR 42066, July 14, 2022) (AD 2022-14-12).
AD 2022-13-16 applied to all GEAC Model M601D-11 engines and required revising the ALS of the existing EMM to incorporate a visual inspection of the centrifugal compressor case. The FAA issued AD 2022-13-16 to prevent failure of the centrifugal compressor case.
AD 2022-14-12 applied to certain GEAC Model M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S, and M601F engines. For Model M601F engines, AD 2022-14-12 required replacement of the propeller shaft. For Model M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, and M601E-11S engines, AD 2022-14-12 required calculating the accumulated life of the propeller shaft and replacing the propeller shaft if necessary.
The NPRM published in the
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
In the NPRM, the FAA proposed to require revising the ALS of the existing EMM and the operator's existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, to incorporate new and more restrictive tasks and limitations.
The FAA received no comments on the NPRM or on the determination of the costs.
These products have been approved by the aviation authority of another country and are approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to the FAA's bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, it has notified the FAA of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI referenced above. The FAA reviewed the relevant data and determined that air safety requires adopting this AD as proposed. Accordingly, the FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these
The FAA reviewed EASA AD 2023-0020, which specifies procedures for accomplishment of the actions specified in the ALS, including performing maintenance tasks, replacing life-limited parts, and revising the existing approved maintenance or inspection program, as applicable, by incorporating the instructions and associated thresholds and intervals described in the ALS, as applicable to engine model and depending on engine configuration.
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
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 42 engines installed on airplanes of U.S. registry.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
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 has determined that this AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
(3) Will 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 amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
This airworthiness directive (AD) is effective April 17, 2024.
(1) This AD affects AD 2021-13-07, Amendment 39-21612 (86 FR 31601, June 15, 2021) (AD 2021-13-07).
(2) This AD replaces AD 2022-13-16, Amendment 39-22102 (87 FR 37986, June 27, 2022).
(3) This AD replaces AD 2022-14-12, Amendment 39-22117 (87 FR 42066, July 14, 2022).
(4) This AD affects AD 2023-01-10, Amendment 39-22304 (88 FR 7578, February 6, 2023) (AD 2023-01-10).
This AD applies to GE Aviation Czech s.r.o. (GEAC) (type certificate previously held by WALTER Engines a.s., Walter a.s., and MOTORLET a.s.) Model M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S, and M601F engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code 7210, Turbine Engine Reduction Gear.
This AD was prompted by the manufacturer revising the airworthiness limitations section (ALS) of the existing engine maintenance manual (EMM) to introduce new and more restrictive tasks and limitations and associated thresholds and intervals for life-limited parts. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent failure of the engine. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in uncontained release of a critical part, damage to the engine, and damage to the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
(1) Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Perform all required actions within the compliance times specified in, and in accordance with, European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0020, dated January 23, 2023 (EASA AD 2023-0020).
(2) The action required by paragraph (g)(1) of this AD may be performed by the owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate and must be entered into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9(a) and 91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR 91.417, 121.380, or 135.439.
(1) Where EASA AD 2023-0020 defines the AMP as “The Aircraft Maintenance Programme (AMP) contains the tasks on the basis of which the scheduled maintenance is conducted to ensure the continuing airworthiness of each operated engine,” replace that text with “the aircraft
(2) Where EASA AD 2023-0020 specifies the ALS as “The Airworthiness Limitations Section of the GEAC Engine Maintenance Manual (EMM) No. 0982309 Revision 21,” replace that text with “The Airworthiness Limitations Section of the GEAC Engine Maintenance Manual (EMM) No. 0982309 Revision 22.” The ALS in Revision 22 of the EMM is unchanged from Revision 21.
(3) Where EASA AD 2023-0020 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(4) Where paragraph (3) of EASA AD 2023-0020 specifies “Within 12 months after the effective date of this AD, revise the approved AMP,” replace that text with “Within 90 days after the effective date of this AD, revise the ALS of the existing approved engine maintenance or inspection program, as applicable.”
(5) This AD does not require compliance with paragraphs (1), (2), (4), and (5) of EASA AD 2023-0020.
(6) This AD does not adopt the Remarks paragraph of EASA AD 2023-0020.
After performing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD, no alternative actions and associated thresholds and intervals, including life limits, are allowed unless they are approved as specified in the provisions of the “Ref. Publications” section of EASA AD 2023-0020.
(1) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of AD 2021-13-07 for model M601D-11, M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S, and M601F engines only.
(2) Accomplishing the actions required by paragraph (g) of this AD terminates the requirements of paragraphs (g)(1) through (3) of AD 2023-01-10 for model M601E-11, M601E-11A, M601E-11AS, M601E-11S, and M601F engines only.
(1) The Manager, International Validation Branch, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, send your request to your principal inspector or local Flight Standards District Office, as appropriate. If sending information directly to the manager of the International Validation Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (l) of this AD and email to
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local flight standards district office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 1600 Stewart Avenue, Suite 410, Westbury, NY 11590; phone: (781) 238-7146; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD 2023-0020, dated January 23, 2023.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For EASA AD 2023-0020, contact EASA, Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 3, 50668 Cologne, Germany; phone: +49 221 8999 000; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 1200 District Avenue, Burlington, MA 01803. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit:
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule; request for comments.
The FAA is adopting a new airworthiness directive (AD) for all Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. (P&WC) Model PT6A-64, PT6A-66, PT6A-66A, PT6A-66B, PT6A-66D, PT6A-67, PT6A-67A, PT6A-67AF, PT6A-67AG, PT6A-67B, PT6A-67D, PT6A-67F, PT6A-67P, PT6A-67R, PT6A-67RM, PT6A-67T, PT6A-68, PT6A-68D, PT6E-67XP, and PT6E-66XT engines. The FAA previously sent this AD as an emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these engines. This AD was prompted by reports of second-stage power turbine (PT2) blade failures. This AD requires removal of affected PT2 blades prior to the next flight and prohibits installation of affected PT2 blades, as specified in a Transport Canada Emergency AD, which is incorporated by reference. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
This AD is effective March 28, 2024. Emergency AD 2024-04-51, issued on February 16, 2024, which contained the requirements of this amendment, was effective with actual notice.
The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of a certain publication identified in this AD as of March 28, 2024.
The FAA must receive comments on this AD by April 29, 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 final rule, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; phone: (888) 663-3639; email:
• You may view this material at the FAA, Airworthiness Products Section,
Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7146; email:
The FAA invites you to send any written data, views, or arguments about this final rule. 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 AD 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 AD, 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 AD. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198. Any commentary that the FAA receives which is not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket for this rulemaking.
The FAA issued Emergency AD 2024-04-51, dated February 16, 2024 (the emergency AD), to address an unsafe condition on P&WC Model PT6A-64, PT6A-66, PT6A-66A, PT6A-66B, PT6A-66D, PT6A-67, PT6A-67A, PT6A-67AF, PT6A-67AG, PT6A-67B, PT6A-67D, PT6A-67F, PT6A-67P, PT6A-67R, PT6A-67RM, PT6A-67T, PT6A-68, PT6A-68D, PT6E-67XP, and PT6E-66XT engines. The FAA sent the emergency AD to all known U.S. owners and operators of these engines. The emergency AD requires removal of affected PT2 blades prior to the next flight. The emergency AD also prohibits installation of affected PT2 blades.
The emergency AD was prompted by Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-05, dated February 15, 2024 (Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-05) (referred to after this as the MCAI), issued by Transport Canada, which is the aviation authority for Canada, to correct an unsafe condition on P&WC Model PT6A-64, PT6A-66, PT6A-66A, PT6A-66B, PT6A-66D, PT6A-66T, PT6A-67, PT6A-67A, PT6A-67AF, PT6A-67AG, PT6A-67B, PT6A-67D, PT6A-67F, PT6A-67P, PT6A-67R, PT6A-67RM, PT6A-67T, PT6A-68, PT6A-68B, PT6A-68C, PT6A-68D, PT6A-68T, PT6E-67XP, and PT6E-66XT engines. The MCAI states that there has been a recent in-service report of a PT2 blade failure on a model PT6A-67 engine and two reports of PT2 blade failures during testing at the manufacturer's facility. The PT2 blade failures were contained. The manufacturer is investigating the root cause of the PT2 blade failures, but the preliminary investigation determined that the affected power turbine modules contained PT2 blades with part number 3056693-01, which were newly manufactured from the same raw material. In all cases, the PT2 blades had accumulated less than 25 hours air time since new. Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-05 specifies removal of the suspect blades prior to the next flight and prohibits installation of the suspect blades. Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-05 states that the corrective actions are interim actions until the root cause investigation is completed. This condition, if not addressed, could result in engine power loss or engine in-flight shut down, resulting in consequent emergency landing or reduced control of the airplane. The FAA is issuing this AD to address the unsafe condition on these products.
You may examine the MCAI in the AD docket at
The FAA reviewed Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-05, which requires replacing the affected PT2 blades. Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-05 also prohibits the installation of the affected PT2 blades. 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 described above. The FAA is issuing this AD after determining that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
This AD requires accomplishing the actions specified in the MCAI, except as discussed under “Differences Between this AD and the MCAI.”
The MCAI applies to P&WC Model PT6A-66T, PT6A-68B, PT6A-68C, and PT6A-68T engines, but this emergency AD does not as these engines are not U.S. type-certificated.
The FAA considers that this AD is an interim action. The manufacturer is currently investigating the root cause of the unsafe condition identified in this AD. If final action is later identified, the FAA might consider further rulemaking.
Section 553(b)(3)(B) of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 551
An unsafe condition exists that required the immediate adoption of Emergency AD 2024-04-51, issued on February 16, 2024, to all known U.S. owners and operators of these engines. The FAA found that the risk to the flying public justified waiving notice and comment prior to adoption of this rule because failure of the PT2 blade could result in engine power loss or engine in-flight shut down, and consequent emergency landing or reduced control of the airplane. Given the significance of the risk presented by this unsafe condition, it must be immediately addressed. Thus, the FAA has determined that the affected PT2 blades must be removed before further flight. These conditions still exist, therefore, notice and opportunity for prior public comment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B).
In addition, the FAA finds that good cause exists pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(d) for making this amendment effective in less than 30 days, for the same reasons the FAA found good cause to forego notice and comment.
The requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) do not apply when an agency finds good cause pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553 to adopt a rule without prior notice and comment. Because FAA has determined that it has good cause to adopt this rule without prior notice and comment, RFA analysis is not required.
The FAA estimates that this AD affects 75 engines installed on aircraft of U.S. registry. The FAA does not know how many affected PT2 blades are installed on each engine. This cost estimate therefore reflects the cost of replacing one affected PT2 blade per engine. Replacing more than one affected PT2 blade at the same time would not incur additional labor costs.
The FAA estimates the following costs to comply with this AD:
The FAA has included all known costs in its cost estimate. According to the manufacturer, however, all of the costs of this 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.
This AD will not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This AD will 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 that this AD:
(1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, and
(2) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska.
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Incorporation by reference, Safety.
Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA amends 14 CFR part 39 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.
The FAA issued emergency Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2024-04-51 on February 16, 2024, directly to affected owners and operators. As a result of such actual notice, the emergency AD was effective for those owners and operators on the date it was received. This AD contains the same requirements as the emergency AD and, for those who did not receive actual notice, is effective on March 28, 2024.
None.
This AD applies to Pratt & Whitney Canada Corp. Model PT6A-64, PT6A-66, PT6A-66A, PT6A-66B, PT6A-66D, PT6A-67, PT6A-67A, PT6A-67AF, PT6A-67AG, PT6A-67B, PT6A-67D, PT6A-67F, PT6A-67P, PT6A-67R, PT6A-67RM, PT6A-67T, PT6A-68, PT6A-68D, PT6E-67XP, and PT6E-66XT engines.
Joint Aircraft System Component (JASC) Code, 7250 Turbine Section.
This AD was prompted by reports from the manufacturer of the failure of second-stage power turbine (PT2) blades. The FAA is issuing this AD to prevent the failure of PT2 blades. The unsafe condition, if not addressed, could result in engine power loss or engine in-flight shut down, resulting in consequent emergency landing or reduced control of the airplane.
Comply with this AD within the compliance times specified, unless already done.
Except as specified in paragraph (h) of this AD: Comply with all required actions and compliance times specified in, and in
(1) Where Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-05 refers to its effective date, this AD requires using the effective date of this AD.
(2) Where Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-05 refers to hours air time, this AD requires using flight hours.
(3) Where paragraph B of Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-05 specifies “After the effective date of this AD,” replace that text with “As of the effective date of this AD.”
(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 AIR-520 Continued Operational Safety Branch, send it to the attention of the person identified in paragraph (j) of this AD and email it to
(2) Before using any approved AMOC, notify your appropriate principal inspector, or lacking a principal inspector, the manager of the local Flight Standards District Office/certificate holding district office.
For more information about this AD, contact Barbara Caufield, Aviation Safety Engineer, FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; phone: (781) 238-7146; email:
(1) The Director of the Federal Register approved the incorporation by reference of the service information listed in this paragraph under 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51.
(2) You must use this service information as applicable to do the actions required by this AD, unless the AD specifies otherwise.
(i) Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-05, dated February 15, 2024.
(ii) [Reserved]
(3) For Transport Canada Emergency AD CF-2024-05, contact Transport Canada, Transport Canada National Aircraft Certification, 159 Cleopatra Drive, Nepean, Ontario K1A 0N5, Canada; phone: (888) 663-3639; email:
(4) You may view this service information at FAA, Airworthiness Products Section, Operational Safety Branch, 2200 South 216th Street, Des Moines, WA. For information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call (817) 222-5110.
(5) You may view this material at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, visit:
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Interim final rule.
The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to clarify controls on radiation hardened integrated circuits, including controls on computer and telecommunications equipment incorporating such radiation hardened integrated circuits. This rule also addresses certain scenarios that apply to certain integrated circuits acquired, tested, or otherwise used by or for the United States Government and affirms the availability of License Exception GOV for such items when pursuant to an official written request or directive from the Department of Defense or the Department of Energy. Lastly, this rule expands the availability of License Exception GOV for microelectronics items being exported, reexported, or transferred (in-country) in furtherance of a contract between the exporter, reexporter, or transferor and a department or agency of the U.S. Government when the contract provides for the export, reexport, transfer (in-country) of the item by the exporter, reexporter, or transferor in order to remove export control obstacles for official business of the U.S. Government, including the Department of Energy and the Department of Defense.
Comments on this rule may be submitted to the Federal rulemaking portal (
All filers using the portal should use the name of the person or entity submitting the comments as the name of their files, in accordance with the instructions below. Anyone submitting business confidential information should clearly identify the business confidential portion at the time of submission, file a statement justifying nondisclosure and referring to the specific legal authority claimed, and provide a non-confidential version of the submission.
For comments submitted electronically containing business confidential information, the file name of the business confidential version should begin with the characters “BC.” Any page containing business confidential information must be clearly marked “BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL” on the top of that page. The corresponding non-confidential version of those comments must be clearly marked “PUBLIC.” The file name of the non-confidential version should begin with the character “P.” Any submissions with file names that do not begin with either a “BC” or a “P” will be assumed to be public and will be made publicly available through
Brian Baker, Office of National Security and Technology Transfer Controls, Bureau of Industry and Security, Phone: (202) 482-9135; Email:
Department of Defense (DOD) Leadership established the Strategic Radiation Hardened Electronics Council (SRHEC) in September, 2018 with the goal of to ensuring continued access to Strategic Radiation Hardened (SRH) and Radiation Hardened (RH) electronics and the long-term viability of the domestic infrastructure that are critical to the Nation's security and defense. In support of that effort, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) is amending
This rule revises paragraph (b)(1) by adding the phrase “for or at the direction of” and adding “or the Department of Energy,” to the first sentence.
This rule also revises paragraph (b)(2)(iv) by adding “or the Department of Energy” to the heading of paragraph (b)(2)(iv) and “or the Department of Energy” to the same paragraph. Also, for clarification this rule adds “department or” in front of “agency of the U.S. Government. BIS was made aware that the authorization provided in paragraph (b)(2)(iv) (
BIS is also adding paragraph (b)(2)(vii), to authorize the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of microelectronics items in furtherance of a contract between the exporter, reexporter, or transferor and a department or agency of the USG, if the contract provides for such export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of the microelectronics item by the exporter, reexporter, or transferor. This ensures the continued availability, access, and assurance of the strategic microelectronics that are critical to the nation's security and defense.
This rule revises § 770.2 to add paragraph (o)
This rule revises Export Control Classification Numbers (ECCNs) 4A001, 4A101, 5A001, 6A203, and 6A999 on the CCL to add a note to the Related Controls paragraph of each of these ECCNs to explain that the act of incorporating a radiation hardened integrated circuit into commodities specified under other ECCNs on the CCL or designated as EAR99 does not, in and of itself, cause the commodity into which the radiation hardened integrated circuit is incorporated to meet the radiation hardened specifications of ECCNs 4A001.a.2, 4A101.b, 5A001.a.2, 6A203.d, or 6A999.b. For example, the incorporation of a radiation hardened integrated circuit classified under ECCN 3A001.a.1 into a computer classified under ECCN 4A994 does not, in and of itself, change the classification of the computer to ECCN 4A001.a.2.
On August 13, 2018, the President signed into law the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019, which included the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 (ECRA) (codified, as amended, at 50 U.S.C. 4801-4852). ECRA provides the legal basis for BIS's principal authorities and serves as the authority under which BIS issues this rule.
1. This interim final rule has been designated a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866.
2. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule involves the following OMB-approved collections of information subject to the PRA:
• 0694-0088, “Multi-Purpose Application,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 29.4 minutes for a manual or electronic submission;
• 0694-0096, “Five Year Records Retention Period,” which carries a burden hour estimate of less than 1 minute;
• 0694-0122, “Licensing Responsibilities and Enforcement;” and
• 0607-0152, “Automated Export System (AES) Program,” which carries a burden hour estimate of 3 minutes per electronic submission.
BIS expects the burden hours associated with these collections to remain the same, because the revisions in this rule are intended to preempt future licensing delays and volume to USG programs and their industry/DIB contract performers, rather than address current license application burden. Additional information regarding these collections of information—including all background materials—can be found at
3. This rule does not contain policies with federalism implications as that term is defined in Executive Order 13132.
4. Pursuant to section 1762 of ECRA (50 U.S.C. 4821), this action is exempt from the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553) requirements for notice of proposed rulemaking, opportunity for public participation, and delay in effective date. While section 1762 of ECRA provides sufficient authority for such an exemption, this action is also independently exempt from these APA requirements because it involves a military or foreign affairs function of the United States (5 U.S.C. 553(a)(1)).
5. Because a notice of proposed rulemaking and an opportunity for public comment are not required to be
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Exports.
Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, parts 740, 770, and 774 of the Export Administration Regulations (15 CFR parts 730 through 774) are amended as follows:
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
(b) * * *
(1)
(2) * * *
(iv)
(vii) This paragraph authorizes the export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of microelectronics items in furtherance of a contract between the exporter, reexporter, or transferor and a department or agency of the U.S. Government, if the contract provides for such export, reexport, or transfer (in-country) of the microelectronics item by the exporter, reexporter, or transferor.
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
(o)
(i) During “development”, the IC is not designed, rated, or certified (except by or for the USG) to meet the radiation or temperature specifications of any ECCN; and
(ii) All commercial testing (including by the manufacturer during fabrication, sort, packaging or assembly) regarding radiation or temperature is limited to standard commercial tools and techniques, or else by means funded or furnished by the USG for their use in the commercial setting for these specified ICs.
(2)
(i) Any utilized existing commercial “software” or “technology” specified under ECCNs 3D991, 3E991, 3E001, 9D515.d, 9D515.e, 9E515.d or 9E515.e does not meet the “required” standard (as defined in part 772 of the EAR) of any other ECCN on the CCL; and
The use of existing commercial “software” or “technology” by or for the USG for the purposes described in paragraph (o)(1) of this section does not, in and of itself, establish the “required” standard to meet the specifications of any ECCN on the CCL.
(ii) The functional capability of the hardware, “software,” or “technology” existing within the standard commercial fabrication process has not been modified (
(A) The modifications do not change the ECCN of any item subject to the EAR (except to a less restrictive classification,
(B) The modifications are limited to the manufacture or testing of ICs by or for the USG as specified in paragraph (o)(1) of this section.
(3)
(i) If a commercially fabricated IC specified under ECCN 3A991 is tested by the USG (or by a person or entity in a contractual relationship with the USG) and meets the radiation-hardened parameters in ECCN 3A001.a.1, the classification of the IC does not change from ECCN 3A991 and the classifications of the underlying standard process “technology”, “equipment” and “software” do not change from their original ECCNs.
(ii) If a standard commercial process for fabricating ICs includes certain “technology” specified under ECCN 3E001 (
(iii) If a standard commercial IC fabrication process at a particular foundry is comprised of tools specified under ECCNs 3B001 or 3B991 or as EAR99, and where the “technology” is limited to “technology” specified under ECCN 3E991 or as EAR99, and that foundry (which typically produces ICs specified under ECCN 3A991 or as EAR99) were to deviate from its standard fabrication process (
50 U.S.C. 4801-4852; 50 U.S.C. 4601
a. “Specially designed” to have any of the following:
a.1. [Reserved]
a.2. Radiation hardened to exceed any of the following specifications:
a.2.a. A total dose of 5 × 10
a.2.b. A dose rate upset of 5 × 10
a.2.c. Single Event Upset of 1 × 10
b. [Reserved]
a. Rated for continuous operation at temperatures from below 228 K (−45 °C) to above 328 K (+55 °C);
b. Designed as ruggedized or `radiation hardened'.
a. Any type of telecommunications equipment having any of the following characteristics, functions or features:
a.1. “Specially designed” to withstand transitory electronic effects or electromagnetic pulse effects, both arising from a nuclear explosion;
a.2. Specially hardened to withstand gamma, neutron or ion radiation;
a.3. “Specially designed” to operate below 218 K (−55 °C);
a.4. “Specially designed” to operate above 397 K (124 °C);
b. Telecommunication systems and equipment, and “specially designed” “components” and “accessories” therefor, having any of the following characteristics, functions or features:
b.1 Being underwater untethered communications systems having any of the following:
b.1.a. An acoustic carrier frequency outside the range from 20 kHz to 60 kHz;
b.1.b. Using an electromagnetic carrier frequency below 30 kHz;
b.1.c. Using electronic beam steering techniques;
b.1.d. Using “lasers” or light-emitting diodes (LEDs), with an output wavelength greater than 400 nm and less than 700 nm, in a “local area network”;
b.2. Being radio equipment operating in the 1.5 MHz to 87.5 MHz band and having all of the following:
b.2.a.. Automatically predicting and selecting frequencies and “total digital transfer rates” per channel to optimize the transmission;
b.2.b. Incorporating a linear power amplifier configuration having a capability to support multiple signals simultaneously at an output power of 1 kW or more in the frequency range of 1.5 MHz or more but less than 30 MHz, or 250 W or more in the frequency range of 30 MHz or more but not exceeding 87.5 MHz, over an “instantaneous bandwidth” of one octave or more and with an output harmonic and distortion content of better than −80 dB;
b.3. Being radio equipment employing “spread spectrum” techniques, including “frequency hopping” techniques, not controlled in 5A001.b.4 and having any of the following:
b.3.a. User programmable spreading codes;
b.3.b. A total transmitted bandwidth which is 100 or more times the bandwidth of any one information channel and in excess of 50 kHz;
b.4. Being radio equipment employing ultra-wideband modulation techniques, having user programmable channelizing codes, scrambling codes, or network identification codes and having any of the following:
b.4.a. A bandwidth exceeding 500 MHz;
b.4.b. A “fractional bandwidth” of 20% or more;
b.5. Being digitally controlled radio receivers having all of the following:
b.5.a. More than 1,000 channels;
b.5.b. A `channel switching time' of less than 1 ms;
b.5.c. Automatic searching or scanning of a part of the electromagnetic spectrum;
b.5.d. Identification of the received signals or the type of transmitter;
b.6. Employing functions of digital “signal processing” to provide 'voice coding' output at rates of less than 700 bit/s.
c. Optical fibers of more than 500 m in length and specified by the manufacturer as being capable of withstanding a `proof test' tensile stress of 2 × 10
d. “Electronically steerable phased array antennae” as follows:
d.1. Rated for operation above 31.8 GHz, but not exceeding 57 GHz, and having an Effective Radiated Power (ERP) equal to or greater than +20 dBm (22.15 dBm Effective Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP));
d.2. Rated for operation above 57 GHz, but not exceeding 66 GHz, and having an ERP equal to or greater than +24 dBm (26.15 dBm EIRP);
d.3. Rated for operation above 66 GHz, but not exceeding 90 GHz, and having an ERP equal to or greater than +20 dBm (22.15 dBm EIRP);
d.4. Rated for operation above 90 GHz;
e. Radio direction finding equipment operating at frequencies above 30 MHz and having all of the following, and “specially designed” “components” therefor:
e.1. “Instantaneous bandwidth” of 10 MHz or more; and
e.2. Capable of finding a Line Of Bearing (LOB) to non-cooperating radio transmitters with a signal duration of less than 1 ms;
f. Mobile telecommunications interception or jamming equipment, and monitoring equipment therefor, as follows, and “specially designed” “components” therefor:
f.1. Interception equipment designed for the extraction of voice or data, transmitted over the air interface;
f.2. Interception equipment not specified in 5A001.f.1, designed for the extraction of client device or subscriber identifiers (
f.3. Jamming equipment “specially designed” or modified to intentionally and selectively interfere with, deny, inhibit, degrade or seduce mobile telecommunication services and performing any of the following:
f.3.a. Simulate the functions of Radio Access Network (RAN) equipment;
f.3.b. Detect and exploit specific characteristics of the mobile telecommunications protocol employed (
f.3.c. Exploit specific characteristics of the mobile telecommunications protocol employed (
f.4. Radio Frequency (RF) monitoring equipment designed or modified to identify the operation of items specified in 5A001.f.1, 5A001.f.2 or 5A001.f.3.
g. Passive Coherent Location (PCL) systems or equipment, “specially designed” for detecting and tracking moving objects by measuring reflections of ambient radio frequency emissions, supplied by non-radar transmitters.
h. Counter Improvised Explosive Device (IED) equipment and related equipment, as follows:
h.1. Radio Frequency (RF) transmitting equipment, not specified by 5A001.f, designed or modified for prematurely activating or preventing the initiation of Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs);
h.2. Equipment using techniques designed to enable radio communications in the same frequency channels on which co-located equipment specified by 5A001.h.1 is transmitting.
i. [Reserved]
j. IP network communications surveillance systems or equipment, and “specially designed” components therefor, having all of the following:
j.1. Performing all of the following on a carrier class IP network (
j.1.a. Analysis at the application layer (
j.1.b. Extraction of selected metadata and application content (
j.1.c. Indexing of extracted data;
j.2. Being “specially designed” to carry out all of the following:
j.2.a. Execution of searches on the basis of “hard selectors”;
j.2.b. Mapping of the relational network of an individual or of a group of people.
a. Streak cameras and “specially designed” components therefor, as follows:
a.1. Streak cameras with writing speeds greater than 0.5 mm/µs;
a.2. Electronic streak cameras capable of 50 ns or less time resolution;
a.3. Streak tubes for cameras described in 6A203.a.2;
a.4. Plug-ins, “specially designed” for use with streak cameras having modular structures, that enable the performance characteristics described in 6A203.a.1 or .a.2;
a.5. Synchronizing electronics units, and rotor assemblies consisting of turbines, mirrors and bearings, that are “specially designed” for cameras described in 6A203.a.1.
b. Framing cameras and “specially designed” components therefor, as follows:
b.1. Framing cameras with recording rates greater than 225,000 frames per second;
b.2. Framing cameras capable of 50 ns or less frame exposure time;
b.3. Framing tubes, and solid-state imaging devices, that have a fast image gating (shutter) time of 50 ns or less and are “specially designed” for cameras described in 6A203.b.1 or .b.2;
b.4. Plug-ins, “specially designed” for use with framing cameras having modular structures, that enable the performance characteristics described in 6A203.b.1 or .b.2;
b.5. Synchronizing electronic units, and rotor assemblies consisting of turbines, mirrors and bearings, that are “specially designed” for cameras described in 6A203.b.1 or .b.2.
c. Solid-state or electron tube cameras and “specially designed” components therefor, as follows:
c.1. Solid-state cameras, or electron tube cameras, with a fast image gating (shutter) time of 50 ns or less;
c.2. Solid-state imaging devices, and image intensifiers tubes, that have a fast image gating (shutter) time of 50 ns or less and are “specially designed” for cameras described in 6A203.c.1;
c.3. Electro-optical shuttering devices (Kerr or Pockels cells) with a fast image gating (shutter) time of 50 ns or less;
c.4. Plug-ins, “specially designed” for use with cameras having modular structures, that enable the performance characteristics described in 6A203.c.1.
d. Radiation-hardened TV cameras, or lenses therefor, “specially designed” or rated as radiation hardened to withstand a total radiation dose greater than 5 × 10
a. Seismic detection equipment not controlled in paragraph c.
b. Radiation hardened TV cameras, n.e.s.
c. Seismic intrusion detection systems that detect, classify and determine the bearing on the source of a detected signal.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Final rule.
This rule provides for annual adjustments to the level of civil monetary penalties contained in Bureau of Indian Affairs (Bureau) regulations to account for inflation under the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance.
This rule is effective on March 13, 2024.
•
•
Oliver Whaley, Director, Office of Regulatory Affairs and Collaborative Action (RACA), Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs; Department of the Interior,
On November 2, 2015, the President signed into law the Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (sec. 701 of Pub. L. 114-74) (“the Act”). The Act requires Federal agencies to adjust the level of civil monetary penalties with an initial “catch-up” adjustment through rulemaking and then make subsequent annual adjustments for inflation. The purpose of these adjustments is to maintain the deterrent effect of civil penalties and to further the policy goals of the underlying statutes.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued guidance for Federal agencies on calculating the catch-up adjustment.
The Bureau issued an interim final rule providing for calculated catch-up adjustments on June 30, 2016 (81 FR 42478), with an effective date of August 1, 2016, and requesting comments post-promulgation. The Bureau issued a final rule affirming the catch-up adjustments set forth in the interim final rule on December 2, 2016 (81 FR 86953). The Bureau then issued a final rule making the next scheduled annual inflation adjustment for 2017 on January 23, 2017 (82 FR 7649), for 2018 on February 6, 2018 (83 FR 5192), for 2019 on April 15, 2019 (84 FR 15098), for 2020 on February 19, 2020 (85 FR 9366), for 2021 on January 28, 2021 (86 FR 7344), for 2022 on March 9, 2022 (87 FR 13153), and for 2023 on March 2, 2023 (88 FR 13018).
OMB recently issued guidance to assist Federal agencies in implementing the annual adjustments required by the Act, which agencies must complete by January 15, 2024.
The annual adjustment applies to all civil monetary penalties with a dollar amount that are subject to the Act. This final rule adjusts the following civil monetary penalties contained in the Bureau's regulations for 2024 by multiplying 1.03241 by each penalty amount as updated by the adjustment made in the prior year (2023):
Consistent with the Act, the adjusted penalty levels for 2024 will take effect immediately upon the effective date of the adjustment. The adjusted penalty levels for 2024 will apply to penalties assessed after that date including, if consistent with agency policy, assessments associated with violations that occurred on or after November 2, 2015 (the date of the Act). The Act does not, however, change previously assessed penalties that the Bureau is collecting or has collected. Nor does the Act change an agency's existing statutory authorities to adjust penalties.
Executive Order 12866, as amended by E.O. 14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget will review all significant rules. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has determined that this rule is not significant.
Executive Order 13563 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 while calling for improvements in the Nation's regulatory system to promote predictability, to reduce uncertainty, and to use the best, most innovative, and least burdensome tools for achieving regulatory ends. The Executive order directs agencies to consider regulatory approaches that reduce burdens and maintain flexibility and freedom of choice for the public where these approaches are relevant, feasible, and consistent with regulatory objectives. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. We have developed this rule in a manner consistent with these requirements.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(4), a summary of this rule may be found at
This rule is not an E.O. 13771 regulatory action because this rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires an agency to prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis for rules unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The RFA applies only to rules for which an agency is required to first publish a proposed rule.
This rule is not a major rule under 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule:
(a) Does not have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more.
(b) Will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual industries, Federal, State, or local government agencies, or geographic regions.
(c) Does not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
This rule does not impose an unfunded mandate on State, local, or tribal governments, or the private sector of more than $100 million per year. The rule does not have a significant or unique effect on State, local, or tribal governments or the private sector. A statement containing the information required by the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (2 U.S.C. 1531
This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630. A takings implication assessment is not required.
Under the criteria in section 1 of Executive Order 13132, this rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. A federalism summary impact statement is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rule: (a) meets the criteria of section 3(a) requiring that all regulations be reviewed to eliminate errors and ambiguity and be written to minimize litigation; and (b) meets the criteria of section 3(b)(2) requiring that all regulations be written in clear language and contain clear legal standards.
The Department of the Interior strives to strengthen its government-to-government relationship with Indian tribes through a commitment to consultation with Indian Tribes and recognition of their right to self-governance and tribal sovereignty. We have evaluated this rule under the Department's consultation policy and under the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and have determined that it has no substantial direct effects on federally recognized Indian Tribes and that consultation under the Department's tribal consultation policy is not required.
This rule does not contain information collection requirements, and a submission to the Office of Management and Budget under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
This rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. A detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) is not required because the rule is covered by a categorical exclusion. This rule is excluded from the requirement to prepare a detailed statement because it is a regulation of an administrative nature. For further information see 43 CFR 46.210(i). We have also determined that the rule does not involve any of the extraordinary circumstances listed in 43 CFR 46.215 that would require further analysis under NEPA.
This rule is not a significant energy action under the definition in Executive Order 13211. A Statement of Energy Effects is not required.
We are required by E.O. 12866 and 12988 and by the Presidential Memorandum of June 1, 1998, to write all rules in plain language. This means that each rule we publish must:
(a) Be logically organized;
(b) Use the active voice to address readers directly;
(c) Use clear language rather than jargon;
(d) Be divided into short sections and sentences; and
(e) Use lists and tables wherever possible.
If you feel that we have not met these requirements, send us comments by one of the methods listed in the
The Act requires agencies to publish annual inflation adjustments by no later than January 15, of each year, notwithstanding section 553 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553). OMB has interpreted this direction to mean that the usual APA public procedure for rulemaking—which includes public notice of a proposed rule, an opportunity for public comment, and a delay in the effective date of a final rule—is not required when agencies issue regulations to implement the annual adjustments to civil penalties that the Act requires. Accordingly, we are issuing the annual adjustments as a final rule without prior notice or an opportunity for comment and with an effective date immediately upon publication in the
Section 553(b) of the APA provides that, when an agency for good cause finds that “notice and public procedure . . . are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,” the agency may issue a rule without providing notice and an opportunity for prior public comment. Under section 553(b), the Bureau finds that there is good cause to promulgate this rule without first providing for public comment. It would not be possible to meet the deadlines imposed by the Act if we were to first publish a proposed rule, allow the public sufficient time to submit comments, analyze the comments, and publish a final rule. Also, the Bureau is promulgating this final rule to implement the statutory directive in the Act, which requires agencies to publish a final rule and to update the civil penalty amounts by applying a specified formula. The Bureau has no discretion to vary the amount of the adjustment to reflect any views or suggestions provided by commenters. Accordingly, it would serve no purpose to provide an opportunity for public comment on this rule prior to promulgation. Thus, providing for notice and public comment is impracticable and unnecessary.
Furthermore, the Bureau finds under section 553(d)(3) of the APA that good cause exists to make this final rule effective immediately upon publication in the
Business and industry, Indians, Penalties.
Business and industry, Credit, Indians—business and finance, Penalties.
Geothermal energy, Indians—lands, Mineral resources, Mines, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Indians—lands, Mineral resources, Mines, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Geothermal energy, Indians—lands, Mineral resources, Mines, Oil and gas exploration, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surety bonds.
Indians—lands.
Indians—lands, Mineral resources, Mines, Oil and gas exploration, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Indians, Livestock.
Fishing, Indians.
Elementary and secondary education, Grant programs—Indians, Indians—education, Schools.
Indians, Indians—lands, Livestock.
For the reasons given in the preamble, the Department of the Interior amends chapter I of title 25 Code of Federal Regulations as follows.
5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 437; 25 U.S.C. 2, 9, 261, 262, 264; sec. 5, 19 Stat. 200, sec. 1, 31 Stat. 1066, as amended; and sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, unless otherwise noted.
5 U.S.C. 301; 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9; and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 4, Act of May 11, 1938 (52 Stat. 347); Act of August 1, 1956 (70 Stat. 744); 25 U.S.C. 396a-g; 25 U.S.C. 2 and 9; and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 2, 35 Stat. 312; sec. 18, 41 Stat. 426; sec. 1, 45 Stat. 495; sec. 1, 47 Stat. 777; 25 U.S.C. 356; and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599. Interpret or apply secs. 3, 11, 35 Stat. 313, 316; sec. 8, 47 Stat. 779, unless otherwise noted.
25 U.S.C. 2, 9, and 2101-2108; and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
Sec. 3, 34 Stat. 543; secs. 1, 2, 45 Stat. 1478; sec. 3, 52 Stat. 1034, 1035; sec. 2(a), 92 Stat. 1660; and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
Sec. 1, 39 Stat. 519; and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 12, 50 Stat. 902; 25 U.S.C. 500K; and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599.
25 U.S.C. 2, and 9; 5 U.S.C. 301; and Sec. 701, Pub. L. 114-74, 129 Stat. 599, unless otherwise noted.
Secs. 201-203, Pub. L. 93-638, 88 Stat. 2203, 2213-2214 (25 U.S.C. 455-457), unless otherwise noted.
Pub. L. 99-590; Pub. L. 93-531, 88 Stat. 1712 as amended by Pub. L. 96-305, 94 Stat. 929, Pub. L. 100-666, 102 Stat. 3929 (25 U.S.C. 640d).
Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation.
Final rule.
This final rule amends the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans to prescribe interest assumptions under the asset allocation regulation for plans with valuation dates in the second quarter of 2024. These interest assumptions are used for valuing benefits under terminating single-employer plans and for other purposes.
Effective April 1, 2024.
Monica O'Donnell (
PBGC's regulation on Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans (29 CFR part 4044) prescribes actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing benefits under terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee
PBGC uses the interest assumptions in appendix B to part 4044 (“Interest Rates Used to Value Benefits”) to determine the present value of annuities in an involuntary or distress termination of a single-employer plan under the asset allocation regulation. The assumptions are also used to determine the value of multiemployer plan benefits and certain assets when a plan terminates by mass withdrawal in accordance with PBGC's regulation on Duties of Plan Sponsor Following Mass Withdrawal (29 CFR part 4281).
The second quarter 2024 interest assumptions will be 5.50 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 4.83 percent thereafter. In comparison with the interest assumptions in effect for the first quarter of 2024, these interest assumptions represent no change in the select period (the period during which the select rate (the initial rate) applies), an increase of 0.05 percent in the select rate, and a decrease of 0.39 percent in the ultimate rate (the final rate).
PBGC has determined that notice of, and public comment on, this rule are impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest. PBGC routinely updates the interest assumptions in appendix B of the asset allocation regulation each quarter so that they are available to value benefits. Accordingly, PBGC finds that the public interest is best served by issuing this rule expeditiously, without an opportunity for notice and comment, and that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication to allow the use of the proper assumptions to estimate the value of plan benefits for plans with valuation dates early in the second quarter of 2024.
PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866.
Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2).
Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions.
In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR part 4044 is amended as follows:
29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362.
Issued in Washington, DC, by
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
On November 27, 2023, the Media Bureau, Video Division (Bureau) issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) in response to a petition for rulemaking filed by Carolina Christian Broadcasting, Inc. (Petitioner), the licensee of WGGS-TV (Station or WGGS), channel 2, Greenville, South Carolina (Greenville), requesting the substitution of channel 29 for channel 2 at Greenville in the Table of TV Allotments. For the reasons set forth in the
Effective April 12, 2024.
Joyce Bernstein, Media Bureau, at (202) 418-1647 or
The proposed rule was published at 88 FR 84771 on December 6, 2023. The Petitioner filed comments in support of the petition reaffirming its commitment to apply for channel 29. No other comments were filed.
The Bureau believes the public interest would be served by substituting channel 29 for channel 2 at Greenville. Petitioner states that its proposed channel substitution would serve the public interest by resolving reception challenges currently experienced by viewers in the WGGS service area, and substantially improving access to the Station's programming. The Petitioner notes that the Commission has recognized that VHF channels have certain characteristics that pose challenges for their use in providing digital television service, including a large variability in the performance of indoor antennas available to viewers, with most antennas performing very poorly on VHF channels. The Petitioner proposes to operate the Station on channel 29 with a 3-node Distributed Transmission System (DTS) facility, and all viewers within the Station's community of license will continue to be served by the Station. An analysis using the Commission's TVStudy software indicates that the Station's move to channel 29 would result in a loss of service to 946,964 persons, mostly located around the edge of the channel 2 noise limited service contour (NLSC). All but 417 persons of those persons, however, would remain well-served by continuing to receive at least five full power or Class A stations, and those 417 persons would continue to receive service from at least four such stations, a number of persons that the Commission has found to be de minimis.
As proposed, channel 29 can be substituted for channel 2 at Greenville in compliance with the principal community coverage requirements of section 73.625(a) of the rules, at coordinates 34°56′26.4″ N and 82°24′40.4″ W. Although the Petitioner's proposal would result in a loss of programming to a number of viewers on the fringes of the Station's NLSC, all but a de minimis number of viewers will remain well-served and we conclude that the overall benefits of the proposed channel change in resolving reception issues outweighs any possible harm to the public interest.
This is a synopsis of the Commission's
This document does not contain information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198,
The Commission will send a copy of this
Television.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 73 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 154, 155, 301, 303, 307, 309, 310, 334, 336, 339.
(j) * * *
Coast Guard, Department of Homeland Security (DHS).
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing a temporary safety zone for certain waters of the Inner Harbor of Baltimore, MD, where Maryland Fleet Week and Flyover Baltimore 2024 will take place from June 12 to 18, 2024. The safety zone would protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment from potential hazards during multi-agency helicopter rescue demonstration. It would be enforced thirty minutes prior to a demonstration and lifted at its conclusion. Entry of vessels or persons into this zone is prohibited unless specifically authorized by the Captain of the Port, Maryland-National Capital Region, or a designated representative.
Comments must be received by the Coast Guard on or before April 7, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2024-0191 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email Mr. Charles Bullock, Sector Maryland-National Capital Region Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; telephone 410-576-2674, email
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a safety zone from 8 a.m. on June 12, 2024, through 6 p.m. on June 18, 2024. The zone would be intended to protect personnel, vessels, and the marine environment in these navigable waters before, during, and after the air and rescue swimmer demonstrations. No vessel or person would be permitted to enter the safety zone without obtaining permission from the COTP or a designated representative. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
The zone would be enforced beginning thirty minutes prior to a demonstration and ending at the conclusion of that demonstration. It would cover all navigable waters of the Inner Harbor, encompassed by a line connecting the following points: beginning at Inner Harbor Pier 6 at position latitude 39°16′59″ N, longitude 076°36′12″ W, thence south to the Harborview Towers pier at latitude 39°16′41″ N, longitude 076°36′12″ W, thence northerly and easterly along the shoreline to and terminating at the point of origin located in Baltimore, MD. The dimensions of the safety zone are approximately 2,000 yards in length and 500 yards in width.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the location and duration of the safety zone. This safety zone will be enforced 30 minutes prior to a demonstration and will be lifted at the conclusion of each demonstration. We anticipate that there will be no vessels that are unable to conduct business. Commercial fishing vessels and towing vessels do not operate in the Inner Harbor and would not be impacted by this rulemaking. Although excursion vessels and water taxis do operate there, the impact to these waterway users is minimized because of the extensive outreach that has been conducted for the Maryland Fleet Week and Flyover Baltimore 2024 and the involvement of these vessel managers in the event planning process. Moreover, the Coast Guard will issue a Broadcast Notice to Mariners via VHF-FM marine channel 16 about 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 proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the safety zone may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section IV.A above, this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator. We have
If you think that your business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction qualifies as a small entity and that this proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on it, please submit a comment (see
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this proposed rule. If the proposed rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please call or email the person listed in the
This proposed rule would not call for a new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132 (Federalism), if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this proposed rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this proposed rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175 (Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments) because it would not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes. If you believe this proposed rule has implications for federalism or Indian tribes, please call or email the person listed in the
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves an intermittent safety zone lasting 30 minutes at a time, that would prohibit entry the above-mentioned safety zone. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 01. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard 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) To seek permission to enter, contact the COTP or the COTP's representative by telephone at 410-576-2693 or on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz). The Coast Guard vessels enforcing this section can be contacted on Marine Band Radio VHF-FM channel 16 (156.8 MHz).
(3) Those in the safety zone must comply with all lawful orders or directions given to them by the COTP or the COTP's designated representative.
(d)
(e)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Proposed rule; request for comments.
NMFS proposes to implement fishing periods and fishing period limits for the 2024 non-tribal directed commercial Pacific halibut fishery that operates south of Point Chehalis, WA, (lat. 46°53.30′ N) in the International Pacific Halibut Commission's regulatory Area 2A off Washington, Oregon, and California. The proposed action includes two 58-hour fishing periods. The first fishing period would begin at 8 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) on June 25, 2024, and close at 6 p.m. PDT on June 27, 2024. The second fishing period would start at 8 a.m. PDT on July 9, 2024, and close at 6 p.m. PDT on July 11, 2024. NMFS is also proposing four fishing period limits (
Comments must be received by April 12, 2024.
A plain language summary of this proposed rule is available at
•
Heather Fitch, West Coast Region, NMFS, (360) 320-6549,
The Northern Pacific Halibut Act of 1982 (16 U.S.C. 773-773k) (Halibut Act) gives the Secretary of Commerce the responsibility of implementing the provisions of the Convention between Canada and the United States for the Preservation of the Halibut Fishery of the North Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea (Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended by a Protocol Amending the Convention (March 29, 1979).
As provided in the Halibut Act at 16 U.S.C. 773b, the Secretary of State, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Commerce, may accept or reject, on behalf of the United States, regulations recommended by the International Pacific Halibut Commission (IPHC) in accordance with the Convention. Following acceptance by the Secretary of State, the annual management measures promulgated by the IPHC are published in the
The Halibut Act also provides that Regional Fishery Management Councils may develop, and the Secretary of Commerce may implement, regulations governing Pacific halibut fishing in U.S. waters that are in addition to, and not in conflict with, approved IPHC regulations (16 U.S.C. 773c(c)). The Pacific Fishery Management Council
At its annual meeting held January 22-26, 2024, the IPHC adopted an Area 2A catch limit, called a fishery constant exploitation yield (FCEY), of 1.47 million pounds (667 metric tons (mt)), net weight (
Fishing periods, often referred to as fishery openers, are the time during the annual commercial halibut season when fishing for non-tribal directed commercial Pacific halibut in Area 2A is allowed. At its November 2023 meeting, the Council discussed the 2024 directed commercial season structure and recommended that NMFS establish fishing periods similar to those in the previous year. Specifically, the Council recommended that the directed commercial fishery operate as a series of 3-day openings, with the first fishing period beginning at 8 a.m. Pacific Daylight Time (PDT) on the fourth Tuesday in June and ending at 6 p.m. PDT on Thursday of that week, and the second fishing period occurring 2 weeks later. The Council also recommended that if there is a third fishing period, it should occur no earlier than 3 weeks after the second fishing period, and that any subsequent fishing periods would occur as soon as possible. Based on the Council's recommendations, NMFS is proposing to open the 2024 directed commercial fishery for 58 hours, beginning on June 25, 2024, at 8 a.m. PDT and closing on June 27, 2024, at 6 p.m. PDT. The second fishing period would occur 2 weeks later, beginning on July 9, 2024, at 8 a.m. PDT and closing on July 11, 2024, at 6 p.m. PDT.
Following the initial two fishing periods, NMFS will assess fishery harvest to date and determine if the fishery has attained the directed commercial allocation. If harvest estimates indicate the allocation has not been reached, NMFS may determine that subsequent fishing period(s) are necessary to attain the allocation. If a third fishing period occurs, it would occur no sooner than 3 weeks after the second fishing period. A third fishing period, and any subsequent fishing periods would be announced in the
A fishing period limit, also called a vessel catch limit, is the maximum amount of Pacific halibut that may be retained and landed by a vessel during one fishing period. Each vessel may retain no more than the current fishing period limit of Pacific halibut for its vessel class, which is determined by vessel length. NMFS is proposing directed commercial fishing period limits, shown in table 1 below, based on the 2024 directed fishery allocation, the number of permits issued by vessel size class, and participation and catch rates from prior years.
For the 2024 fishing season, NMFS received 185 applications across 8 vessel size classes (A-H). Based on this number of permits and past fishery participation, NMFS anticipates similar vessel participation as has occurred in previous years. Therefore, NMFS is proposing that fishing period limits be grouped the same way as was done in previous years.
Although the directed commercial allocation for 2024 is similar to the allocations for the previous 3 years, the average catch per vessel increased in 2023. Therefore, NMFS is proposing reduced fishing period limits compared to the previous 3 years. These fishing period catch limits are intended to ensure that the Area 2A directed commercial fishery does not exceed its allocation, while also providing fair and equitable access across participants to an attainable amount of harvest.
If NMFS determines that more than two fishing periods are warranted, NMFS will set new fishing period limits and will set the fishing period limits for subsequent fishing periods equal across all vessel classes through inseason action.
The Area 2A non-tribal directed commercial fishery, which occurs south of Point Chehalis, WA, (lat. 46°53.30′ N) would open on June 25, 2024, at 8 a.m. PDT and close on June 27, 2024, at 6 p.m. PDT and would re-open July 9, 2024, at 8 a.m. PDT and close on July 11, 2024, at 6 p.m. PDT. The fishery may be adjusted inseason consistent with 50 CFR 300.63.
Regulations governing the U.S. fisheries for Pacific halibut are developed by the IPHC, the Pacific Fishery Management Council, the North Pacific Fishery Management Council, and the Secretary of Commerce. Section 5 Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c) allows the Regional Council having authority for a particular geographical area to develop regulations governing the allocation and catch of halibut in U.S. Convention waters as long as those regulations do not conflict with IPHC regulations. Such regulations shall only be implemented with the approval of the Secretary.
This proposed rule is exempt from the procedures of E.O. 12866 because this action contains no implementing regulations.
The Chief Counsel for Regulation of the Department of Commerce certified to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration that this proposed rule, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) purposes only, NMFS has established a small business size standard for businesses, including their affiliates, whose primary industry is commercial fishing (see 50 CFR 200.2). A business primarily engaged in commercial fishing (North American Industry Classification System code 114111) is classified as a small business if it is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation (including its affiliates), and has combined annual receipts not in excess of $11 million for all its affiliated operations worldwide. The entities that would be affected by the proposed action are those vessels that harvest Pacific halibut as part of the non-tribal directed commercial fishery and are all considered small businesses under the above size standards.
This proposed rule, if adopted, would establish the 2024 Area 2A non-tribal directed commercial fishery fishing periods and fishing period limits.
There are no large entities involved in Pacific halibut fisheries off the West Coast. In 2023, NMFS issued 148 licenses to the commercial fishing fleet for the Area 2A non-tribal directed commercial fishery. Of those 148 vessels that obtained licenses, 50 percent (74 vessels) participated in the fishery. NMFS expects that a similar proportion of vessels will participate in the fishery this year and may be affected by these regulations. Cost data for the harvesting operations of non-tribal commercial halibut vessels is limited or unavailable. However, for 2023, the non-tribal directed allocation was 257,819 pounds (117 mt), of which approximately 259,226 pounds (118 mt) of Pacific halibut were harvested and resulted in a total fishery ex-vessel value of approximately $2.36 million. Therefore, NMFS considers all vessels affected by this action to be small entities.
Since this action will only impact commercial fishing vessels, which in the Pacific halibut fishery are small entities, none of these changes will have a disproportionately negative effect on small entities versus large entities. Because each affected vessel is a small business, this proposed rule is considered to equally affect all of these small entities in the same manner. Therefore, this rule, if adopted, would not create disproportionate costs between small and large vessels/businesses.
The major effect of Pacific halibut management on small entities is from the Area 2A allocation decided by the IPHC; a decision independent from this proposed action. This action proposes fishing periods and fishing period limits for the 2024 non-tribal directed commercial fishery consistent with recommendations from the Council to provide commercial harvest opportunities under the allocations that result from the Area 2A catch limit determined by the IPHC. Profitability is largely based on the total Area 2A allocation decided by the IPHC, with subarea allocations determined based on the allocation formulae in the Council's catch sharing plan. Therefore, the proposed rule, if adopted, is unlikely to affect the profitability of the commercial fishery.
The Area 2A non-tribal directed commercial fishery allocation for 2024 is 249,338 pounds (113 mt), net weight, which is 3 percent lower than in 2023. This proposed rule, if adopted, is unlikely to affect overall participation in the directed commercial fishery since this action maintains an allocation similar to previous years. Profitability is dependent on the total amount of allocation available and market forces independent of this action. It is therefore highly unlikely that this proposed action would limit the fleet's potential profitability from catching halibut compared to last season or recent catch levels, as fishing periods and fishing period catch limits for 2024 are set using similar considerations as in previous years. Accordingly, vessel income from fishing is not expected to be altered as a result of this rule as it compares to recent catches in the fishery, including under the previous season's regulations.
Based on the disproportionality and profitability analysis above, the proposed action, if adopted, will not have adverse or disproportional economic impact on these small business entities. As a result, an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is not required, and none has been prepared.
This proposed rule contains no information collection requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
The Department of Agriculture has submitted the following information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. Comments are requested regarding: whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; the accuracy of the agency's estimate of burden including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments regarding this information collection received by April 12, 2024 will be considered. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
An agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collection of information displays a currently valid OMB control number and the agency informs potential persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such persons are not required to respond to the collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of virtual web briefing.
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 (FACA) that a web briefing of the Arizona Advisory Committee (Committee) to the U.S. Commission on Civil Right will convene via
The web briefing will take place on:
Tuesday, March 26, 2024, from 12:00 p.m.-2:00 p.m. Arizona Time.
Ana Fortes, DFO, at
Committee meetings are available to the public through the videoconference 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. 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 Angelica Trevino, Support Services Specialist, 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
Flextronics America, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facility in Austin, Texas within Subzone 183C. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on March 7, 2024.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status material(s)/component(s) and specific finished product(s) described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished product is a modular RF communication device tester (duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status materials and components include: rubber seals; rubber bumpers; steel bolts; steel nuts; copper washers; copper cotters and cotter pins; copper screws and bolts; aluminum p-clamps; steel brackets; flat planel display monitors; indicator panels incorporating liquid crystal devices (LCDs); tantalum capacitors; thermistors; flexible printed circuit boards; slide switches; coaxial cable connectors; rack and panel cable connectors; mounted piezoelectric crystal oscillators; dynamic read-write random access (DRAM) integrated circuits; amplifier integrated circuits; modular RF communication device testers; printed circuit assemblies of modular RF communication device testers; and, chassis assemblies of modular RF communication device testers (plastic, steel, and aluminum) (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 3%).
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 Kolade Osho at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is rescinding the administrative review of the antidumping duty (AD) order on lightweight thermal paper (thermal paper) from Japan for the period of review (POR) November 1, 2022, through October 31, 2023.
Applicable March 13, 2024.
Rebecca Janz, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-2972.
On November 22, 2021, Commerce published in the
On December 29, 2023, Commerce published in the
Additionally, on February 9, 2024, Commerce notified all interested parties of its intent to rescind the instant review in full because there were no reviewable, suspended entries of subject merchandise by Nippon Paper during the POR and invited interested parties to comment.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(3), it is Commerce's practice to rescind an administrative review of an AD order when there are no reviewable entries of subject merchandise during the POR for which liquidation is suspended.
Commerce will instruct CBP to assess antidumping duties on all appropriate entries. Antidumping duties shall be assessed at rates equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i). Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of this rescission notice in the
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). 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 subject to sanction.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.213(d)(4).
National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of Commerce.
Notice of Intent (NOI).
The Office of Advanced Manufacturing within the National Institute of Standards and Technology, an agency of the U.S. Department of Commerce, intends to announce an open competition for a new Manufacturing USA institute. The expected competition will seek to establish a Manufacturing USA institute focused on the use of Artificial Intelligence to improve resilience of U.S. manufacturing. This NOI is provided to allow potential applicants sufficient time to develop meaningful collaborations among industry, academia, Federal laboratories and state/local government.
All inquiries may be directed to Ms. Cheryl Leonard via email to
NIST will broadly compete the new institute, allowing applicants to focus on the use of AI to improve resilience of manufacturing within industries and sectors of national interest. The Manufacturing USA authorizing statute includes in the definition of a
The newly awarded AI institute will join a network of 17 existing Manufacturing USA institutes sponsored by the U.S. Departments of Defense, Energy, and Commerce.
The competition is expected to be announced in early Spring 2024 with a formal announcement on
Each Manufacturing USA institute is a public-private partnership that brings together industry of all sizes, universities and community colleges, federal agencies, and state organizations to accelerate innovation by investing in industrially relevant pre-competitive advanced manufacturing technologies to advance specific technology sectors and develop the current and future workforce in those technologies. Manufacturing USA institutes are tasked to mature advanced manufacturing technologies from laboratory prototypes to industrial readiness, focusing on major industry challenges that can be addressed collaboratively but are generally beyond the reach of individual organizations. Institutes bridge the gap between basic research and commercial product development, provide shared assets allowing access to cutting-edge capabilities and equipment, and create accessible training resources to ensure that students and workers, including rural and underserved populations, have skills needed for careers in advanced manufacturing. Each Manufacturing USA institute also serves as a regional hub of manufacturing innovation, providing the innovation infrastructure to reinforce the competitiveness of the U.S. industrial base while strengthening our national and economic security.
Manufacturing USA institutes may address the full spectrum of advanced manufacturing challenges, such as innovation for manufacturing processes, novel materials, cross cutting enabling technology, supply chain integration methodology and education and workforce development. Manufacturing USA institutes' federal funding catalyzes co-investment from non-federal sources for institute projects, promoting stable and sustainable business models.
It is anticipated that the awardee selected from the upcoming competition will lead the institute partners in activities such as establishing a trusted
NIST expects the institute to achieve time-bound outcomes for technical applications that support manufacturing resilience, such as, but not limited to:
• Accelerating qualification of new production technologies, facilities, or processes;
• Performing predictive maintenance of structures and equipment to eliminate down-time due to equipment failure;
• Optimizing manufacturing processes to reduce resource inputs and quality failures;
• Optimizing working capital to predict inventory needs; and/or;
• Predicting and mitigating risks from manufacturing supply chain network disruptions stemming from factors such as extreme climate events, while increasing visibility of potential domestic suppliers.
NIST intends that applications will be evaluated for merit and for alignment with program purposes and statutory requirements according to the authorizing legislation for Manufacturing USA, 15 U.S.C. 278s, and in 42 U.S.C. 18971,
In anticipation of the release of the funding opportunity, potential applicants are encouraged to complete the following preparations required for application submission:
• Ensure that your organization has a Unique Entity Identifier (UIE) with
• Register with the System for Award Management (SAM) at
• Register for a
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of public meeting.
NMFS will hold a public meeting to listen to concerns and gather input regarding the Atlantic Tunas Harpoon category fishery. During the meeting, stakeholders and the public may express their thoughts about harpooning practices, including concerns related to fishing activities in proximity to mobile-gear vessels and harpooning during nighttime hours.
The public meeting will be held on March 28, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m. ET.
The meeting will be accessible via WebEx webinar/conference call. Webinar access information will be available at:
Participants accessing the webinar are strongly encouraged to log/dial in 15 minutes prior to the meeting. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Anna Quintrell (see
Anna Quintrell,
Atlantic highly migratory species (HMS)
In response to petitions for rulemaking submitted in 2021 and 2023, NMFS has engaged in deliberations regarding the management of the Harpoon category fishery for BFT. The petitioners advocated for regulatory measures to limit harpoon fishing near vessels using mobile gear that is used to fish for groundfish, scallops, or clams and to restrict the deployment of floating bait for the purpose of attracting BFT to the surface for harpooning. The petitioners felt the practices were contrary to the traditional method of fishing with harpoon gear, would cause the Harpoon category quota to be filled too quickly, and would cause safety issues. The petitioners also advocated for fishing with harpoon gear only during the day and prohibiting nighttime fishing due to safety concerns.
During the September 2023 HMS Advisory Panel meeting, stakeholders were invited to provide public comment on the aforementioned petitions. NMFS recognized the significance of ongoing dialogue and indicated the possibility of further discussions on the matter in the future.
The upcoming listening session allows NMFS to hear from stakeholders and the public regarding any insights, concerns, and recommendations pertaining to the Harpoon category in general and the aforementioned petitions.
For this meeting, we anticipate hearing from the public about the following topics:
• Recent harpooning practices and techniques in the BFT fishery;
• Recent harpooning activities in the BFT fishery in proximity to mobile-gear vessels;
• The impact of nighttime harpooning; and,
• Thoughts about the potential regulatory changes regarding the Harpoon category fishery.
The public is reminded that NMFS expects participants of the meeting to conduct themselves appropriately. At the beginning of the meeting, the moderator will explain how the meeting will be conducted and how and when participants can provide comments. NMFS will structure the meeting so that all members of the public will be able to comment. Participants are expected to respect the ground rules, and those that do not may be asked to leave.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit (EFP) application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. The EFP would allow federally permitted fishing vessels to fish outside fishery regulations in support of exempted fishing activities proposed by Coonamessett Farm Foundation. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed EFPs.
Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2024.
You may submit written comments by email at
All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing in
Douglas Potts, Fishery Policy Analyst,
The applicant submitted a complete application for an EFP to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the following Federal regulations:
An initial survey of the full Davis Bank East area (approximately 60 square kilometers) would be conducted using multibeam sonar and a drop camera array, lasting approximately 8 and 6 days, respectively. This would establish a baseline to monitor changes in fished and unfished portions of the area. Following the initial survey, research trips would consist of one 4-day trip per season (16 total days) in the northern half of the area. The survey would be conducted with a 25-percent overlap between adjacent multibeam lines. Sonar imagery would be processed for bathymetry and backscatter. In addition, a 2-day research trip would occur seasonally (8 total days) using a drop camera array to ground-truth the sonar imagery and provide benthic community biological information. Drop camera survey trips would be conducted concurrent with the sonar survey trips. Four drops per hour would be accomplished for 12 hours for 2 days, with a goal of approximately 96 stations sampled per trip. Time of day, sea state and weather conditions, GPS coordinates, depth, and time on bottom will be recorded at each drop camera station. The drop camera is a 4-foot-tall, four-sided pyramid outfitted with lights and a high-resolution Sony camera with a 1-meter-squared field of view. A final multibeam sonar and drop camera survey of the full Davis Bank East area would be conducted again lasting approximately 8 and 6 days, respectively. All survey trips would be directed by two CFF scientists onboard the vessel. No fishing gear will be deployed during survey trips. CFF will submit a separate application for a letter of acknowledgment of scientific research for these survey cruises.
The EFP would authorize the harvest of surfclams from an area closed to hydraulic clam dredges for the purpose of generating funds for the acoustic survey. After the initial acoustic survey is completed, two commercial surfclam vessels would take up to 130 trips (260 total trips) into the southern portion of the Davis Bank East area defined by these coordinates:
Both vessels would use a 48-inch-wide hydraulic surfclam dredge, towed between 2 and 3 knots for 10 minutes per tow, with a trip limit of 14 cages. Approximately 30 tows would be conducted per trip. A CFF scientist would be onboard 25 percent of compensation fishing trips to collect surfclam catch per unit effort and catch composition data. The vessel owners have committed 15 percent of the value of each trip to cover the full cost of the research trips and data analysis. At an estimated $30 per bushel ex-vessel value, this would just cover the total research budget of roughly $505,000. The participating vessel owners have agreed to make up the difference if the price falls below $30 per bushel.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The New England Fishery Management Council's is convening its Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) sub-panel to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ). Recommendations from this group will be brought to the full Council for formal consideration and action, if appropriate.
This webinar will be held on Wednesday, March 27, 2024, at 1 p.m.
Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, New England Fishery Management Council; telephone: (978) 465-0492.
A Scientific and Statistical Committee sub-panel will meet to review the
Although non-emergency issues not contained on the agenda may come before this Council for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Council action will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency. The public also should be aware that the meeting will be recorded. Consistent with 16 U.S.C. 1852, a copy of the recording is available upon request.
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids should be directed to Cate O'Keefe, Executive Director, at (978) 465-0492, at least 5 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that BBC Studios, Ltd., Whiteladies Road, Bristol, BS8 2LR, UK (Emily-Kate Moorhead, Responsible Party) has applied in due form for a permit to conduct commercial and educational photography on marine mammals.
Written comments must be received on or before April 12, 2024.
These documents are available upon written request via email to
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Shasta McClenahan, Ph.D., or Amy Hapeman, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant proposes to film up to 13 species of non-listed marine mammals in the New York Bight for a wildlife documentary series. Filming may occur from land, vessel, underwater (pole or drop-in camera), and unmanned aircraft system platform. See the application for species, life stages, and numbers of animals by filming platform. The permit is requested for 2 years.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Issuance of an incidental harassment authorization.
In accordance with the regulations implementing the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA) as amended, notification is hereby given that NMFS has issued an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to the Chesapeake Tunnel Joint Venture (CTJV) to incidentally harass marine mammals during construction associated with the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project (PTST) in Virginia Beach, Virginia.
This authorization is effective from February 15, 2024, through February 14, 2025.
Electronic copies of the application and supporting documents, as well as a list of the references cited in this document, may be obtained online at:
Robert Pauline, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The MMPA prohibits the “take” of marine mammals, with certain exceptions. Sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA (16 U.S.C. 1361
Authorization for incidental takings shall be granted if NMFS finds that the
On July 28, 2023, NMFS received a request from CTJV for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to in-water construction activities associated with the PTST project near Virginia Beach, VA. Following NMFS' review of the initial application, CTJV submitted several revised versions of the application based on NMFS' comments. The final version was submitted on November 7, 2023, and was deemed adequate and complete on November 13, 2023. CTJV's request is for take of 5 species by Level B harassment and, for a subset of three of these species, by Level A harassment. Neither CTJV nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate.
NMFS most recently issued an IHA to CTJV for similar work on November 8, 2022, (87 FR 68462; November 15, 2022). CTJV complied with all the requirements (
This final IHA will cover 1 year of a larger project for which CTJV obtained IHAs for similar work (83 FR 36522, July 30, 2018; 85 FR 16061, March 20, 2020; 86 FR 14606, March 17, 2021; 86 FR 67024, November 24, 2021; and 87 FR 68462, November 15, 2022). The larger multi-year PTST project consists of the construction of a two-lane parallel tunnel to the west of the existing Thimble Shoal Tunnel, connecting Portal Island Nos. 1 and 2 as part of the 23-mile Chesapeake Bay Bridge-Tunnel (CBBT) facility.
The purpose of the project is to build an additional two lane vehicle tunnel under the navigation channel as part of the CBBT. The PTST project will address existing constraints to regional mobility based on current traffic volume, improve safety, improve the ability to conduct necessary maintenance with minimal impact to traffic flow, and ensure reliable hurricane evacuation routes. In-water construction work will include the removal of a total of 158 36-inch steel piles on the temporary dock and trestle on Portal Islands Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the removal of steel mooring piles on both Portal Islands (97 total on Portal Island No.1); the removal of 36″ steel piles on the trestle (34 total on Portal Island No. 2); and the removal of 36″ steel mooring piles on both Island 1 (9 piles) and Island No. 2 (18 piles). All steel piles are hollow pipe piles. The planned impact and vibratory pile removal activities can introduce sound into the water environment which can result in take of marine mammals by behavioral harassment and, for some species, by auditory injury. Planned construction activities are expected to be completed from January-April as well as in December 2024. Note that the term “pile driving” is only used to refer to pile removal activities. No pile installation activities are planned by CTJV.
The in-water removal of a total of 158 piles will occur over 80 days. Removal will begin on Portal Island No. 1 in January through April 2024 for 54 days then will resume on Portal Island No. 2 in December 2024 for 26 days. No pile removal work will take place in the interim. The project schedule is shown in table 1. The IHA is effective from February 15, 2024, through February 14, 2025.
A detailed description of the planned construction project is provided in the
Mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures are described in detail later in this document (please see Mitigation and Monitoring and Reporting).
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue an IHA to CTJV was published in the
Since the
Sections 3 and 4 of the application summarize available information regarding status and trends, distribution and habitat preferences, and behavior and life history of the potentially affected species. NMFS fully considered all of this information, and we refer the reader to these descriptions, instead of reprinting the information. Additional information regarding population trends and threats may be found in NMFS' Stock Assessment Reports (SARs;
Table 2 lists all species or stocks for which take is expected and authorized for this activity and summarizes information related to the population or stock, including regulatory status under the MMPA and Endangered Species Act (ESA) and potential biological removal (PBR), where known. PBR is defined by the MMPA as the maximum number of animals, not including natural mortalities, that may be removed from a marine mammal stock while allowing that stock to reach or maintain its optimum sustainable population (as described in NMFS' SARs). While no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized here, PBR and annual serious injury and mortality from anthropogenic sources are included here as gross indicators of the status of the species or stocks and other threats.
Marine mammal abundance estimates presented in this document represent the total number of individuals that make up a given stock or the total number estimated within a particular study or survey area. NMFS' stock abundance estimates for most species represent the total estimate of individuals within the geographic area, if known, that comprises that stock. For some species, this geographic area may extend beyond U.S. waters. All managed stocks in this region are assessed in NMFS' U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs (Hayes
A detailed description of the species likely to be affected by the construction project, including a brief introduction to the affected stock as well as available information regarding population trends and threats, and information regarding local occurrence, were provided in the
Hearing is the most important sensory modality for marine mammals underwater, and exposure to anthropogenic sound can have deleterious effects. To appropriately assess the potential effects of exposure to sound, it is necessary to understand the frequency ranges marine mammals are able to hear. Not all marine mammal species have equal hearing capabilities (
The pinniped functional hearing group was modified from Southall
For more detail concerning these groups and associated frequency ranges, please see NMFS (2018) for a review of available information.
The underwater noise produced by CTJV's construction activities has the potential to result in behavioral harassment of marine mammals in the vicinity of the survey area. The
This section provides an estimate of the number of incidental takes authorized through the IHA, which will inform both NMFS' consideration of “small numbers,” and the negligible impact determinations.
Harassment is the only type of take expected to result from these activities. Except with respect to certain activities not pertinent here, section 3(18) of the MMPA defines “harassment” as any act of pursuit, torment, or annoyance, which (i) has the potential to injure a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild (Level A harassment); or (ii) has the potential to disturb a marine mammal or marine mammal stock in the wild by causing disruption of behavioral patterns, including, but not limited to, migration, breathing, nursing, breeding, feeding, or sheltering (Level B harassment).
Authorized takes will primarily be by Level B harassment, as use of the acoustic sources (
As described previously, no serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized for this activity. Below we describe how the take numbers are estimated.
For acoustic impacts, generally speaking, we estimate take by considering: (1) acoustic thresholds above which NMFS believes the best available science indicates marine mammals will be behaviorally harassed or incur some degree of permanent hearing impairment; (2) the area or volume of water that will be ensonified above these levels in a day; (3) the density or occurrence of marine mammals within these ensonified areas; and, (4) the number of days of activities. We note that while these factors can contribute to a basic calculation to provide an initial prediction of potential takes, additional information that can qualitatively inform take estimates is also sometimes available (
NMFS recommends the use of acoustic thresholds that identify the received level of underwater sound above which exposed marine mammals would be reasonably expected to be behaviorally harassed (equated to Level B harassment) or to incur PTS of some degree (equated to Level A harassment).
These thresholds are provided in table 4 below. The references, analysis, and methodology used in the development of the thresholds are described in NMFS' 2018 Technical Guidance, which may be accessed at:
Here, we describe operational and environmental parameters of the activity that are used in estimating the area ensonified above the acoustic thresholds, including source levels and transmission loss coefficient.
The sound field in the project area is the existing background noise plus additional construction noise from the planned project. Marine mammals are expected to be affected via sound generated by the primary components of the project (
The project includes vibratory and impact pile driving. Source levels for these activities are based on reviews of measurements of the same or similar types and dimensions of piles available in the literature. Source levels for each pile size and activity are presented in table 5. Source levels for vibratory removal of piles of the same diameter are assumed to be the same. Note that CTJV will employ a bubble curtain during all impact and vibratory driving activities which NMFS assumes will reduce source levels by 5 dB.
Transmission loss (
Absent site-specific acoustical monitoring with differing measured transmission loss, a practical spreading value of 15 is used as the transmission loss coefficient in the above formula. Site-specific transmission loss data for the PTST project area are not available; therefore, the default coefficient of 15 is used to determine the distances to the Level A harassment and Level B harassment thresholds.
The ensonified area associated with Level A harassment is more technically challenging to predict due to the need to account for a duration component. Therefore, NMFS developed an optional User Spreadsheet tool to accompany the Technical Guidance that can be used to relatively simply predict an isopleth distance for use in conjunction with marine mammal density or occurrence to help predict potential takes. We note that because of some of the assumptions included in the methods underlying this optional tool, we anticipate that the resulting isopleth estimates are typically going to be overestimates of some degree, which may result in an overestimate of potential take by Level A harassment. However, this optional tool offers the best way to estimate isopleth distances when more sophisticated modeling methods are not available or practical. For stationary sources, such as pile driving, the optional User Spreadsheet tool predicts the distance at which, if a marine mammal remained at that distance for the duration of the activity, it would be expected to incur PTS. Inputs used in the optional User Spreadsheet tool are shown in table 6, and the resulting estimated isopleths are shown in table 7, as reported below.
In this section we provide information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including density or other relevant information which will inform the take calculations as well as how the information provided is synthesized to produce a quantitative estimate of the take that is reasonably likely to occur and authorized for take. Several approaches were utilized to estimate take for affected species depending on the best data that was available. For some species, survey or observational data was used to estimate take (
Humpback whales are rare in the Chesapeake Bay. Density data for this species within the project vicinity were not available. Habitat-based density models produced by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory (Roberts
There was insufficient monitoring data available from previous PTST IHAs to estimate dolphin take. Therefore, the expected number of bottlenose dolphins was estimated using a 2016 report on the occurrence, distribution, and density of marine mammals near Naval Station Norfolk and Virginia Beach, Virginia (Engelhaupt
This information was then used to calculate the monthly takes based on the number of pile driving days per month. These were broken out by month as shown in table 9. The Level B harassment area for each pile and driving type was multiplied by the
The total number of bottlenose dolphin Level B harassment events will be split between three bottlenose dolphin stocks: Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal; Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal; and NNCES. There is insufficient information to apportion the requested takes precisely to each of these three stocks present in the project area. Given that most of the NNCES stock are found in the Pamlico Sound estuarine system, it is assumed that no greater than 200 of the takes will be from this stock. Since members of the Western North Atlantic Northern Migratory Coastal and Western North Atlantic Southern Migratory Coastal stocks are thought to occur in or near the project area in greater numbers, we conservatively assume that no more than half of the remaining animals will belong to either of these stocks.
Additionally, a subset of these takes will likely be comprised of Chesapeake Bay resident dolphins, although the size of that population is unknown. It is assumed that an animal will be taken once over a 24-hour period; however, the same individual may be taken multiple times over the duration of the project. Therefore, the number of takes
Harbor porpoises are known to occur in the coastal waters near Virginia Beach (Hayes
One group of two harbor porpoises was seen during spring 2015 (Engelhaupt
The expected number of harbor seals in the project area was estimated using systematic, land and vessel-based survey data for in-water and hauled-out seals collected by the U.S. Navy at the CBBT rock armor and Portal Islands from November 2014 through April 2022 (Rees
Seal density data are in the format of seal per unit time; therefore, seal take requests were calculated as total number of potential seals per pile driving day (8 hours) multiplied by the number of driving days per month. For example, in December seal density data is reported at 14.3 seals per day × 26 workdays in December, resulting in the potential of 372 instances of take for that month (table 11). The anticipated number of take events were summed across the months during which in-water pile driving is planned. The largest Level A harassment isopleth for phocid species is 153 m which will occur when piles are being removed via impact hammer with a bubble curtain. The smallest Level A harassment zone is 1 m which will occur when piles are removed via vibratory hammer with a bubble curtain. NMFS is requiring a shutdown zone for harbor seals of 100 m during impact driving which will theoretically result in no take by Level A harassment. However, a small number of harbor seals could enter into the shutdown zone unseen by a PSO and remain for sufficient duration to incur PTS. Given that harbor seals are common in the project area, NMFS assumed that a single harbor seal will experience Level A harassment during each in-water work day (80). Therefore, NMFS is authorizing the take of 80 harbor seals by Level A harassment and 2,634 harbor seals by Level B harassment for a total of 2,714 takes (table 11).
The number of gray seals expected to be present at the PTST project area was estimated using the same methodology as was used for the harbor seal. Survey data collected by the U.S. Navy at the portal islands from 2015 through 2022 was utilized (Rees
Table 13 shows the take numbers authorized by NMFS as well as the percentage of each stock affected.
The monitoring results from work conducted in 2020 and 2021 are found in table 14. The results demonstrate significantly fewer takes by harassment than were authorized, and it is important to note that estimates in the previous IHAs as well as in this IHA are based on conservative assumptions, including the size of identified harassment zones and the abundance of marine mammals. However, we note that these assumptions represent the best available information in this case.
In order to issue an IHA under section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA, NMFS must set forth the permissible methods of taking pursuant to the activity, and other means of effecting the least practicable impact on the species or stock and its habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of the species or stock for taking for certain subsistence uses
In evaluating how mitigation may or may not be appropriate to ensure the least practicable adverse impact on species or stocks and their habitat, as well as subsistence uses where applicable, NMFS considers two primary factors:
(1) The manner in which, and the degree to which, the successful implementation of the measure(s) is expected to reduce impacts to marine mammals, marine mammal species or stocks, and their habitat. This considers the nature of the potential adverse impact being mitigated (likelihood, scope, range). It further considers the likelihood that the measure will be effective if implemented (probability of accomplishing the mitigating result if implemented as planned), the likelihood of effective implementation (probability implemented as planned), and;
(2) The practicability of the measures for applicant implementation, which may consider such things as cost and impact on operations.
CTJV must conduct training between construction supervisors, crews, marine mammal monitoring team, and relevant CTJV staff prior to the start of all pile driving activities and when new personnel join the work, so that responsibilities, communication procedures, monitoring protocols, and operational procedures are clearly understood.
Construction supervisors and crews, PSOs, and relevant CTJV staff must avoid direct physical interaction with marine mammals during construction activity. If a marine mammal comes within 10 m of such activity, operations must cease and vessels must reduce speed to the minimum level required to maintain steerage and safe working conditions, as necessary to avoid direct physical interaction. If an activity is delayed or halted due to the presence of a marine mammal, the activity may not commence or resume until either the animal has voluntarily exited and been visually confirmed beyond the shutdown zone indicated in table 15 or 15 minutes have passed without re-detection of the animal.
Construction activities must be halted upon observation of a species for which incidental take is not authorized or a species for which incidental take has been authorized but the authorized number of takes has been met entering or within the harassment zone.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, NMFS has determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved understanding of one or more of the following:
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
• PSOs must be independent of the activity contractor (for example, employed by a subcontractor), and have no other assigned tasks during monitoring periods;
• At least one PSO must have prior experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activity pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization;
• Other PSOs may substitute other relevant experience, education (degree in biological science or related field) or training for experience performing the duties of a PSO during construction activities pursuant to a NMFS-issued incidental take authorization.
• PSOs must be approved by NMFS prior to beginning any activity subject to this IHA.
PSOs should also have the following additional qualifications:
• Ability to conduct field observations and collect data according to assigned protocols;
• Experience or training in the field identification of marine mammals, including identification of behaviors;
• Sufficient training, orientation, or experience with the construction operation to provide for personal safety during observations;
• Writing skills sufficient to prepare a report of observations including, but not limited to, the number and species of marine mammals observed; dates and times when in-water construction activities were conducted; dates, times, and reason for implementation of mitigation (or why mitigation was note implemented when required); and marine mammal behavior; and
• Ability to communicate orally, by radio or in person, with project personnel to provide real-time information on marine mammals observed in the area as necessary.
Visual monitoring will be conducted by a minimum of one trained PSO positioned at a suitable vantage point that will allow coverage of the identified harassment zones. The Portal Islands and associated berms will constrain the ensonified area to only one side (
Monitoring will be conducted 30 minutes before, during, and 30 minutes after all in water construction activities. In addition, PSOs will record all incidents of marine mammal occurrence, regardless of distance from activity, and will document any behavioral reactions in concert with distance from piles being removed. Pile driving activities include the time to remove a single pile or series of piles, as long as the time elapsed between uses of the pile driving equipment is no more than 30 minutes.
CTJV will submit a draft marine mammal monitoring report to NMFS within 90 days after the completion of pile driving activities, or 60 days prior to a requested date of issuance of any future IHAs for the project, or other projects at the same location, whichever comes first. The marine mammal monitoring report will include an overall description of work completed, a narrative regarding marine mammal sightings, and associated PSO data sheets. Specifically, the report will include:
• Dates and times (begin and end) of all marine mammal monitoring;
• Construction activities occurring during each daily observation period, including: (1) The number and type of piles that were removed (
• PSO locations during marine mammal monitoring;
• Environmental conditions during monitoring periods (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including Beaufort sea state and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon, and estimated observable distance;
• Upon observation of a marine mammal, the following information: (1) Name of PSO who sighted the animal(s) and PSO location and activity at time of sighting; (2) Time of sighting; (3) Identification of the animal(s) (
• Number of marine mammals detected within the harassment zones, by species; and,
• Detailed information about implementation of any mitigation (
If no comments are received from NMFS within 30 days, the draft final report will constitute the final report. If comments are received, a final report addressing NMFS comments must be submitted within 30 days after receipt of comments. The Holder must submit all PSO data electronically in a format that can be queried such as a spreadsheet or database (
In the event that personnel involved in the construction activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the Holder must report the incident to the Office of Protected Resources (OPR), NMFS (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
• Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
• If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
• General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
NMFS has defined negligible impact as an impact resulting from the specified activity that cannot be reasonably expected to, and is not reasonably likely to, adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (50 CFR 216.103). A negligible impact finding is based on the lack of likely adverse effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival (
To avoid repetition, the majority of our analysis applies to all the species listed in table 13, given that many of the anticipated effects of this project on different marine mammal stocks are expected to be relatively similar in nature. Where there are meaningful differences between species or stocks, or groups of species, in anticipated individual responses to activities, impact of expected take on the population due to differences in population status, or impacts on habitat, they are described independently in the analysis below.
Impact and vibratory pile driving have the potential to disturb or displace marine mammals. Specifically, the project activities may result in take, in the form of Level A and Level B harassment from underwater sounds generated from pile driving.
The takes from Level A and Level B harassment would be due to potential behavioral disturbance, TTS, and PTS. No serious injury or mortality is anticipated given the nature of the activity and measures designed to minimize the possibility of injury to marine mammals. The potential for harassment is minimized through the construction method and the implementation of the planned mitigation measures (see Mitigation section).
We anticipate that harbor porpoises, harbor seals and gray seals may sustain some limited Level A harassment in the form of auditory injury. However, animals in these locations that experience PTS will likely only receive slight PTS,
Behavioral responses of marine mammals to pile driving at the project
We acknowledge the existence and concern about the ongoing humpback whale UME. We have no evidence that this project is likely to result in vessel strikes (a major correlate of the UME) and marine construction projects in general involve the use of slow-moving vessels, such as tugs towing or pushing barges, or smaller work boats maneuvering in the vicinity of the construction project. These vessel types are not typically associated with vessel strikes resulting in injury or mortality. More generally, the UME does not yet provide cause for concern regarding population-level impacts for humpback whales. Despite the UME, the West Indies breeding population or DPS, remains healthy.
For all species and stocks, take will occur within a limited, confined area (adjacent to the CBBT) of the stock's range and the amount of take authorized is extremely small when compared to stock abundance. In addition, it is unlikely that minor noise effects in a small, localized area of habitat will have any effect on the stocks' ability to recover. In combination, we believe that these factors, as well as the available body of evidence from other similar activities, demonstrate that the potential effects of the specified activities will have only minor, short-term effects on individuals. The specified activities are not expected to impact rates of recruitment or survival and will therefore not result in population-level impacts.
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination that the impacts resulting from this activity are not expected to adversely affect the species or stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival:
• No serious injury or mortality is anticipated or authorized;
• Authorized Level A harassment will be very small amounts and of low degree;
• No important habitat areas have been identified within the project area;
• For all species, the specified project area in Chesapeake Bay is a very small and peripheral part of their range;
• CTJV will implement mitigation measures such as bubble curtains, soft-starts, and shut downs; and
• Monitoring reports from similar work in Chesapeake Bay have documented little to no effect on individuals of the same species impacted by the specified activities.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the likely effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat, and taking into consideration the implementation of the required monitoring and mitigation measures, NMFS finds that the total marine mammal take from the planned activity will have a negligible impact on all affected marine mammal species or stocks.
As noted previously, only take of small numbers of marine mammals may be authorized under sections 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for specified activities other than military readiness activities. The MMPA does not define small numbers and so, in practice, where estimated numbers are available, NMFS compares the number of individuals taken to the most appropriate estimation of abundance of the relevant species or stock in our determination of whether an authorization is limited to small numbers of marine mammals. When the predicted number of individuals to be taken is less than one-third of the species or stock abundance, the take is considered to be of small numbers. Additionally, other qualitative factors may be considered in the analysis, such as the temporal or spatial scale of the activities.
The amount of take NMFS is authorizing is below one-third of the estimated stock abundance for humpback whale, harbor porpoise, gray seal, and harbor seal (in fact, take is no more than 6 percent of the abundance of the affected stocks, see table 13). This is likely a conservative estimate because they assume all takes are of different individual animals which is likely not the case. Some individuals may return multiple times in a day, but PSOs will count them as separate takes if they cannot be individually identified.
There are three bottlenose dolphin stocks that could occur in the project area. Therefore, the estimated 12,256 dolphin takes by Level B harassment will likely be split among the western North Atlantic northern migratory coastal stock, western North Atlantic southern migratory coastal stock, and NNCES stock. Based on the stocks' respective occurrence in the area, NMFS estimated that there will be no more than 200 takes from the NNCES stock, representing 24.3 percent of that population, with the remaining takes split evenly between the northern (90.8 percent) and southern migratory coastal stocks (160.7 percent). Based on consideration of various factors described below, we have determined the numbers of individuals taken will comprise less than one-third of the best available population abundance estimate of either coastal migratory stock. Detailed descriptions of the stocks' ranges have been provided in Description of Marine Mammals in the Area of Specified Activities.
Both the northern migratory coastal and southern migratory coastal stocks have expansive ranges and they are the only dolphin stocks thought to make broad-scale, seasonal migrations in coastal waters of the western North Atlantic. Given the large ranges associated with these two stocks it is unlikely that large segments of either stock will approach the project area and enter into the Chesapeake Bay. The majority of both stocks are likely to be found widely dispersed across their respective habitat ranges and unlikely to be concentrated in or near the Chesapeake Bay.
Furthermore, the Chesapeake Bay and nearby offshore waters represent the boundaries of the ranges of each of the two coastal stocks during migration. The northern migratory coastal stock is found during warm water months from coastal Virginia, including the Chesapeake Bay and Long Island, New York. The stock migrates south in late summer and fall. During cold water months dolphins may be found in coastal waters from Cape Lookout, North Carolina, to the North Carolina/Virginia. During January-March, the southern migratory coastal stock appears to move as far south as northern Florida. From April to June, the stock moves back north to North Carolina. During the warm water months of July-August, the stock is presumed to occupy coastal waters north of Cape Lookout, North Carolina, to Assateague, Virginia, including the Chesapeake Bay. There is likely some overlap between the northern and southern migratory stocks during spring and fall migrations, but the extent of overlap is unknown.
The Bay and waters offshore of the mouth are located on the periphery of the migratory ranges of both coastal stocks (although during different seasons). Additionally, each of the migratory coastal stocks are likely to be located in the vicinity of the Bay for
Both migratory coastal stocks likely overlap with the NNCES stock at various times during their seasonal migrations. The NNCES stock is defined as animals that primarily occupy waters of the Pamlico Sound estuarine system (which also includes Core, Roanoke, and Albemarle sounds, and the Neuse River) during warm water months (July-August). Members of this stock also use coastal waters (≤1 km from shore) of North Carolina from Beaufort north to Virginia Beach, Virginia, including the lower Chesapeake Bay. Comparison of dolphin photo-identification data confirmed that limited numbers of individual dolphins observed in Roanoke Sound have also been sighted in the Chesapeake Bay (Young, 2018). Like the migratory coastal dolphin stocks, the NNCES stock covers a large range. The spatial extent of most small and resident bottlenose dolphin populations is on the order of 500 km
Many of the dolphin observations in the Bay are likely repeated sightings of the same individuals. The Potomac-Chesapeake Dolphin Project has observed over 1,200 unique animals since observations began in 2015. Re-sightings of the same individual can be highly variable. Some dolphins are observed once per year, while others are highly regular with greater than 10 sightings per year (Mann, Personal Communication). Similarly, using available photo-identification data, Engelhaupt
In summary and as described above, the following factors primarily support our determination regarding the incidental take of small numbers of a species or stock:
• The take of marine mammal stocks authorized for take comprises less than 10 percent of any stock abundance (with the exception of bottlenose dolphin stocks);
• Potential bottlenose dolphin takes in the project area are likely to be allocated among three distinct stocks;
• Bottlenose dolphin stocks in the project area have extensive ranges and it will be unlikely to find a high percentage of any one stock concentrated in a relatively small area such as the project area or the Bay;
• The Bay represents the migratory boundary for each of the specified dolphin stocks and it will be unlikely to find a high percentage of any stock concentrated at such boundaries;
• Many of the takes will be repeats of the same animal and it is likely that a number of individual animals could be taken 10 or more times.
Based on the analysis contained herein of the planned activity (including the required mitigation and monitoring measures) and the anticipated take of marine mammals, NMFS finds that small numbers of marine mammals will be taken relative to the population size of the affected species or stocks.
There are no relevant subsistence uses of the affected marine mammal stocks or species implicated by this action. Therefore, NMFS has determined that the total taking of affected species or stocks will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for subsistence purposes.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
No incidental take of ESA-listed species is expected to result from this activity or been authorized by NMFS. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
To comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
This action is consistent with categories of activities identified in Categorical Exclusion B4 (IHAs with no anticipated serious injury or mortality) of the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A, which do not individually or cumulatively have the potential for significant impacts on the quality of the human environment and for which we have not identified any extraordinary circumstances that will preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
NMFS has issued an IHA to CTJV for the potential harassment of small numbers of five marine mammal species incidental to the Parallel Thimble Shoal Tunnel Project, In Virginia Beach, Virginia that includes the previously explained mitigation, monitoring and reporting requirements.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of hybrid conference meetings.
The North Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) and its advisory committees will meet April 1, 2024 through April 9, 2024.
The Council's Scientific and Statistical Committee (SSC) will begin at 8 a.m. in the Aleutian room on Monday, April 1, 2024, and continue through Wednesday, April 3, 2024. The Council's Advisory Panel (AP) will begin at 8 a.m. in the Denali room on Tuesday, April 2, 2024, and continue through Saturday, April 6, 2024. The closed Executive/Finance Committee will meet Wednesday April 3, 2024, from 1 p.m. to 5 p.m. at the Council's offices. The Council will begin at 8 a.m. in the Aleutian room on Thursday, April 4, 2024, and continue through Tuesday, April 9, 2024. All times listed are Alaska Time.
The meetings will be a hybrid conference. The in-person component of the meeting will be held at the Hilton Hotel, 500 W 3rd Ave., Suite 400, Anchorage, AK 99501, or join the meeting online through the links at
Diana Evans, Council staff; email:
The SSC agenda will include the following issues:
(1) Scallops—Stock Assessment and Fishery Evaluation (SAFE) report, Acceptable biological catch (ABC)/Over Fishing Limit (OFL), Plan Team report.
(2) Salmon bycatch—review (a) Chinook/chum genetics reports for Bering Sea (BS), Gulf of Alaska (GOA); and (c) Chum Salmon Bycatch initial review analysis.
(3) Amendment 80 Program Review—review report.
(4) Research Priorities—set 5-year priorities.
(5) Sablefish study for IRA funding—discuss for potential analysis.
The agenda is subject to change, and the latest version will be posted at
In addition to providing ongoing scientific advice for fishery management decisions, the SSC functions as the Council's primary peer review panel for scientific information, as described by the Magnuson-Stevens Act section 302(g)(1)(e), and the National Standard 2 guidelines (78 FR 43066). The peer-review process is also deemed to satisfy the requirements of the Information Quality Act, including the OMB Peer Review Bulletin guidelines.
The Advisory Panel agenda will include the following issues:
(1) Scallops—SAFE report, ABC/OFL, Plan Team report.
(2) Salmon bycatch—review (a) Chinook/chum genetics reports BS and GOA, and (c) Chum Salmon Bycatch initial review analysis.
(3) Area 4 Vessel Caps—Initial Review.
(4) Amendment 80 Program Review—review report.
(5) Maximum retention amount adjustments—review discussion paper.
(6) Research Priorities set 5-year priorities.
(7) Staff Tasking.
The Executive/Finance Committee will meet in closed session to discuss Council finances and internal administrative matters.
The Council agenda will include the following issues. The Council may take appropriate action on any of the issues identified.
(1) B Reports (Executive Director, NMFS Management, NOAA General Counsel (GC), Alaska Fishery Science Center (AFSC), Alaska Department of Fish and Game (ADF&G), United States Coast Guard (USCG), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health (NIOSH) report, Cooperative reports, Advisory Panel, SSC report).
(2) Scallops—SAFE report, ABC/OFL, Plan Team report.
(3) Salmon bycatch—review (a) Chinook/chum genetics reports BS and GOA; (b) pollock IPA reports, Sea Share, and (c) Chum Salmon Bycatch initial review analysis.
(4) Area 4 Vessel Caps—Initial Review.
(5) Amendment 80 Program Review—review report.
(6) Maximum retention amount adjustments—review discussion paper.
(7) Research Priorities set 5-year priorities.
(8) Staff Tasking.
You can attend the meeting online using a computer, tablet, or smart phone; or by phone only. Connection information will be posted online at:
If you are attending the meeting in-person, please refer to the COVID avoidance protocols on our website,
Public comment letters will be accepted and should be submitted electronically through the links at
Notice.
In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (FACA), the Department of Commerce has renewed and renamed the Advisory Committee on Commercial Remote Sensing (ACCRES) as the Advisory Committee on Excellence in Space (ACES), determining this action to be in the public interest in connection with the performance of duties imposed on the Department by law. ACCRES was
The Committee was first established in May 2002 to advise the Under Secretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere on matters relating to the U.S. commercial remote sensing industry and NOAA's activities to carry out the responsibilities of the Department of Commerce set forth in the National and Commercial Space Programs Act of 2010 (the Act), title 51 U.S.C. 60101
ACES will have a fairly balanced membership consisting of no more than 25 members serving in a representative or Special Government Employee capacity. The members should represent a variety of space policy, engineering, technical, science, legal, and finance professionals with significant expertise in the commercial space industry. Each candidate member shall be recommended by the Director of NOAA's Office of Space Commerce (OSC) and shall be appointed by the Under Secretary or the OSC Director, generally for a term of two years and serve at the discretion of the Under Secretary or OSC Director.
The Committee will function solely as an advisory body, and in compliance with provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Copies of the Committee's revised Charter have been filed with the appropriate committees of the Congress and with the Library of Congress.
Jason Y. Kim, Chief of Staff, NOAA Office of Space Commerce, 1401 Constitution Ave. NW, Room 68015, Washington, DC 20230; telephone 202-482-6125; email
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; request for comments.
The Assistant Regional Administrator for Sustainable Fisheries, Greater Atlantic Region, NMFS, has made a preliminary determination that an Exempted Fishing Permit application contains all of the required information and warrants further consideration. The exempted fishing permit would allow federally permitted fishing vessels to fish outside fishery regulations in support of exempted fishing activities proposed by the Maine Department of Marine Resources. Regulations under the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act and the Atlantic Coastal Fisheries Cooperative Management Act require publication of this notification to provide interested parties the opportunity to comment on applications for proposed exempted fishing permits (EFP).
Comments must be received on or before March 28, 2024.
You may submit written comments by the following method:
•
All comments received are a part of the public record and will generally be posted for public viewing in
Christine Ford, Fishery Management Specialist,
The Maine Department of Marine Resources (MDMR) submitted a complete application for an EFP to conduct commercial fishing activities that the regulations would otherwise restrict to test alternative gear retrieval systems that only use one traditional surface buoy. This EFP would exempt the participating vessels from the following Federal regulations:
This EFP would allow federally permitted vessels to test alternative gears to reduce entanglement risk to protected species, mainly the North Atlantic right whale, in trap/pot and sink gillnet fisheries. There are two components to this EFP, a gear library component, which is an assortment of devices and technologies to retrieve gear, and a gear geolocation component.
For the gear library component, participating vessels would replace one traditional surface marking with a spring-tag or timed-release retrieval system, a buoy and stowed-rope system, or a lift-bag system. A spring-tag retrieval system uses a low breaking strength (<1,700 pounds (lb) (<771 kilograms (kg))) buoy line that releases a stowed retrieval line of greater breaking strength when subjected to tension (>75 lb (>34 kg)). A timed-release retrieval system releases a stowed line after a programmed pre-set soak time. A buoy and stowed-rope system or a lift-bag system uses an acoustic trigger sent from the vessel to release the retrieval system, once the vessel is in close proximity to the gear. Each vessel would modify two trawls or strings by replacing one of the traditional vertical lines with one of the available on-demand retrieval systems, resulting in no additional vertical lines in the water. Vessels would be required to use one traditional surface marking on the other end of trap trawls of more than three traps and on all gillnet gear. For trap trawls of fewer than three traps, vessels would still use one traditional surface marking, in addition to the on-demand retrieval system; therefore, there would be no fully ropeless trawls. Other than gear markings, all trap trawls and gillnet strings would be consistent with the regulations of the management area where the vessel is fishing and would be fished in accordance with the participating vessels' standard operations (
The gear geolocation component of this project will include a subset (up to 10) of the trap/pot vessels participating in the gear library component. Vessels would use acoustic positioning systems from any of the five available manufacturers (Teledyne Benthos, Ropeless Systems, Ashored, Nova Robotics, and Advanced Navigation), and would modify up to three trawls by replacing one of the traditional vertical lines with either a buoy and stowed-rope system or a lift-bag system to communicate with the acoustic positioning systems. The trawls would be set at different distances apart, within a density slightly greater than common gear densities, allowed to soak no longer than one hour each, and then be retrieved in rapid succession. The focus of this component would be testing the acoustic positioning systems to determine the extent of difference between acoustic geolocation and surface buoy or surface GPS geolocation, as well as testing the performance of the different acoustic positioning systems in an environment where multiple acoustic signals are being transmitted simultaneously. Up to 10 discrete single-day gear geolocation trials would be conducted within the fishing year. These trials would increase trap/pot effort via short soaks and high rate of retrieval. However, catch per unit effort would be reduced. Any legal catch would be kept for sale.
MDMR researchers anticipate up to 5,200 total hauls of hybrid trap/pot trawls or gillnet strings for the gear library component, and up to an additional 150 retrievals of hybrid trap/pot trawls for the gear geolocation component. Trap trawls would be consistent with Atlantic Large Whale Take Reduction Plan (ALWTRP) regulations. Trawls would not exceed 50 traps per trawl and the gear library component trawls would soak for approximately 3 days (and not more than 30 days). Gillnets would be consistent with ALWTRP and Harbor Porpoise Take Reduction Plan (HPTRP) regulations. Gillnets would use 15-30.5 centimeters (cm) mesh, would not exceed 3,200 meters (m), and would soak for a period of approximately 24 hours (and not more than 30 days).
To ensure broad participation and target areas where data is needed, MDMR has requested the flexibility to modify the participant vessel list and would submit modifications to the active participants list one month in advance. MDMR and the gear manufacturers will distribute gear and train all participants on its use. Scientific observers may accompany the participants on up to two trips per vessel, within budget and safety limitations. MDMR would provide standardized data collection sheets to all participants, but individually identifiable data will only be made public with the express permission of the vessel owner. Additionally, MDMR has requested an EFP Interactive Voice Response (IVR) reporting waiver for those trap/pot vessels not typically subject to IVR reporting; the applicant states that this requirement is a barrier to fishermen recruitment to this project, and is duplicative of the required eVTR reporting.
The project objectives are to: (1) Collect data on deployments and retrievals of various acoustic on-demand fishing gears within the trap/pot and gillnet fisheries in the Gulf of Maine; (2) provide support and training to fishers on various on-demand technologies; (3) assess fishing areas that may be best suited for adopting the tested retrieval systems; (4) increase familiarity within the trap/pot and gillnet fisheries with on-demand gear; (5) provide feedback to on-demand fishing gear manufacturers to increase performance under commercial fishery conditions; (6) trial gear geolocation and marking systems that promote interoperability for fishers and management; and (7) compare the relative precision of various gear geolocation technologies to improve understanding of how transitioning to acoustic technologies may impact fishing behavior.
MDMR has proposed the following best management and risk reduction practices:
• Experimental buoy lines would be marked with unique white and blue markings above the required regional markings;
• All vessels would provide mandatory, weekly gear loss and conflict reports to the Principal Investigator (PI), and the PI would provide monthly gear loss and conflict reports to the NOAA Greater Atlantic Regional Fisheries Office;
• After release, the on-demand vertical lines would be retrieved as quickly as possible to minimize time in the water column;
• All vessels would record right whale sightings on data sheets, and would notify NMFS via email
• All vessels would adhere to a 10-knot speed limit when transiting dynamic management areas, transiting areas closed to vertical lines, and/or when whales are observed;
• All vessels would adhere to current approach regulations that create a 500-yard (1,500-feet (ft)) buffer zone in the presence of a surfacing right whale and would depart immediately at a safe and slow speed. Hauling any fishing gear would cease once the entire string or trawl was aboard the vessel, to accommodate the regulation, and be redeployed only after it was reasonable to assume the whale left the area; and
• Law enforcement would be able to inspect gear at any time because one traditional surface-marking would be present at all times. The PI would notify law enforcement agencies (NOAA Office of Law Enforcement (OLE) and Maine Marine Patrol) of project participants and activities in advance of the project start date, including:
○ Materials related to the redeployment of alternative gear-retrieval systems, most relevant to the spring-tagline retrieval system; and
○ Information necessary to continue relevant enforcement operations with participant gear.
If approved, the applicant may request minor modifications and extensions to the EFP throughout the year. EFP modifications and extensions may be granted without further notice if they are deemed essential to facilitate completion of the proposed research and have minimal impacts that do not change the scope or impact of the initially approved EFP request. Any fishing activity conducted outside the scope of the exempted fishing activity would be prohibited.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; receipt of application.
Notice is hereby given that the Northwest Fisheries Science Center, Marine Forensic Laboratory, 2725 Montlake Blvd. East, Seattle, WA 98112 (Kevin Werner, Ph.D., Responsible Party), has applied in due form for a permit to receive, import, and export marine mammal and protected species parts for scientific research.
Written, telefaxed, or email comments must be received on or before April 12, 2024.
The application and related documents are available for review by selecting “Records Open for Public Comment” from the “Features” box on the Applications and Permits for Protected Species (APPS) home page,
Written comments on this application should be submitted via email to
Those individuals requesting a public hearing should submit a written request via email to
Malcolm Mohead or Jennifer Skidmore, (301) 427-8401.
The subject permit is requested under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (MMPA; 16 U.S.C. 1361
The applicant proposes to receive, import, and export samples from up to 100 individual animals from each species of all cetaceans, pinnipeds (excluding walrus), sea turtles (in water), coral, and individual species of fish and abalone listed under the ESA including: black and white abalone, Pacific and Atlantic salmonids, sawfish, sturgeon, sharks, grouper, rockfish, guitarfish, and totoaba. Receipt, import, and export is requested worldwide. Sources of samples may include animal strandings in foreign countries, foreign and domestic subsistence harvests, captive animals, other authorized persons or collections, incidentally bycaught animals, transfers from law enforcement, and marine mammals that died incidental to commercial fishing operations in the U.S. and foreign countries, where such take is legal. Samples would be archived at the Marine Forensics Laboratories in either Charleston, South Carolina, Seattle, Washington, and Ashland, Oregon. Samples would be used for research, supporting law enforcement actions, and outreach and education. No live takes from the wild would be authorized. The requested duration of the permit is 5 years.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321
Concurrent with the publication of this notice in the
Office of the Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff, 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 Board of Visitors, National Defense University (BoV NDU) will take place.
Thursday, April 18, 2024 from 9:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m. Eastern Time (ET).
Marshall Hall, Building 62, Room 155, the National Defense
Ms. Joycelyn Stevens, (202) 685-0079 (Voice)
This meeting is being held in accordance with chapter 10 of title 5 United States Code (U.S.C.) (formerly known as the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C., App.)) and under the provisions of the Government in the Sunshine Act of 1976 (5 U.S.C. 552b, as amended) and 41 CFR 102-3.140 and 102-3.150. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552b and 41 CFR 102-3.140 through 102-3.165, this meeting is open to the public.
(a) If the visitor has a valid U.S. driver's license:
(i) The visitor can apply for access online at
(b) If the visitor does not have a U.S. driver's license:
(i) The visitor must fill out a paper application in person at the Fort McNair Visitor Control Center VCC/Police Substation (Building 65) from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday.
The visitor must apply in person at the Fort McNair VCC/Police Substation (Building 65) from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. The visitor should plan to arrive early, as the procedure for running background checks and issuing passes can take much longer than expected.
For additional information, please go to
Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for fiscal year (FY) 2024 for the Braille Training program, Assistance Listing Number 84.235E. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 1894-0006.
For the addresses for obtaining and submitting an application, please refer to our Common Instructions for Applicants to Department of Education Discretionary Grant Programs, published in the
Theresa DeVaughn, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, Room 4A110, Washington, DC 20202-5076. Telephone: (202) 987-0144. Email:
If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability and wish to access telecommunications relay services, please dial 7-1-1.
The Department's invitational priorities align with the Secretary's Supplemental Priorities published in the
The priority is:
Under this priority, we provide grants for the establishment or continuation of projects that provide—
(1) Development of braille training materials;
(2) In-service or pre-service training in the use of braille, the importance of braille literacy, and methods of teaching braille to youth and adults who are blind; and
(3) Activities to promote knowledge and use of braille and nonvisual access technology for blind youth and adults through a program of training, demonstration, and evaluation conducted with leadership of experienced blind individuals, including the use of comprehensive, state-of-the-art technology.
These priorities are:
Projects designed to promote educational equity and adequacy in resources for underserved students and adults who are blind, especially those located in rural areas, in one of more of the following educational settings: (1) Early learning programs, (2) Elementary school, (3) Middle school, (4) High school, (5) Career and technical education programs, (6) Out-of-school-time settings, (7) Alternative schools and programs, (8) Juvenile justice-system or correctional facilities, and (9) Adult learning. Projects will expand access to high-quality braille training, including in school-based and community-based settings, by providing braille instruction in the areas of literacy and Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM), including mathematical and scientific notations, and by removing barriers through implementation of programs that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status.
Projects designed to increase the number and proportion of experienced and effective braille educators and instructors from traditionally underrepresented backgrounds or the communities they serve, including rural areas, to ensure that underserved students and adults, including those in rural areas, have educators from those backgrounds and communities, and are not taught at disproportionately higher rates by out-of-field and novice teachers compared to their peers. Projects will also identify and disseminate pedagogical practices in braille training that are inclusive with regard to race, ethnicity, culture, language, and disability status so that braille educators and instructors are better prepared to create inclusive, supportive, equitable, unbiased, and identity-safe learning environments for underserved students and adults who are blind.
Projects that design and deliver instruction to individuals who are blind that effectively integrate innovative technology and provide opportunities for individuals who are blind to apply braille technology in authentic and real-world settings, such as project-based, work-based, or other relevant experiential learning opportunities that will allow individuals with disabilities who are blind to think critically, solve complex problems, communicate and collaborate with others, and support their educational and career goals.
Under this invitational priority, innovative technology that could be integrated into the project design includes, but is not limited to: (1) Braille translation, such as software that converts text from digital formats (
For purposes of the invitational priorities, the following definitions apply:
(a) A student who is living in poverty or is served by schools with high concentrations of students living in poverty.
(b) A student of color.
(c) A student who is a member of a federally recognized Indian Tribe.
(d) An English learner.
(e) A child or student with a disability.
(f) A disconnected youth.
(g) A technologically unconnected youth.
(h) A migrant student.
(i) A student experiencing homelessness or housing insecurity.
(j) A lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or questioning, or intersex (LGBTQI+) student.
(k) A student who is in foster care.
(l) A student without documentation of immigration status.
(m) A pregnant, parenting, or caregiving student.
(n) A student impacted by the justice system, including a formerly incarcerated student.
(o) A student who is the first in their family to attend postsecondary education.
(p) A student enrolling in or seeking to enroll in postsecondary education for the first time at the age of 20 or older.
(q) A student who is working full-time while enrolled in postsecondary education.
(r) A student who is enrolled in or is seeking to enroll in postsecondary education who is eligible for a Pell Grant.
(s) An adult student in need of improving their basic skills or an adult student with limited English proficiency.
(t) A student performing significantly below grade level.
(u) A military- or veteran-connected student.
The Administration has requested $7.3 million for the Training and Demonstration Programs for FY 2024, of which we intend to use $342,000 for this competition. The actual level of funding, if any, depends on final congressional action. However, we are inviting applications to allow enough time to complete the grant process if Congress appropriates funds for this program.
Contingent upon the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in subsequent years from the list of unfunded applications from this competition.
1.
2. a.
b.
c.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
• A “page” is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side only, with 1″ margins at the top, bottom, and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three lines per vertical inch) all text in the application narrative, including titles, headings, footnotes, quotations, reference citations, and captions, as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots.
• Use a font that is 12 point or larger.
• Use one of the following fonts: Times New Roman, Courier, Courier New, or Arial.
The recommended page limit does not apply to the cover sheet; the budget section, including the narrative budget justification; the assurances and certifications; or the abstract (follow the guidance provided in the application package for completing the abstract), the table of contents, the resumes, the reference list, the letters of support, or the appendices. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative, including all text in charts, tables, figures, graphs, and screen shots. Applicants are expected to make the contents of their application accessible for individuals with disabilities to the maximum extent possible. Tutorials and resources for making documents accessible are available for free on RSA's National Clearinghouse for Rehabilitation Training Materials at
1.
(a) Need for project. (10 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the need for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the need for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project;
(ii) The extent to which the proposed project will prepare personnel for fields in which shortages have been demonstrated; and
(iii) The potential replicability of the proposed project or strategies, including, as appropriate, the potential for implementation in a variety of settings.
(b) Quality of the project design. (20 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the design of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable;
(ii) The extent to which the design for implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide possible replication of project activities or strategies, including information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies employed by the project;
(iii) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance;
(iv) The extent to which the design of the proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice; and
(v) The extent to which performance feedback and continuous improvement are integral to the design of the proposed project.
(c) Quality of project services. (25 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the services to be provided by the proposed project, the Secretary considers the quality and sufficiency of strategies for ensuring equal access and treatment for eligible project participants who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability.
(3) In addition, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The likely impact of the services to be provided by the proposed project on the intended recipients of those services;
(ii) The extent to which the services to be provided by the proposed project involve the collaboration of appropriate partners for maximizing the effectiveness of project services;
(iii) The extent to which the training or professional development services to be provided by the proposed project are of sufficient quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice among the recipients of those services; and
(iv) The extent to which the results of the proposed project are to be disseminated in ways that will enable others to use the information or strategies.
(d) Quality of the project evaluation. (25 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project;
(ii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide valid and reliable performance data on relevant outcomes (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c));
(iii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce promising evidence (as defined in 34 CFR 77.1(c)) about the project's effectiveness;
(iv) The extent to which the methods of evaluation include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible;
(v) The qualifications, including relevant training, experience, and independence, of the evaluator;
(vi) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of project implementation strategies; and
(vii) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide performance feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving intended outcomes.
(e) Quality of the management plan. (20 points)
(1) The Secretary considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project.
(2) In determining the quality of the management plan for the proposed project, the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestone for accomplishing project tasks;
(ii) The extent to which the time commitments of the project director and principal investigator and other key project personnel are appropriate and
(iii) The adequacy of procedures for ensuring feedback and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project; and
(iv) How the applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are brought to bear in the operation of the proposed project, including those of parents, teachers, the business community, a variety of disciplinary and professional fields, recipients or beneficiaries of services, or others, as appropriate.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, the Secretary requires various assurances, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
3.
4.
Please note that, if the total value of your currently active grants, cooperative agreements, and procurement contracts from the Federal Government exceeds $10,000,000, the reporting requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, require you to report certain integrity information to FAPIIS semiannually. Please review the requirements in 2 CFR part 200, Appendix XII, if this grant plus all the other Federal funds you receive exceed $10,000,000.
5.
(a) Selecting recipients most likely to be successful in delivering results based on the program objectives through an objective process of evaluating Federal award applications (2 CFR 200.205);
(b) Prohibiting the purchase of certain telecommunication and video surveillance services or equipment in alignment with section 889 of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2019 (Pub. L. 115-232) (2 CFR 200.216);
(c) Providing a preference, to the extent permitted by law, to maximize use of goods, products, and materials produced in the United States (2 CFR 200.322); and
(d) Terminating agreements in whole or in part to the greatest extent authorized by law if an award no longer effectuates the program goals or agency priorities (2 CFR 200.340).
1.
If your application is not evaluated or not selected for funding, we notify you.
2.
We reference the regulations outlining the terms and conditions of an award in the
3.
4.
(b) At the end of your project period, you must submit a final performance report, including financial information, as directed by the Secretary. If you receive a multiyear award, you must submit an annual performance report that provides the most current performance and financial expenditure information as directed by the Secretary under 34 CFR 75.118. The Secretary may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
(c) Under 34 CFR 75.250(b), the Secretary may approve a data collection period for a grant for a period of up to 72 months after the end of the project period and provide funding, separate from this funding opportunity, for the data collection period for the sole purpose of collecting, analyzing, and
5.
(a) The number of participants who attend the program disaggregated by adults and youth.
(b) The number of participants who successfully complete the program disaggregated by adults and youth.
(c) The number of personnel who attend the program.
(d) The number of personnel who successfully complete the program.
(e) The number of trained personnel who subsequently report obtaining or advancing in positions where they provide braille instruction to blind youth and adults following completion of the program.
Grantees are required to report annually to the Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) on these data.
6.
In making a continuation award, the Secretary also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Election Assistance Commission.
Notice; request for comment.
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork burdens, and as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC) gives notice that it is requesting from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection of one Election Supporting Technology Evaluation form. The information collected is to be used to improve the quality of election-supporting technology used in federal elections, and to collect necessary key information on election-supporting technology anomalies. Participation in this program is voluntary.
Comments must be received by 5 p.m. Eastern on Monday, May 13, 2024.
Comments on the proposed form should be submitted electronically via
Written comments on the proposed information collection can also be sent to the U.S. Election Assistance Commission, 633 3rd Street NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20001, Attn: Election Supporting Technology Evaluation Program.
Jenniffer Day, Election Technology Specialist, Election Supporting Technology Evaluation Program, Washington, DC, (202) 578-6641. Email:
All requests and submissions should be identified by the title of the information collection.
OMB Number Pending.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, EAC is submitting to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection described. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment from all interested individuals and organizations.
The EAC Election Supporting Technology Evaluation Program evaluates the security and accessibility of election-supporting technologies, including electronic poll books, voter registration systems, electronic ballot delivery systems, and election night reporting databases. The program is to publish two forms. These forms are to be used to collect initial anomaly information and anomaly root cause analysis as reported by election officials and election-supporting technology manufacturers. The information collected will be used to improve the quality of election-supporting technology used in federal elections.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the EAC to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary and sufficient for the proper functions of the Election Supporting Technology Evaluation Program.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public
OMB approval is requested for 3 years.
The estimated cost of the annualized cost of this burden is: $37,800.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Sierra Estrella Energy Storage LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that document on the Applicant.
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 27, 2024.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of Superstition Energy Storage LLC's application for market-based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone filing a motion to
Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability, is March 27, 2024.
The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at
Persons unable to file electronically may mail similar pleadings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426. Hand delivered submissions in docketed proceedings should be delivered to Health and Human Services, 12225 Wilkins Avenue, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
In addition to publishing the full text of this document in the
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or Commission) staff hereby withdraws its February 26, 2024 protest of the prior notice request filed under the provisions of the Commission's regulations at Part 157, subpart F, by Kern River Gas Transmission Company (Kern River) on December 15, 2023, for its proposed construction and operation of the Lanes Crossing Meter Station (Project). Staff's protest noted that Kern River did not provide a copy of a finding by the California State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) of “no historic properties” or “no historic properties effected.”
On March 6, 2024, at the request of Kern River, the California SHPO filed a letter noting its consultation with Kern River regarding the Project, and that no historic properties were identified within the area of potential effect. The SHPO stated that it did “not object to a finding of no historic properties affected.” Therefore, the application now meets the standards outlined in Appendix II of subpart F of section 157 of the Commission's regulations. This issue was resolved within 30 days of the protest as required by section 157.205(g) of the Commission's regulations. Based on the submission of the SHPO's findings for this Project, Commission staff withdraws its protest.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice.
The Environmental Protection Agency is planning to submit an information collection request (ICR), “Annual Public Water System Compliance Report” (EPA ICR No. 1812.08, OMB Control No. 2020-0020) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Before doing so, the EPA is soliciting public comments on specific aspects of the proposed information collection as described below. This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2024. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
Comments must be submitted on or before May 13, 2024.
Submit your comments, referencing Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OECA-2020-0020 online using
Raquel Taveras, Monitoring, Assistance and Media Programs Division, Office of Compliance, MC-2227A, Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone number: (202) 564-9651; email address:
This is a proposed extension of the ICR, which is currently approved through November 30, 2024. An agency may not conduct or sponsor and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
This notice allows 60 days for public comments. Supporting documents, which explain in detail the information that the EPA will be collecting, are available in the public docket for this ICR. The docket can be viewed online at
Pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paper Reduction Act, the EPA is soliciting comments and information to enable it to: (i) evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Agency, including whether the information will have practical utility; (ii) evaluate the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (iii) enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (iv) minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate forms of information technology. The EPA will consider the comments received and amend the ICR as appropriate. The final ICR package will then be submitted to OMB for review and approval. At that time, the EPA will issue another
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice of proposed settlement agreement; request for public comment.
Notice is given of a proposed settlement agreement to address a petition for writ of mandamus filed by the Ecology Center, the Center for Environmental Health, United Parents Against Lead & Other Environmental Hazards, and the Sierra Club (collectively, “Petitioners”) in the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit:
Written comments on the proposed settlement agreement must be received by April 12, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2024-0112, online at
Alyssa Gsell, Pesticides and Toxic Substances Law Office, Office of General Counsel, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency; telephone (202) 564-7413; email address
The official public docket for this action (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2024-0112) contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement. The official public docket is available for public viewing at the Office of Environmental Information (OEI) Docket in the EPA Docket Center, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744 and the telephone number for the OEI Docket is (202) 566-1752.
The electronic version of the public docket for this action contains a copy of the proposed settlement agreement and is available through
In 2009, Petitioners petitioned EPA under the Toxic Substances Control Act (“TSCA”) section 21, requesting that EPA regulate lead wheel weights. EPA granted the 2009 Petition but did not issue either an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking or a Proposed Rule.
On August 22, 2023, Petitioners filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Ninth Circuit direct EPA to “conclude a rulemaking under [TSCA] regulating lead wheel weights within six months.” The mandamus petition alleged that EPA's 14-year delay violated the APA's requirement that a
In accordance with the EPA's “Consent Decrees and Settlement Agreements to Resolve Environmental Claims Against the Agency” (March 18, 2022), for a period of thirty (30) days following the date of publication of this document, the Agency will accept written comments relating to a proposed settlement agreement for these claims. EPA or the Department of Justice may withdraw or withhold consent to the proposed settlement agreement if the comments disclose facts or considerations that indicate that such consent is inappropriate, improper, or inadequate.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OGC-2024-0112, via
If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing address, and an email address or other contact information in the body of your comment. This ensures that you can be identified as the submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further information on the substance of your comment. Any identifying or contact information provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public docket and made available in EPA's electronic public docket. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
Use of the
Please ensure that your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked “late.” EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
The Federal Communications Commission will hold an Open Meeting on the subjects listed below on Thursday, March 14, 2024, which is scheduled to commence at 10:30 a.m. in the Commission Meeting Room of the Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC.
While attendance at the Open Meeting is available to the public, the FCC headquarters building is not open access and all guests must check in with and be screened by FCC security at the main entrance on L Street. Attendees at the Open Meeting will not be required to have an appointment but must otherwise comply with protocols outlined at:
The meeting will be webcast at:
Additional information concerning this meeting may be obtained from the Office of Media Relations, (202) 418-0500. Audio/Video coverage of the meeting will be broadcast live with open captioning over the internet from the FCC Live web page at
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreements under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreements to the Secretary by email at
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 27, 2024.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 1841
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 April 12, 2024.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
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 May 13, 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 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 requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
To determine ASC compliance with CMS standards, CMS, via the Secretary, authorizes States, through contracts, to survey ASC facilities. For Medicare purposes, certification is based on the State survey agency's recording of an ASC provider's compliance or non-compliance with the health and safety Cfc as published and codified in 42 CFR 416.40 to 485.54. The information collections aid surveyors as they assess ASC compliance or non-compliance.
The previous iteration of this information collection request had a burden of 262,946 annual hours at an annual cost of $28,144,370. For this requested reinstatement, with changes, the adjusted annual hourly burden is 97,527 hours at a cost of $11,089,427. The reasons for this change, is the previous iteration of this IC assumed the development associated with IC-1 and IC-2 occurred frequently. We have revised this as development of drafts only occur on a one-time basis.
2.
This data collection complements the enrollee beneficiary experience data collected through the Medicare Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (Medicare CAHPS) survey by providing information on the reasons for disenrollment from a Medicare Advantage (with or without prescription drug coverage) or Prescription Drug Plan.
The Disenrollment Survey results are an important source of information used by CMS to monitor contract performance and to identify potential problems (
3.
Interested parties such as hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and physicians will apply for transitional pass-through payment for drugs, biologicals, and radiopharmaceuticals used with services covered under the hospital OPPS. After we receive all requested information, we will evaluate the information to determine if the criteria for making a transitional pass-through payment are met and if an interim healthcare common procedure coding system (HCPCS) code for a new drug, biological, or radiopharmaceutical is necessary. We will advise the applicant of our decision, and update the hospital OPPS during its next scheduled quarterly update to reflect any newly approved drug, biological, or radiopharmaceutical. Based on experience gained in processing transitional pass-through and new technology applications, we have reworded some of the statements for clarity and have more clearly requested information in a format that will allow us to determine if the drug, biological, or radiopharmaceutical meets the cost significance test, as well as to estimate the associated pass-through payment amount. In addition, we have also eliminated the requirement for applicants to obtain a national Level II HCPCS code prior to seeking transitional pass-through payment eligibility, or provide us with a copy of their application for a national HCPCS code, as we had originally required in the April 7, 2000 final rule.
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 May 13, 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 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 requires federal agencies to publish a 60-day notice in the
1.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living is announcing that the proposed collection of information listed above has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This 30-day notice collects comments on the information collection requirements related to the proposed revision for the information collection requirements related to the National Survey of Older Americans Act Participants.
Comments on the collection of information must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. (EST) or postmarked by April 12, 2024.
Submit written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Kristen Robinson, Administration for Community Living, Washington, DC 20201, by email at
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3506), the Administration for Community Living (ACL) has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. The National Survey of Older Americans Act (OAA Section 202(f),) Participants information collection includes consumer assessment surveys for the Congregate and Home-delivered meal nutrition programs; Case Management, Homemaker, and Transportation Services; and the National Family Caregiver Support Program. This survey builds on earlier national pilot studies and surveys, as well as performance measurement tools developed by ACL grantees in the Performance Outcomes Measures Project (POMP). Changes identified as a result of these initiatives were incorporated into the last data collection package that was approved by OMB and are included in this proposed extension of a currently approved collection.
This information will be used by ACL to track performance outcome measures; support budget requests; comply with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (Pub. L. 111-352) reporting requirements; provide national benchmark information; and inform program development and management initiatives.
In addition to the proposed extension of a currently approved collection of information, ACL is requesting approval for a one-time module on `Preferences and Needs Related to Community Living' to be added to the currently approved NSOAAP data collection effort. The module will be added to the 2024 collection instrument.
Most older adults want to remain living in their homes and communities as they age. According to a 2022 National Poll on Healthy Aging conducted by the University of Michigan, 88 percent of older adults reported it was important to them to be able to stay living safely in their homes for as long as possible. Unexpected medical events and declines in health, however, can sometimes make that difficult. The purpose of the one-time module on `Preferences and Needs Related to Community Living' is to better understand how prepared OAA recipients are to remain living in their homes as they age, so that the Aging Network can better tailor their programs and services to meet their clients' needs.
The results of this information collection will be used by ACL to:
• Provide refined national benchmarks for use by State agencies and area agencies on aging (AAAs).
• Provide secondary data for analysis of various Title III program evaluations.
• Provide performance information for key demographic subgroups which will enable ACL to identify variations in performance and examine the need for additional targeted technical assistance.
• Provide secondary data for analysis of `Preferences and Needs Related to Community Living' on access to and use of OAA programs and services among older adults that will be shared with states and AAAs to help them better structure their programs and services to help older adults remain safely in their homes and communities as long as possible.
The data will be used by the Senior official performing the duties of the Administrator and the Assistant Secretary for Aging for the Administration for Community Living, in testimony and presentations; it will be incorporated into the agency's Annual Report; and it will be used by program staff to identify areas that may need attention at the national level. Copies of the survey instruments and data from previous National Surveys of OAA Participants can be found on the Aging, Independence, and Disability (AGID) Program Data Portal at
This includes, but is not limited to, guidance specific to the collection of sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) items that align with Executive Order 13985 on Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, Executive Order 14075 on Advancing Equality for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Individuals, and Executive Order 13988 on Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity and Sexual Orientation. Understanding these disparities can and should lead to improved service delivery for ACL's programs and populations served.
A 60-day FRN published in the FR on August 2, 2023, at 88 FR 50869. One public comment was received.
ACL estimates the annual burden associated with this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the Agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Federal Agencies are required to publish notice in the
Either electronic or written comments on the collection of information must be submitted by May 13, 2024.
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
JonnaLynn Capezzuto, Office of Operations, Food and Drug Administration, Three White Flint North, 10A-12M, 11601 Landsdown St., North Bethesda, MD 20852, 301-796-3794,
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal Agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. “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 provide a 60-day notice in the
With respect to the following collection of information, FDA invites comments on these topics: (1) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of FDA's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FDA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques, when appropriate, and other forms of information technology.
On November 27, 2013, the DSCSA (Title II of Pub. L. 113-54) was signed into law. The DSCSA outlines steps to achieve interoperable, electronic tracing of products at the package level
As described in section 582(g)(3)(C), issues to be addressed in the assessment questions are related to the accessibility of the necessary software and hardware to such dispensers; whether the necessary software and hardware is prohibitively expensive to obtain, install, and maintain for such dispensers; and if the necessary hardware and software can be integrated into business practices. Respondents will submit information by answering the assessment questions. Under enhanced drug distribution security requirements in section 582(g)(1), dispensers and other trading partners will be required to, among other requirements, exchange transaction information and transaction statements in a secure, interoperable, electronic manner for each package; implement systems and processes for package level verification, including the standardized numerical identifier; and implement systems and processes to facilitate gathering the information necessary to produce the transaction information and statement for each transaction going back to the manufacturer if FDA or a trading partner requests an investigation in the event of a recall or a suspect or illegitimate product. These enhanced drug distribution security requirements are also referred to as “enhanced product tracing or enhanced verification.”
Assessment participants will include self-identified individuals representing dispensers with a total of 25 or fewer FTEs (small dispenser) and individuals representing small dispensers' third-party entities (
The proposed DSCSA Small Dispensers Assessment will look at the feasibility of dispensers with a total of 25 or fewer FTEs of conducting interoperable, electronic tracing of products at the package level. As part of the qualitative data analysis, respondents will submit information by answering specific questions for the assessment. Evaluation methods and analyses are expected to include qualitative analyses (for example, content analysis for responses), and quantitative analyses using descriptive statistics. In cases where quantitative data are collected, descriptive statistics—including percentages and tabulations—will be calculated and presented, along with demographic descriptions of respondents. For example, quantitative analysis could include percentages or tabulations of small dispensers with access to the necessary software and hardware to meet the requirements in section 582(g)(1) of the FD&C Act. We have developed a web page to further assist industry regarding the proposed DSCSA Small Dispensers Assessment, available at
After the proposed DSCSA Small Dispensers Assessment is established, volunteers interested in participating will enroll by submitting participant information using a link to be provided on the same web page mentioned above,
The following information should be included:
• Contact information (name, email address, phone number, mailing address)
• Confirm you are a dispenser that has 25 or fewer FTEs or you are an individual representing a small dispensers' third-party entity (
• Commitment to answer the questions contained in the assessment within 45 days of receiving
• Applicable state license number
Assessment participants will include those who have met eligibility requirements and completed enrollment. The assessment is expected to be completed within the proposed duration of 45 days of receiving, and participants will be expected to provide responses to FDA via the designated FDA online tool/platform.
Any records generated by a participant in the assessment should be maintained as an entity would in a normal course of business. FDA recommends that the responses that participants create and submit to FDA for the assessment be maintained for at least 1 year after FDA publishes its final report of the assessment.
FDA does not intend to begin the proposed DSCSA Small Dispensers Assessment or accept enrollment to participate in the assessment until OMB has approved the proposed collection of information described in this notice.
FDA estimates the burden of this one-time collection of information as follows:
For retaining records related to the response to the assessment properly for a minimum of 1 year after the assessment is completed (as recommended by FDA), FDA estimates that it will take approximately 0.5 hour. As noted above, FDA estimates that the 100 respondents will submit one response for the assessment. The estimated total for maintaining records related to the assessment is 50 hours respectively. The total recordkeeping burden is estimated to be 150 hours (table 2).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA, Agency, or we) is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Annual Reportable Labeling Changes for NDAs and ANDAs for Nonprescription Drug Products.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to applicants of approved new drug applications (NDAs) and abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for nonprescription drug products on documenting minor labeling changes in the next annual report and provides examples of minor labeling changes that may be submitted in an annual report. The recommendations in this draft guidance address the types of minor labeling changes that may be appropriate to submit in an annual report to ensure that consumers have timely access to the most current labeling for a nonprescription drug product to ensure the product's safe and effective use. We anticipate that these recommendations may assist industry in understanding the circumstances in which it would be appropriate to document minor changes in the applicant's next annual report rather than submitting a prior approval supplement or “changes being effected” supplement, thereby reducing burden on industry and FDA.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by May 13, 2024 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the draft guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Trang Tran, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 22, Rm. 4139, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 240-402-7945.
FDA is announcing the availability of a draft guidance for industry entitled “Annual Reportable Labeling Changes for NDAs and ANDAs for Nonprescription Drug Products.” This draft guidance provides recommendations to applicants of approved NDAs and ANDAs for nonprescription drug products on documenting minor labeling changes in the next annual report. The draft guidance also provides examples of minor labeling changes that may be submitted in an annual report.
FDA evaluates whether the data and information submitted as part of an NDA or ANDA for a nonprescription drug product demonstrate that the drug product is safe and effective for nonprescription use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in its proposed labeling.
After FDA approves an NDA or ANDA, an applicant may make, or in certain cases propose to FDA, changes to the approved application. Section 506A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 356a) and FDA regulations under §§ 314.70, 314.71, and 314.97 (21 CFR 314.70, 314.71, and 314.97) provide certain requirements for making and reporting to FDA changes to an approved NDA or ANDA, including an NDA or ANDA for a nonprescription drug product. Changes to an approved NDA or ANDA, including labeling changes, are categorized into one of three reporting categories: major, moderate, or minor.
“Minor changes” include certain changes that have a minimal potential to have an adverse effect on the identity, strength, quality, purity, or potency of a drug product as these factors may relate to the safety or effectiveness of the drug product.
Determining the reporting category for a change to nonprescription drug labeling may present certain considerations that differ from changes to prescription drug labeling. Changes to the approved labeling for a nonprescription drug product may affect consumers' ability to appropriately self-select and use the nonprescription drug product safely and effectively without the supervision of a healthcare practitioner. Thus, changes to nonprescription labeling may not be considered minor even though similar changes may be considered minor when applied to the labeling of a prescription drug product. For example, certain changes in the layout of the package or container label for a prescription drug product that are consistent with FDA regulations (
FDA generally does not expect that editorial and similar minor labeling changes to nonprescription drug labeling would affect consumers' ability to appropriately self-select and use the nonprescription drug product without the supervision of a healthcare practitioner. Based on FDA's experience approving nonprescription drug labeling, FDA is providing specific examples of such editorial or similar minor labeling changes for nonprescription drug products that may be appropriate to include in an annual report.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 relating to the submissions of NDAs and ANDAs, supplemental applications, and annual reports have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 201 for the format and content requirements for nonprescription drug product labeling have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0340. The collections of information in 21 CFR part 211 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0139.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the draft guidance at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) has determined that Romidepsin Injection, 10 milligrams (mg)/2 milliliters (mL) (5 mg/mL) and 27.5 mg/5.5 mL (5 mg/mL), were not withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination will allow FDA to approve abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) for romidepsin solution, 10 mg/2 mL (5 mg/mL) and 27.5 mg/5.5 mL (5 mg/mL), that refer to these drugs as long as they meet relevant legal and regulatory requirements.
Veniqua Stewart, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6219, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3267,
Section 505(j) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(j)) allows the submission of an ANDA to market a generic version of a previously approved drug product. To obtain approval, the ANDA applicant must show, among other things, that the generic drug product: (1) has the same active ingredient(s), dosage form, route of administration, strength, conditions of use, and (with certain exceptions) labeling as the listed drug, which is a version of the drug that was previously approved, and (2) is bioequivalent to the listed drug. ANDA applicants do not have to repeat the extensive clinical testing otherwise necessary to gain approval of a new drug application (NDA).
Section 505(j)(7) of the FD&C Act requires FDA to publish a list of all approved drugs. FDA publishes this list as part of the “Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations,” which is known generally as the “Orange Book.” Under FDA regulations, drugs are removed from the list if the Agency withdraws or suspends approval of the drug's NDA or ANDA for reasons of safety or effectiveness or if FDA determines that the listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness (21 CFR 314.162).
A person may petition the Agency to determine, or the Agency may determine on its own initiative, whether a listed drug was withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness. This determination may be made at any time after the drug has been withdrawn from sale, but must be made prior to approving an ANDA that refers to the listed drug (§ 314.161 (21 CFR 314.161)). FDA may not approve an ANDA that does not refer to a listed drug.
Romidepsin Injection, 10 mg/2 mL (5 mg/mL) and 27.5 mg/5.5 mL (5 mg/mL), are the subject of NDA 208574, held by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (Teva), and initially approved on March 13, 2020. Romidepsin Injection is currently indicated only for the treatment of cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) in adult patients who have received at least one prior systemic therapy.
Romidepsin Injection, 10 mg/2 mL (5 mg/mL) and 27.5 mg/5.5 mL (5 mg/mL), are currently listed in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book.
E. Rust Consulting, LLC submitted a citizen petition dated July 11, 2023 (Docket No. FDA-2023-P-2874), under 21 CFR 10.30, requesting that the Agency determine whether Romidepsin Injection, 10 mg/2 mL (5 mg/mL) and 27.5 mg/5.5 mL (5 mg/mL), were withdrawn from sale for reasons of safety or effectiveness.
After considering the citizen petition and reviewing Agency records and based on the information we have at this time, FDA has determined under § 314.161 that Romidepsin Injection, 10 mg/2 mL (5 mg/mL) and 27.5 mg/5.5 mL (5 mg/mL), were not withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. The petitioner has identified no data or other information suggesting that Romidepsin Injection, 10 mg/2 mL (5 mg/mL) and 27.5 mg/5.5 mL (5 mg/mL), were withdrawn for reasons of safety or effectiveness. We have carefully reviewed our files for records concerning the withdrawal of Romidepsin Injection, 10 mg/2 mL (5 mg/mL) and 27.5 mg/5.5 mL (5 mg/mL), from sale. We have also independently evaluated relevant literature and data for possible postmarketing adverse events.
We note that Romidepsin Injection, 10 mg/2 mL (5 mg/mL) and 27.5 mg/5.5 mL (5 mg/mL), previously were approved with an indication for treatment of peripheral T-cell lymphoma (PTCL) in adult patients who have received at least one prior therapy, under the Agency's accelerated approval regulations, 21 CFR part 314, subpart H. The accelerated approval of Teva's Romidepsin Injection for PTCL included a required postmarketing clinical trial intended to verify the clinical benefit of romidepsin (the Ro-CHOP study) for PTCL. Teva's Romidepsin Injection product was approved under the 505(b)(2) approval pathway, and the listed drug relied upon is Celgene Corp.'s (Celgene) NDA 022393, ISTODAX (romidepsin) for injection, 10 mg/vial. Celgene was acquired by Bristol-Meyers Squib Co. which is
On August 6, 2020, Celgene submitted high level results from the Ro-CHOP study to FDA, which indicated the study failed to meet its primary endpoint of progression-free survival. On May 14, 2021, Celgene informed FDA that after careful consideration, Celgene decided to voluntarily withdraw the PTCL indication from ISTODAX (romidepsin) for injection, 10 mg/vial. On June 17, 2021, Celgene submitted a supplemental NDA proposing to remove the PTCL indication. On July 14, 2021, Celgene submitted a letter asking FDA to withdraw approval of the PTCL indication pursuant to § 314.150(d) (21 CFR 314.150(d)) and waiving its opportunity for a hearing.
On August 27, 2021, Teva submitted a labeling supplement proposing to remove the PTCL indication. On September 12, 2021, the Agency requested Teva voluntarily request withdrawal of the PTCL indication pursuant to § 314.150(d) and waive its opportunity for a hearing. On September 14, 2021, Teva amended its supplement by submitting a cover letter requesting withdrawal of approval of the PTCL indication pursuant to § 314.150(d) and waiving its opportunity for a hearing. On December 8, 2021, FDA approved the supplemental NDA to revise the labeling to remove the PTCL indication. In the
The Agency will continue to list Teva's Romidepsin Injection, 10 mg/2 mL (5 mg/mL) and 27.5 mg/5.5 mL (5 mg/mL), in the “Discontinued Drug Product List” section of the Orange Book. The “Discontinued Drug Product List” delineates, among other items, drug products that have been discontinued from marketing for reasons other than safety or effectiveness. FDA will accept and, where appropriate, approve ANDAs that refer to these drug products, but does not intend to do so if they propose to include the PTCL indication (see,
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of the draft guidance entitled “Select Updates for the Premarket Cybersecurity Guidance: Section 524B of the FD&C Act.” This draft guidance proposes select updates to the final guidance “Cybersecurity in Medical Devices: Quality System Considerations and Content of Premarket Submissions.” This draft guidance, when finalized, will identify the information FDA generally considers to be necessary for cyber devices to support obligations under the new amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) for ensuring cybersecurity of devices. This draft guidance is not final nor is it for implementation at this time.
Submit either electronic or written comments on the draft guidance by May 13, 2024 to ensure that the Agency considers your comment on this draft guidance before it begins work on the final version of the guidance.
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
An electronic copy of the guidance document is available for download from the internet. See the
Suzanne Schwartz, Center for Devices and Radiological Health, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 66, Rm. 5410, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-6937; or James Myers, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 71, Rm. 7301, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 240-402-7911.
Section 3305 of the Food and Drug Omnibus Reform Act of 2022 (FDORA), enacted on December 29, 2022, added section 524B “Ensuring Cybersecurity of Medical Devices” to the FD&C Act. Under section 524B(a) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360n-2(a)), a person who submits a 510(k), premarket approval application (PMA), product development protocol (PDP), De Novo, or humanitarian device exemption (HDE) for a device that meets the definition of a cyber device, as defined under section 524B(c) of the FD&C Act, is required to submit information to ensure that cyber devices meet the cybersecurity requirements under section 524B(b) of the FD&C Act.
FDA is proposing to selectively update the final guidance “Cybersecurity in Medical Devices: Quality System Considerations and Content of Premarket Submissions.” This draft guidance, when finalized, will identify the information FDA generally considers to be necessary to support obligations under section 524B of the FD&C Act. Specifically, this draft guidance discusses who is required to comply with section 524B, the devices subject to section 524B, and the documentation recommendations for applicable premarket submissions. Additionally, FDA provides recommendations regarding premarket submissions for changes to cyber devices that had been previously authorized by FDA through 510(k), De Novo, HDE, PDP, and PMA submission pathways, and that require premarket submission. This draft guidance also discusses FDA's review of whether there is a reasonable assurance that the device and related systems are cybersecure for marketing authorizations submitted for cyber devices.
This draft guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The draft guidance, when finalized, will represent the current thinking of FDA on “Cybersecurity in Medical Devices: Quality System Considerations and Content of Premarket Submissions.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
Persons interested in obtaining a copy of the draft guidance may do so by downloading an electronic copy from the internet. A search capability for all Center for Devices and Radiological Health guidance documents is available at
While this guidance contains no new collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in the following table have been approved by OMB:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) has determined the regulatory review period for DAURISMO and is publishing this notice of that determination as required by law. FDA has made the determination because of the submission of applications to the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Department of Commerce, for the extension of patents which claims that human drug product.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published (see
You may submit comments as follows. Please note that late, untimely filed comments will not be considered. The
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Beverly Friedman, Office of Regulatory Policy, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6250, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-3600.
The Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act of 1984 (Pub. L. 98-417) and the Generic Animal Drug and Patent Term Restoration Act (Pub. L. 100-670) generally provide that a patent may be extended for a period of up to 5 years so long as the patented item (human drug or biological product, animal drug product, medical device, food additive, or color additive) was subject to regulatory review by FDA before the item was marketed. Under these acts, a product's regulatory review period forms the basis for determining the amount of extension an applicant may receive.
A regulatory review period consists of two periods of time: a testing phase and an approval phase. For human drug products, the testing phase begins when the exemption to permit the clinical investigations of the drug becomes effective and runs until the approval phase begins. The approval phase starts
FDA has approved for marketing the human drug product DAURISMO (glasdegib). DAURISMO is indicated, in combination with low-dose cytarabine, for the treatment of newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia in adult patients who are 75 years old and older, or who have comorbidities that preclude use of intensive induction chemotherapy. Subsequent to this approval, the USPTO received a patent term restoration application for DAURISMO (U.S. Patent Nos. 8,148,401; 8,431,597) from Pfizer, Inc. and the USPTO requested FDA's assistance in determining the patent's eligibility for patent term restoration. In a letter dated December 26, 2019, FDA advised the USPTO that this human drug product had undergone a regulatory review period and that the approval of DAURISMO represented the first permitted commercial marketing or use of the product. Thereafter, the USPTO requested that FDA determine the product's regulatory review period.
FDA has determined that the applicable regulatory review period for DAURISMO is 3,388 days. Of this time, 3,179 days occurred during the testing phase of the regulatory review period, while 209 days occurred during the approval phase. These periods of time were derived from the following dates:
This determination of the regulatory review period establishes the maximum potential length of a patent extension. However, the USPTO applies several statutory limitations in its calculations of the actual period for patent extension. In its applications for patent extension, this applicant seeks 661 days or 1,121 days of patent term extension.
Anyone with knowledge that any of the dates as published are incorrect may submit either electronic or written comments and, under 21 CFR 60.24, ask for a redetermination (see
Submit petitions electronically to
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces that the Advisory Committee on Infant and Maternal Mortality (ACIMM or Committee) has scheduled a public meeting. Information about ACIMM and the agenda for this meeting can be found on the ACIMM website at
• April 2, 2024, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Central Time (CT);
• April 3, 2024, 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. CT; and
• April 4, 2024, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m. CT.
This meeting will be held in-person at Delmar Divine, 5501 Delmar Boulevard, St. Louis, Missouri 63112 and virtually via webinar. The webinar link and log-in information will be available at the ACIMM website before the meeting:
Vanessa Lee, MPH, Designated Federal Official, Maternal and Child Health Bureau, HRSA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland 20857; 301-443-0543; or
ACIMM is authorized by section 222 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 217a), as amended. The Committee is governed by provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 10), as amended.
ACIMM advises the Secretary of Health and Human Services (Secretary) on department activities, partnerships, policies, and programs directed at reducing infant mortality, maternal mortality and severe maternal morbidity, and improving the health status of infants and women before, during, and after pregnancy. The Committee provides advice on how to coordinate federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial governmental efforts designed to improve infant mortality, related adverse birth outcomes, maternal health, as well as influence
The agenda for the April 2-4, 2024, meeting is being finalized and may include the following topics: updates on the federal Healthy Start program; Committee discussions on the workgroup topics of rural health care access, social drivers of health, and women's health before/between pregnancies; federal updates; and remarks from individuals with lived experience and community members, including those representing community-based organizations, on how to achieve optimal maternal health and overall birth outcomes for underserved populations, including Black/African-American families. Agenda items are subject to change as priorities dictate. Refer to the ACIMM website listed above for any updated information concerning the meeting.
Members of the public will have the opportunity to provide written or oral comments. Requests to submit a written statement or make oral comments to ACIMM should be sent to Vanessa Lee, using the email address above at least 3 business days prior to the meeting. Public participants may submit written statements in advance of the scheduled meeting by emailing
Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance or a reasonable accommodation should notify Vanessa Lee at the contact information listed above at least 10 business days prior to the meeting.
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: 1625-0109, Drawbridge Operation Regulations; 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 May 13, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2024-0183] 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-2024-0183], and must be received by May 13, 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: 1625-0025, Carriage of Bulk Solids Requiring Special Handling; 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 May 13, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2024-0185] 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-2024-0185], and must be received by May 13, 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: 1625-0007, Characteristics of Liquid Chemicals Proposed for Bulk Water Movement; 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 May 13, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Coast Guard docket number [USCG-2024-0184] 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-2024-0184], and must be received by May 13, 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
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of the Addendum to Tribal-State Compact for Control of Class III Blackjack on the Shakopee Mdewakanton Sioux Community Reservation in Minnesota for Class III Card Games.
The compact takes effect on March 13, 2024.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
Bureau of Land Management, Interior; Forest Service, Agriculture (USDA).
Notice of availability.
In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service (USDA Forest Service), collectively “the Agencies,” have prepared a Draft Resource Management Plan (RMP) and Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Bears Ears National Monument (BENM or Monument), and by this notice are providing information announcing the opening of the comment period on the Draft RMP/EIS and the comment period on proposed areas of critical environmental concern (ACECs) on lands managed by the BLM and proposed recreational shooting closures. The BLM is leading the NEPA process in partnership with the USDA Forest Service, which will sign a decision for the USDA Forest Service-managed lands based on the analysis in the EIS. The Agencies have and will continue to meaningfully engage the Bears Ears Commission in the development of the RMP and EIS, as required by Proclamation 10285.
This notice announces the opening of a 90-day comment period for the Draft RMP/EIS beginning with the date following the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) publication of its Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft RMP/EIS in the
To afford the Agencies the opportunity to consider comments in the Proposed RMP/Final EIS, please ensure the Agencies receive your comments prior to the close of the 90-day public comment period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later.
In addition, this notice announces the opening of a 90-day comment period for proposed recreational shooting closures and a 90-day comment period for proposed ACECs on lands managed by the BLM. The Agencies must receive your comments by June 11, 2024.
The Agencies will hold a total of seven public meetings. Two meetings will be held virtually, and five meetings will be conducted in-person. The specific times and locations of the public meetings will be announced at least 15 days in advance through local media, social media, newspapers, and the ePlanning website (see
The Draft RMP/EIS is available for review on the BLM ePlanning project website at
Written comments related to the BENM Draft RMP/EIS may be submitted by any of the following methods:
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at
Jill Stephenson, Project Manager, Bureau of Land Management Canyon Country District, 82 E Dogwood, Moab, Utah, 84532, by phone at 435-587-1529, or email at
This document provides notice that the BLM Utah State Director and Manti-La Sal Forest Supervisor have prepared a Draft RMP/EIS, provides information announcing the opening of the comment period on the Draft RMP/EIS, and announces the comment period on the proposed ACECs and proposed recreational shooting closures. The planning area is located in San Juan County, Utah, and encompasses approximately 1.36 million acres of Federal land.
Management of BENM is currently guided by the 2020 BENM Approved Monument Management Plans, 2008 Monticello Approved RMP, 2008 Moab Approved RMP, and 1986 Manti-La Sal National Forest Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP), to the extent the management actions in these plans are consistent with Presidential Proclamation 10285 (October 8, 2021).
The purpose and need serve to frame the identification of issues, alternatives development, and effects analysis. Proclamation 10285 directs the Agencies to “prepare and maintain a new management plan for the entire monument” for the specific purposes of “protecting and restoring the objects identified [in Proclamation 10285] and in Proclamation 9558.”
The RMP's underlying purpose (40 CFR 1502.13) is to provide a management framework—including goals, objectives, and management direction—to guide BENM management consistent with the protection of monument objects and the management direction provided in Proclamation 10285.
The purpose and need for the BENM RMP is aligned with the purpose and need to amend the plan direction and management allocation for the BENM in the Manti-La Sal National Forest LRMP. The proposed programmatic amendment would incorporate the proposed BENM RMP and boundary
The Agencies have analyzed five alternatives in detail, including the no action alternative.
Alternative A, the no action alternative, represents current management from the 2020 BENM Approved Monument Management Plans—which apply to lands that remained in BENM under Proclamation 9681—and to the 2008 Monticello Approved RMP, 2008 Moab Approved RMP, and 1986 Manti-La Sal National Forest LRMP—which apply to the lands that were excluded from BENM under Proclamation 9681—to the extent that those management actions are consistent with Proclamation 10285. In some cases, decisions in the 2008 Monticello Approved RMP, 2008 Moab Approved RMP, and 1986 Manti-La Sal National Forest LRMP are inconsistent with Proclamation 10285; in those instances, Alternative A has been modified to be consistent with Proclamation 10285.
Alternative B would provide the most permissive management for discretionary actions that are compatible with the protection of BENM objects. This alternative would focus on on-site education and interpretation and allow for the development of facilities to protect BENM objects.
Alternative C would allow discretionary actions only if necessary to protect BENM objects. This alternative would focus on off-site education and interpretation and allow for limited development of facilities to protect BENM objects.
Alternative D would allow for the continuation of natural processes by limiting or discontinuing discretionary uses. This alternative would minimize human-created facilities and management and would emphasize natural conditions.
Alternative E would emphasize resource protection and maximize the consideration and use of Tribal perspectives on managing the BENM landscape. This alternative includes consideration of natural processes and seasonal cycles in the management of the BENM, and extensive collaboration with Tribal Nations to incorporate those considerations into the day-to-day management of the Monument.
The Agencies considered five additional alternatives but dismissed these alternatives from detailed analysis as explained in the Draft RMP/EIS.
The State Director and Forest Supervisor have identified Alternative E as the preferred alternative. Alternative E was found to best meet the State Director's and Forest Supervisor's planning guidance and, therefore, was selected as the preferred alternative because it provides goals, objectives, and management direction determined to be effective at protecting monument objects, balancing resource uses, and meeting the purpose and need. The preferred alternative does not constitute a commitment or decision, and there is no requirement to select the preferred alternative in the Records of Decision.
The Draft RMP/EIS identifies, analyzes, and considers best management practices to mitigate the reasonably foreseeable impacts to resources and monument objects. Best management practices may include measures to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, or eliminate reasonably foreseeable impacts over time, and may be considered at multiple scales, including the landscape scale.
Consistent with the BLM's land use planning regulations at 43 CFR 1610.7-2(b), the BLM is announcing the opening of a 90-day comment period on the ACECs proposed for designation on BLM-managed lands. Comments may be submitted using any of the methods listed in the
The proposed ACECs included in preferred alternative are:
• San Juan River ACEC—approximately 1,485 acres. Designation proposed to protect scenic and cultural resources, fish and wildlife, natural systems and processes, and geologic features. Identified special management would include preserving the natural visual character of the landscape in some portions of the ACEC (Visual Resource Management (VRM) Class I) and retaining the existing visual character of the landscape in other portions of the ACEC in a manner where authorized changes do not attract the attention of the casual observer (VRM Class II); avoiding rights-of-way (ROW) designations in the San Juan Hill Recreation Management Zone; prohibiting permitted/personal use of woodland products, except for limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires; making the area available for livestock grazing subject to certain timing and management systems; prohibiting camping if cultural, wildlife, and natural processes are negatively impacted; and designating access trails to cultural sites as necessary to protect cultural resources.
• Shay Canyon ACEC—approximately 119 acres. Designation proposed to protect cultural and paleontological resources. Identified special management would include retaining the existing visual character of the landscape in a manner where authorized changes do not attract the attention of the casual observer (VRM Class II); prohibiting permitted/personal use of woodland products; limiting livestock grazing to trailing only; prohibiting campfires, camping, and off-trail hiking; prohibiting Special Recreation Permits (SRP) for competitive events, vending, and motorized, mechanized, and equestrian use; limiting SRP group size to 35 individuals; limiting SRPs to day use only; limiting recreation use if cultural and paleontological resources are negatively impacted; and prohibiting surface disturbing activities for vegetation, watershed, or wildlife treatments/improvements.
• Lavender Mesa ACEC—approximately 649 acres. Designation proposed to protect vegetation resources. Identified special management would include retaining the existing visual character of the landscape in a manner where authorized changes do not attract the attention of the casual observer (VRM Class II); avoiding ROWs; closing the area to OHV use and restricting helicopter access; prohibiting permitted/personal use of woodland products; making the area unavailable for livestock grazing; prohibiting campfires; and protecting vegetation for science and research purposes by limiting land treatments and other improvements (including wildlife habitat improvements and watershed control structures).
• Valley of the Gods ACEC—approximately 22,716 acres. Designation proposed to protect scenic resources. Identified special management would include preserving the natural visual character of the landscape (VRM Class I) (except on 57 acres of highway access portals); excluding ROWs; prohibiting permitted/personal use of woodland products; and prohibiting campfires.
• Indian Creek ACEC—approximately 3,936 acres. Designation proposed to protect scenic resources. Identified special management would include preserving the natural visual character of the landscape (VRM Class I); avoiding ROWs; closing the area to OHV use; prohibiting permitted/personal use of woodland products, except for limited on-site collection of dead wood for campfires; and revegetating with native species where feasible.
• John's Canyon Paleontological ACEC—approximately 11,465 acres. Designation proposed to protect paleontological, cultural, and scenic resources; fish and wildlife; and threatened species. Identified special management would include retaining the existing visual character of the landscape in a manner where authorized changes do not attract the attention of the casual observer (VRM Class II); excluding ROWs; and limiting discretionary actions to those necessary to protect BENM objects.
• Aquifer Protection Area ACEC—approximately 85,856 acres. Designation proposed to protect natural systems/aquifer recharge areas, and scenic, cultural, and paleontological resources. Identified special management would include managing discretionary uses to avoid adversely impacting vegetation communities and ground-water dependent ecosystems; preserving the natural visual character of the landscape in some portions of the ACEC (VRM Class I) and retaining the existing visual character of the landscape in other portions of the ACEC in a manner where authorized changes do not attract the attention of the casual observer (VRM Class II); and requiring hydrologic studies for groundwater withdrawals.
All nominated ACECs are proposed for designation in the preferred alternative.
In accordance with the John D. Dingell, Jr. Conservation, Management, and Recreation Act of 2019 (Dingell Act, Pub. L. 116-9, Section 4103), the Agencies are announcing the opening of a 90-day public comment period on the proposed recreational shooting closures within the Monument. The preferred alternative would close the entire Monument—approximately 1.36 million acres—to recreational shooting to protect BENM objects, whereas the other alternatives would close portions of the Monument to recreational shooting. Comments may be submitted using any of the methods listed in the
Following this comment period, the Agencies will provide additional opportunities for public participation consistent with the NEPA and land use planning processes, including a 30-day public protest period and a 60-day Governor's consistency review on the Proposed RMP. The Proposed RMP/Final EIS is anticipated to be available for public protest in October 2024 with an Approved RMP and Records of Decision in January 2025. In accordance with 36 CFR 219.59(a), the USDA Forest Service will waive its objections procedures and adopt the BLM's protest procedures.
The Agencies will continue to consult with Indian Tribal Nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM Manual Section 1780, and other Departmental policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. The Agencies will also continue to meaningfully engage with the Bears Ears Commission, as required by Proclamation 10285.
You may submit comments on the Draft RMP/EIS in writing to the Agencies at any public meetings or to the Agencies using one of the methods listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of withdrawal application.
The Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Management (DOE-LM) has filed an application with the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) requesting that the Secretary of the Interior exercise authority under Title II of the Uranium Mill Tailings Radiation Control Act of 1978 (UMTRCA) to permanently withdraw and transfer administrative jurisdiction over 70 acres of public lands at the Durita Mill Tailings Site in Colorado to DOE-LM. The public land and interests in the land would be withdrawn from operation of the general land laws, including the United States mining laws, the mineral and geothermal leasing laws, and the mineral materials disposal laws, subject to valid existing rights, and would be transferred to DOE-LM for long term maintenance and monitoring under a Nuclear Regulatory Commission license as part of the Durita Mill Tailings Site. This notice announces a 30-day opportunity for the public to comment on the DOE-LM application and request a public meeting.
Comments and meeting requests must be received on or before April 12, 2024.
Comments and meeting requests should be sent to BLM Colorado State Director, BLM Colorado State Office, P.O. Box 151029, Lakewood, CO 80215.
Jennifer Jardine, Realty Specialist, BLM Colorado State Office, telephone: (970) 385-1224, email:
DOE-LM filed an application with the BLM that requests the Secretary of the Interior to permanently withdraw and transfer administrative jurisdiction over the following described public lands and federally owned minerals, subject to valid existing rights. DOE-LM has requested that the land and minerals be withdrawn from location and entry under the United States mining laws, from leasing under the mineral or geothermal leasing laws, and from disposal under the mineral materials laws, subject to valid existing rights. Under UMTRCA, as amended by the Uranium Mill Tailings Remedial Action Amendments Act of 1988 (42 U.S.C. 7916), the Secretary of the Interior may make such permanent withdrawals and transfers of administrative jurisdiction. The Secretary's actions under UMTRCA are explicitly exempt from the withdrawal and transfer provisions of Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended. The following public lands are requested for permanent withdrawal and jurisdictional transfer for long term maintenance and monitoring by the DOE-LM under applicable provisions of UMTRCA:
The area described contains 70 acres of public lands, according to the official plat of the survey of the said land on file with the BLM.
The purpose of the requested withdrawal and transfer of administrative jurisdiction is to allow the DOE-LM to administer the lands in perpetuity as a hazardous material site under the authority of UMTRCA, 42 U.S.C. 7902
For a period until April 12, 2024, all persons who wish to submit comments, suggestions, or objections in connection with the DOE-LM application may present their views in writing to the BLM Colorado State Office at the address listed in the
Comments will be available for public review at the BLM Colorado State Office during regular business hours, 8:00 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
United States International Trade Commission.
March 21, 2024 at 11:00 a.m.
Room 101, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, Telephone: (202) 205-2000.
Open to the public.
1.
2. Minutes.
3. Ratification List.
4. Commission vote on Inv. No. 731-TA-1203 (Review) (Xanthan Gum from China). The Commission currently is scheduled to complete and file its determination and views of the Commission on April 1, 2024.
5.
Sharon Bellamy, Supervisory Hearings and Information Officer, 202-205-2000.
The Commission is holding the meeting under the Government in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552(b). In accordance with Commission policy, subject matter listed above, not disposed of at the scheduled meeting, may be carried over to the agenda of the following meeting.
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has found no violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, in the above-captioned investigation. The investigation is terminated.
Lynde Herzbach, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3228. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On January 24, 2022, the Commission instituted this investigation under
On February 7, 2022, the Chief Administrative Law Judge (“CALJ”) ordered an evidentiary hearing for both Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1291 and 337-TA-1292 on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement pursuant to the Commission's pilot program for interim initial determinations (“IID”).
On January 24, 2023, the CALJ issued a final initial determination (“FID”) finding a violation of section 337 by Respondents based on infringement of each of the Asserted Patents. The FID also finds that no Asserted Patent is invalid as anticipated or obvious. The FID further finds that Hyundai has satisfied the technical prong as to certain representative domestic industry products. Concerning the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, the FID reduces Hyundai's alleged investments due to Hyundai's failure to establish that certain of its alleged domestic industry products are representative of other alleged domestic industry products. The FID finds, however, that the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement is satisfied for all of the Asserted Patents based on the reduced investments. The CALJ also simultaneously issued a recommended determination on remedy and bonding (“RD”) recommending that, if the Commission finds a violation, it should issue a limited exclusion order but not issue any cease and desist order against any of Respondents.
On February 6, 2023, Respondents filed a petition for review challenging the FID's findings on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, infringement, and validity. Also on February 6, 2023, Hyundai filed a petition for review challenging the RD's recommendations and contingently petitioning regarding the FID's findings concerning non-satisfaction of the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for certain non-representative products. On February 14, 2023, Respondents and Hyundai filed responses to each other's petitions.
On February 23, 2023, the Commission received public interest submissions pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4) from the LKQ Respondents and the TYC Respondents. 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). On February 22 and 23, 2023, the Commission received twelve responses to the Commission notice seeking public interest submission. 88 FR 7759-7760 (Feb. 6, 2023).
On May 11, 2023, the Commission determined to review the FID in its entirety. 88 FR 31522-24 (May 17,2023). The Commission asked the parties to address four questions, which related to infringement, the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, and the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement.
On May 25, 2023, Hyundai and Respondents filed their initial written responses to the Commission's request for briefing. On June 1, 2023, Hyundai and Respondents filed their reply submission.
On June 15, 2023, Respondents filed a motion to strike a declaration filed with the Hyundai reply submission. On June 26, 2023, Hyundai filed an opposition to the motion to strike.
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the IID, the FID, and the parties' petitions, responses, and other submissions, the Commission has determined to find no violation of section 337 with respect to the Asserted Patents. Specifically, the Commission has determined to vacate the IID and the FID's economic prong findings and find that Hyundai has failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to any of the Asserted Patents. The Commission has further determined to take no position on the issues of infringement, satisfaction of the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, and invalidity. The Commission further finds that Respondents' motion to strike the declaration filed with Hyundai's reply submission is moot in view of the finding that there is no violation of section 337 and the public interest factors do not need to be addressed.
The investigation is terminated with a finding of no violation of section 337. The Commission's reasoning in support of its determinations is set forth more fully in its opinion.
Commissioner Schmidtlein does not join the majority's opinion but agrees that Hyundai has failed to establish the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for any of the Asserted Patents. She therefore agrees that there has been no violation of section 337 in this investigation. She explains her views in a concurring opinion.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on March 7, 2024.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part and, on review, to affirm with modification a final initial determination (“FID”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”). The investigation is terminated.
Namo Kim, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3459. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On December 7, 2022, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint, as supplemented, filed by Dometic Corporation of Rosemont, Illinois and Dometic Sweden AB of Solna, Sweden (collectively, “Dometic”). 87 FR 76216-17 (Dec. 13, 2022). The complaint alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”) based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain marine air conditioning systems, components thereof, and products containing same by reason of the infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,056,351 (“the '351 patent”).
On August 28, 2023, the Commission granted in part summary determination that the economic prong of the DI requirement is satisfied. Order No. 23,
On September 13, 2023, the Commission affirmed an initial determination granting in part summary determination of invalidity of claims 1-2, 4-5, 7 of the '351 patent. Order No. 19,
The presiding ALJ held an evidentiary hearing on September 18-21, 2023.
On October 31, 2023, the Commission affirmed an initial determination terminating the investigation with respect to claims 3, 11 and 17 of the '351 patent. Order No. 30,
On December 8, 2023, the ALJ issued the FID finding no violation of section 337. Specifically, the FID finds that Dometic failed to show infringement or to satisfy the technical prong of the DI requirement because “the DI Products do not possess two axes” as required by the remaining asserted claims under the FID's claim construction. Despite finding no infringement, the ALJ conducted an independent analysis of the accused products beyond the infringement theories presented by Dometic and determined that some accused products satisfy all limitations of the asserted claims. Lastly, the FID finds that all remaining asserted claims are valid.
The FID also includes a Recommended Determination (“RD”) recommending, should the Commission find a violation of section 337, that the Commission issue: (1) a limited exclusion order with the Commission's standard certification provision, which does not identify non-infringing articles as requested by the respondents; and (2) a cease-and-desist order against any respondent found to be in violation. The RD further recommends that the Commission set no bond (zero percent) during the period of Presidential review.
On December 22, 2023, both parties (Dometic and Respondents) petitioned for Commission review of FID's findings. Specifically, Dometic requests Commission review of the FID's findings concerning: (1) claim construction; (2) non-infringement; (3) the technical prong of the DI requirement; and (4) validity of the asserted claims concerning the claim construction and secondary considerations. Respondents request Commission review of the FID's findings concerning: (1) the technical prong; (2) certain factual findings related to infringement; (3) excluding Respondents' failure of proof arguments related to infringement; and (4) validity, in particular whether a certain product qualifies as prior art and whether the ALJ abused his discretion by excluding a certain prior art exhibit. Respondents also request contingent review of the following issues: (1) claim construction and (2) validity.
On December 27, 2023, the Commission published its post-RD
On January 4, 2024, both parties (Dometic and Respondents) responded to each other's petition for review of the FID.
On January 9, 2024, both parties (Dometic and Respondents) filed a statement on the public interest pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4), 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
The Commission, having reviewed the record in this investigation, including the FID and the parties' petitions and responses thereto, has determined to review in part and, on review, to affirm with modification the FID's finding of no violation. In particular, the Commission reviews and, on review, supplements with supporting extrinsic evidence the FID's construction of the claim limitation “the blower being rotatable about [a] first axis so that the outlet can be oriented toward a first direct[i]on and a second direction, and the first and second directions point to substantially different lateral sides of the main body” recited in claim 18 of the '351 patent. The Commission has also determined to review the FID's findings concerning infringement and the technical prong of the DI requirement and, on review, to affirm the FID's finding of non-infringement and non-satisfaction of the technical prong, but to vacate the ALJ's independent findings that some of the accused products (
The Commission issues its opinion herewith setting forth its determinations on certain issues. The investigation is terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on March 7, 2024.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in Part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined that complainants Kia Corporation and Kia America, Inc. failed to demonstrate a violation of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, by any of the named respondents in the above-captioned investigation. The investigation is terminated.
Robert Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 708-5468. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On January 24, 2022, the Commission instituted this investigation under section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based on a complaint filed on behalf of complainants Kia Corporation of Seoul, Korea and Kia America, Inc. of Irvine, California (collectively, “Kia”). 87 FR 3584-85 (Jan. 24, 2022). The complaint, as supplemented and amended, alleges a violation of section 337 in the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale after importation within the United States after importation of certain replacement automotive lamps by reason of infringement of U.S. Design Patent Nos. D592,773 (the “'773 patent”); D635,701 (the “'701 patent”); D636,506 (the “'506 patent”); D650,931 (the “'931 patent”); D695,933 (the “'933 patent”); D705,963 (the “'963 patent”); D709,218 (the “'218 patent”); D714,975 (the “'975 patent”); D714,976 (the “'976 patent”); D720,871 (the “'871 patent”); D749,757 (the “'757 patent”); D749,762 (the “'762 patent”); D749,764 (the “'764 patent”); D774,222 (the “'222 patent”); D774,223 (the “'223 patent”); D776,311 (the “'311 patent”); D781,471 (the “'471 patent”); D785,833 (the “'833 patent”); D785,836 (the “'836 patent”); and D792,989 (the “'989 patent”) (together, “Asserted Patents”).
On February 7, 2022, the Chief ALJ (“CALJ”) ordered an evidentiary hearing for both Inv. Nos. 337-TA-1291 and 337-TA-1292 on the economic prong pursuant to the Commission's pilot program for interim initial determinations (“IID”). Order No. 6 (Feb. 7, 2022). The combined evidentiary hearing was held on April 20, 2022. On July 1, 2022, the CALJ issued an IID finding that Kia has satisfied the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to all of the asserted design patents. On August 24, 2022, the Commission determined to review the IID. Notice (Aug. 24, 2022). The investigation was reassigned to the presiding ALJ on July 6, 2022.
On January 24, 2023, the presiding ALJ issued a final initial determination (“Final ID”) finding a violation of section 337 by Respondents with respect to the '773, '701, '506, '931, '933, '218, '975, '976, '871, '762, '764, '222, '223, '311, '833, '836, and '989 patents. Final ID at 1. The Final ID finds no violation with respect to the '963, '757, and '471 patents based on noninfringement and failure to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.
On February 6, 2023, Respondents filed a petition for review challenging the Final ID's findings on the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement, infringement, and validity. Also on February 6, 2023, Kia filed a petition for review challenging the Final ID's findings of noninfringement and contingently petitioning regarding the Final ID's findings concerning non-satisfaction of the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement regarding the '963, '757, and '471 patents. On February 14, 2023, Kia and Respondents filed responses to each other's petitions.
On January 25, 2023, the Commission requested submissions regarding the public interest. 88 FR 5919-20 (Jan. 30, 2023). The Commission received submissions from Thomas Lee, Dennis Shiau, Peter Nguyen, John Chang, Raymond Tsai, Christopher Patti, Edward Salamy, Paul Tetrault, Clark Plucinski, Gay Gordon-Byrne, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, and Gregory Cote. On February 23, 2023, the Commission also received submissions on the public interest from Respondents pursuant to Commission Rule 210.50(a)(4). 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
On May 11, 2023, the Commission determined to review the Final ID in its entirety and sought briefing from the parties on certain issues and briefing from the parties, interested government agencies, and the public concerning remedy, bonding, and the public interest. 88 FR 31520-22 (May 17, 2023). Kia and Respondents filed initial
On June 15, 2023, Respondents moved to strike a declaration of Brian Sciumbato, who testified regarding the public interest factors.
Having examined the record of this investigation, including the IID, the Final ID, the petitions, responses, and other submissions from the parties and the public, the Commission has determined to vacate the IID and the Final ID's economic prong findings and find that Kia has failed to satisfy the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement with respect to any of the Asserted Patents. The Commission has further determined to take no position on the issues of infringement, satisfaction of the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, and invalidity. The Commission also denies Respondents' motion to strike the Sciumbato declaration as moot.
The Commission's determinations are explained more fully in the accompanying Opinion. All other findings in the ID under review that are consistent with the Commission's determinations are affirmed. The investigation is hereby terminated.
Commissioner Schmidtlein does not join the majority's opinion but agrees that Kia has failed to establish the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement for any of the Asserted Patents. She therefore agrees that there has been no violation of section 337 in this investigation. She explains her views in a concurring opinion.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on March 7, 2024.
The authority for the Commission's determination is contained in section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (19 U.S.C. 1337), and in part 210 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR part 210).
By order of the Commission.
United States International Trade Commission.
Notice of institution of investigation and scheduling of public hearings.
Following receipt of a petition for import relief, as filed on February 28, 2024, the Commission has instituted investigation No. TA-201-078 pursuant to section 202 of the Trade Act of 1974 (“the Act”) to determine whether fine denier polyester staple fiber (“fine denier PSF”) is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, or the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article. The Commission has deemed the petition to have been filed on February 28, 2024. The Commission has determined that this investigation is “extraordinarily complicated,” and will make its injury determination by July 9, 2024. The Commission will submit to the President the report required under section 202(f) of the Act within 180 days after the date on which the petition was filed, or by August 26, 2024.
Applicable February 28, 2024.
Kristina Lara (202-205-3386), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
Background.—This investigation is being instituted, pursuant to section 202 of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2252), in response to a petition, as filed on February 28, 2024, by Fiber Industries LLC d/b/a Darling Fibers (“Darling”), Nan Ya Plastics Corp, America (“Nan Ya”), and Sun Fiber LLC (“Sun Fiber”), producers of fine denier PSF in the United States. Darling, Nan Ya, and Sun Fiber allege that fine denier PSF is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to be a substantial cause of serious injury, and the threat thereof, to the domestic industry producing an article like or directly competitive with the imported article. The Commission must submit its report on this investigation to the President no later than 180 days after institution, which in this case falls on August 26, 2024. (19 U.S.C. 2252(f)).
The imported article covered by this investigation is fine denier PSF, not carded or combed, measuring less than 3.3 decitex (3 denier) in diameter. The scope covers all fine denier PSF, whether coated or uncoated. The following products are not covered by this investigation:
(1) PSF equal to or greater than 3.3 decitex (more than 3 denier, inclusive) currently imported under HTSUS statistical reporting numbers 5503.20.0045 and 5503.20.0065.
(2) Low-melt PSF defined as a bicomponent polyester fiber having a polyester fiber component that melts at a lower temperature than the other polyester fiber component, which is currently imported under HTSUS statistical reporting number 5503.20.0015.
For Customs purposes, the fine denier PSF covered by the investigation is provided for under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (“HTSUS”) subheading 5503.20.0025. These HTSUS numbers are provided for convenience and the written description of the scope is dispositive.
Determination that investigation is extraordinarily complicated.—The Commission has determined that this investigation is “extraordinarily complicated” within the meaning of section 202(b)(2)(B) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 2252(b)(2)(B)). The Commission's decision to designate this investigation “extraordinarily complicated” is based on the complexity of the issues, including the existence of antidumping and countervailing duty orders on certain imports covered by this investigation. Ordinarily, the Commission would have been required to make its injury determination within 120 days after the petition was filed, or by June 27, 2024. (19 U.S.C. 2252 (b)(2)(A)). The statute permits the Commission to take up to 30 additional days to make its injury determination in an investigation where it determines that the investigation is extraordinarily
Participation in the investigation and public service list.—Persons (other than petitioners) wishing to participate in the investigation as parties must file an entry of appearance with the Secretary to the Commission, as provided in section 201.11 of the Commission's rules, not later than 21 days after publication of this notice in the
Limited disclosure of confidential business information (CBI) under an administrative protective order (APO) and CBI service list.—Pursuant to section 206.17 of the Commission's rules, the Secretary will make CBI gathered in this investigation available to authorized applicants representing interested parties (as defined in 19 CFR 206.17(a)(3)(iii)) under the APO issued in the investigation, provided that the application is made not later than 21 days after the publication of this notice in the
The Commission may transmit CBI to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) and may include CBI in the report it sends to the President and USTR for use in decision-making related to this proceeding. Additionally, all information, including CBI, submitted in this investigation may be disclosed to and used by (i) the Commission, its employees and Offices, and contract personnel (a) for developing or maintaining the records of this or a related proceeding, or (b) in internal investigations, audits, reviews, and evaluations relating to the programs, personnel, and operations of the Commission including under 5 U.S.C. Appendix 3; or (ii) by U.S. government employees and contract personnel for cybersecurity purposes. The Commission will not otherwise disclose any CBI in a manner that would reveal the operations of the firm supplying the information.
Hearings on injury and remedy.—The Commission has scheduled separate hearings in connection with the injury and remedy phases of this investigation. The hearing on injury will be held beginning at 9:30 a.m. on June 4, 2024, at the U.S. International Trade Commission Building, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC. In the event that the Commission makes an affirmative injury determination or is equally divided on the question of injury in this investigation, a hearing on the question of remedy will be held beginning at 9:30 a.m. on July 23, 2024. Requests to appear at the hearings should be filed in writing with the Secretary to the Commission on or before May 24, 2024, for the injury hearing, and July 17, 2024, for the remedy hearing. A nonparty who has testimony that may aid the Commission's deliberations may request permission to present a short statement at the hearings.
All parties and nonparties desiring to appear at the hearings and make oral presentations should participate in prehearing conferences to be held on May 31, 2024, for the injury hearing and July 19, 2024, for the remedy hearing, if deemed necessary. Parties shall file and serve written testimony and presentation slides in connection with their presentation at the hearing by no later than 4 p.m. on the business day prior to the hearing. Oral testimony and written materials to be submitted at the public hearings are governed by sections 201.6(b)(2) 201.13(f), and 206.5 of the Commission's rules. Parties must submit any request to present a portion of their hearing testimony in camera no later than 7 business days prior to the date of the respective hearings.
Any requests to appear as a witness via videoconference must be included with your request to appear. Requests to appear via videoconference must include a statement explaining why the witness cannot appear in person; the Chairman, or other person designated to conduct the investigations, may in their discretion for good cause shown, grant such a request. Requests to appear as remote witness due to illness or a positive COVID-19 test result may be submitted by 3 p.m. the business day prior to the hearing. Further information about participation in the hearing will be posted on the Commission's website at
Written submissions.—Each party who is an interested party may submit a prehearing brief to the Commission. Prehearing briefs must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8, 206.7, and 206.8 of the Commission's rules. The deadline for filing prehearing briefs on injury is May 28, 2024; that for filing prehearing briefs on remedy, including any commitments pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 2252(a)(6)(B), is July 16, 2024. Parties may also file written testimony in connection with their presentation at the hearing, as provided in sections 201.13, 206.5, and 206.8 of the Commission's rules, and posthearing briefs, which must conform with the provisions of sections 201.8, 201.13, 206.7, and 206.8 of Commission's rules. The deadline for filing posthearing briefs for the injury phase of the investigation is June 11, 2024; the deadline for filing posthearing briefs for the remedy phase of the investigation, if any, is July 29, 2024.
No posthearing brief, either in the injury phase or any remedy phase, shall exceed fifteen (15) pages of textual material, double-spaced and single-sided, when printed out on pages measuring 8.5 x 11 inches. In addition, the presiding official may permit persons to file answers to questions or requests made by the Commission at the hearing for the injury phase, and at any hearing for the remedy phase, within a specified time. In addition, any person who has not entered an appearance as a party to the investigation may submit a written statement of information pertinent to the consideration of injury on or before June 11, 2024, and pertinent to the consideration of remedy on or before July 29, 2024. All written submissions must conform with the provisions of section 201.8 of the Commission's rules; any submissions that contain CBI must also conform with the requirements of sections 201.6 and 206.17 of the Commission's rules. The Commission's Handbook on E-Filing, available on the Commission's website at
In accordance with section 201.16(c) of the Commission's rules, each document filed by a party to the investigation must be served on all other parties to the investigation (as identified by the service list), and a certificate of service must be timely filed. The Secretary will not accept a document for filing without a certificate of service.
For further information concerning the conduct of this investigation and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and
By order of the Commission.
Notice is hereby given that, on February 28, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, ASTM has provided an updated list of current, ongoing ASTM activities originating between December 12, 2023 and February 10, 2024 designated as Work Items. A complete listing of ASTM Work Items, along with a brief description of each, is available at
On September 15, 2004, ASTM filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on September 26, 2023. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on December 20, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Also, Binocular Vision Advisors LLC, San Francisco, CA; Pangaea Data, London, UNITED KINGDOM; Qubit Pharmaceuticals, Paris, FRANCE; Molecule One sp.z o.o., Warszawa, POLAND; Vivenics, Oss, NETHERLANDS; A4BEE, Wrocław, POLAND; DeepMatter Limited, Glasgow, UNITED KINGDOM; Gilead Sciences, Foster City, CA; Agilent, Santa Clara, CA; QC Ware Corp., Palo Alto, CA; Orbis Labsystems Services, Leopardstown, IRELAND; Lifebit Biotech Limited, London, UNITED KINGDOM; Eagle Genomics Ltd., Cambridge, UNITED KINGDOM; QuEra, Boston, MA; MolPort, Riga, LATVIA; and Biomage, Edinburgh, UNITED KINGDOM have withdrawn as parties to this venture.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and Pistoia Alliance, Inc. intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 28, 2009, Pistoia Alliance, Inc. filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 4, 2023. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on February 2, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and UBBA intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 4, 2021, UBBA filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 9, 2023. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 9, 2024, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open and STAR Phase 3 intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership or planned activities.
On August 15, 2023, STAR Phase 3 filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 26, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Specifically, Oliver IQ Inc., Sandy, UT; Shenzhen Longzhiyuan Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen, PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA; Idlespace Technology Company Co., Ltd., Ontario, CANADA; and iHomeFuture, Dubai, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES have joined as parties to the venture.
Also, VDA Group SpA a S.U., Pordenone, ITALY; ELTEX Enterprise Ltd., Novosibirsk, RUSSIA; BRK Brands Inc., Aurora, IL; Buo Home SL, Parets Del Valles, SPAIN; GroupSYS Pty Ltd, Erina, AUSTRALIA; Pyronix Limited, Rotherham, UNITED KINGDOM; Worthington Distribution, Tafton, PA; Rently Keyless, Los Angeles, CA; Daikin Airconditioning (Singapore) Pte Ltd., Singapore, SINGAPORE; Spectrum Brands Inc., Lake Forest, CA; Devicebook Inc., Bellevue, WA; and Zone-B2B SARL, Saint-Prex, SWITZERLAND have withdrawn as parties to the venture.
In addition, an existing member, Fibar Group S.A. has changed its name to Nice-Polska Sp. Z.o.o., Wysogotowo, POLAND.
Finally, Canny Electrics, Melbourne, AUSTRALIA withdrew as a party to the venture on January 9, 2024; and rejoined as a party to the venture on January 24, 2024.
No other changes have been made in either the membership or the planned activity of the venture. Membership in this venture remains open, and the Joint Venture intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On November 19, 2020, the Joint Venture filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 1, 2023. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, January 5, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and RISE intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On July 2, 2021, RISE filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 3, 2023. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 29, 2024, pursuant to section
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and R Consortium intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On September 15, 2015, R Consortium filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on June 6, 2023. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 4, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open and NPSS intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership or planned activities.
On December 11, 2013, NPSS filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on November 10, 2023. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 11, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
Pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: ACMI-Austin, LLC, Austin, TX; Advanced Simulation Technology Inc., Herndon, VA; Aegis Power Systems, Inc., Murphy, NC; Aerovel Corporation, Bingen, WA; Alluvionic Inc., Melbourne, FL; Amentum Services, Inc., Chantilly, VA; American Rheinmetall Munition Inc., Stafford, VA; Applied Information Sciences, Inc, Reston, VA; Applied Technology, Inc., King George, VA; Assured Information Security, Inc., Rome, NY; Astrapi Corporation, Dallas, TX; Asymmetric Technologies, LLC, Dublin, OH; Battelle, Columbus, OH; Beast Code LLC, Fort Walton Beach, FL; Bigelow Family Holdings LLC DBA Mettle Ops, Sterling Heights, MI; Boston Engineering Corporation, Waltham, MA; CFD Research Corporation, Huntsville, AL; Cisco Systems, Inc., San Jose, CA; Colvin Run Networks, Inc., Tysons, VA; Concurrent Technologies Corporation, Johnstown, PA; Corvid Technologies, LLC, Mooresville, NC; DataSoft Corp., Phoenix, AZ; Davidson Technologies Incorporated, Huntsville, AL; deciBel Research, Inc., Huntsville, AL; Design West Technologies, Inc., Tustin, CA; Dignitas Technologies, Orlando, FL; DKW Consulting LLC, Tallahassee, FL; ElbitAmerica, Inc., Fort Worth, TX; Eos Energetics Inc., Penrose, CO; EPIQ Design Solutions, Rolling Meadows, IL; EWA Government Systems, Inc.; Exergi Predictive, Hugo, MN; Exquadrum Inc., Victorville, CA; Fenix Group, Inc., Chantilly, VA; G3 Technologies, Columbia, MD; GaN Corporation, Huntsville, AL; GenXComm, Austin, TX; GIRD Systems, Inc, Cincinnati, OH; Graf Research Corporation, Blacksburg, VA; Guidehouse Inc, Mclean, VA; HDT Expeditionary—Global, Solon, OH; HDT Expeditionary Systems, Fredericksburg, VA; Hyperion Technology Group, Inc., Tupelo, MS; iGov Technologies, Inc., Reston, VA; Indiana Microelectronics, LLC, West Lafayette, IN; Integrated Solutions For Systems, Inc., Huntsville, AL; Integration Innovation Inc, Huntsville, AL; Intuitive Research and Technology Corporation, Huntsville, AL; Iron EagleX, Inc., Tampa, FL; JEM Engineering, LLC, Laurel, MD; Karem Aircraft, Inc., Lake Forest, CA; KEF Robotics, Pittsburg, PA; KnowledgeBridge International, Chantilly, VA; Kord Technologies, LLC, Huntsville, AL; Kostas Research Institute, Burlington, MA; Kowalski Heat Treating, Cleveland, OH; KPMG LLP, Mclean, VA; L2NL, LLC, Charleston, SC; L3Harris Maritime Services, Inc., Norfolk, VA; Laine LLC, Goose Creek, SC; Lockheed Martin Corporation, Grand Prairie, TX; Ludlum Measurements, Inc. dba VPI Technology, Draper, UT; Makai Ocean Engineering, Inc., Waimanalo, HI; Marine Ventures International, Inc., Stuart, FL; MATBOCK, LLC, Virginia Beach, VA; MBDA Incorporated, Huntsville, AL; MEPSS LLC, Indian Harbour Beach, FL; Merril Technologies Group, Inc., Saginaw, MI; Mistral Inc., Bethesda, MD; Munro & Associates, Inc., Auburn Hills, MI; NAG, LLC dba NAG Marine, Norfolk, VA; Navmar Applied
The general area of EMC
Notice is hereby given that, on January 8, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and MSTIC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 21, 2020, MSTIC filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 6, 2023. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 9, 2024, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NSTIC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On October 8, 2019, NSTIC filed its original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 11, 2023. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on November 17, 2023, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
The following conformity assessment programs associated with published IEEE standards and supporting their promulgation were initiated:
On September 17, 2004, IEEE filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on July 17, 2023. A notice was published in the
Notice is hereby given that, on January 10, 2024, pursuant to section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301
No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned activity of the group research project. Membership in this group research project remains open, and NAC intends to file additional written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
On May 2, 2000, NAC filed its original notification pursuant to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a notice in the
The last notification was filed with the Department on October 10, 2023. A notice was published in the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) announces a meeting of the Science Committee of the NASA Advisory Council (NAC). This Committee reports to the NAC. The meeting will be held for the purpose of soliciting, from the scientific community and other persons,
Monday, March 25, 2024, 10:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m., Eastern Time.
Public attendance will be virtual only. See dial-in and Webex information below under
Ms. KarShelia Kinard, Science Mission Directorate, NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, (202) 358-2355 or
As noted above, this meeting is virtual and will take place telephonically and via Webex. Any interested person must use a touch-tone phone to participate in this meeting. The Webex connectivity information for each day is provided below. For audio, when you join the Webex event, you may use your computer or provide your phone number to receive a call back, otherwise, call the U.S. toll conference number listed for each day.
On Monday, March 25, the event address for attendees is:
The event number is 2830 040 7491 and the event password is JMnk7EmP7Z6 (56657367 from phones and video systems). If needed, the U.S. toll conference number is 1-415-527-5035 and the access code is 283 004 07491.
The agenda for the meeting includes the following topics:
It is imperative that the meeting be held on these dates due to the scheduling priorities of the key participants.
National Science Foundation.
Notice and request for comments.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, and as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, the National Science Foundation (NSF) is inviting the general public or other Federal agencies to comment on this proposed information collection reinstatement.
Written comments on this notice must be received by May 13, 2024, to be assured consideration. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable. Send comments to the address below.
Suzanne H. Plimpton, Reports Clearance Officer, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Suite E7400, Alexandria, Virginia 22314; telephone (703) 292-7556; or send email to
The NSF SBIR/STTR programs focus on transforming scientific discovery into products and services with commercial potential and/or societal benefit. Unlike fundamental or basic research activities that focus on scientific and engineering discoveries, the NSF SBIR/STTR programs support the creation of opportunities to move fundamental science and engineering out of the lab and into the market at scale, through startups and small businesses representing deep technology ventures.
The NSF SBIR/STTR programs have two phases: Phase I and Phase II (with an optional Phase IIB as matching supplements). SBIR/STTR Phase I is a 6-12 month experimental or theoretical investigation that allows the awardees to determine the scientific and technical feasibility, as well as the commercial merit of the idea or concept. Phase II further develops the proposed concept, building on the feasibility project undertaken in Phase I, and accelerate the Phase I project to the commercialization stage and enhance the overall strength of the commercial potential. As such, Phase II SBIR/STTR awards have a longer expected period of performance of 24 months.
The NSF SBIR/STTR programs request approval from OMB on the reinstatement of the NSF SBIR/STTR Phase II interim/progress report data collection.
The interim/progress report will be required every six months for the life of the Phase II award. The report collects information on the technical progress of the funded NSF work, which allows managing Program Directors to monitor the project and ensure that the award is in good standing.
The report is divided into 6 sections: (1) Basic Reporting Data, (2) Level of Effort, (3) SBIR-wide Certifications, (4) Cooperative Agreement (NSF-specific Certifications), (5) Technical Narratives, and (6) Project Milestones.
The kinds of data collected from the report include name of the startup company, information on the principal investigator (PI) (name, email address, and phone number), the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) employees working at the startup, amount of funding received during the award period. In addition, information pertaining to company officers and key personnel, their corresponding ownership status, and their levels of efforts provided to the startups are also requested. Collectively, these data will enable the managing Program Directors to (1) evaluate a given company's business structure, (2) ascertain the level of commitment of the PI(s), co-PI(s), and key personnel to the startup venture, and (3) identify conflicts of interests (if any), as part of the due diligence process that the programs undertake to verify that there are no
The report also asks about: inputs (
Finally, the report also requests: (1) a discussion of progresses highlighting key technical and commercial activity/results during the reporting period, (2) compliance requirements checklists from the Small Business Administration (SBA) and NSF, and (3) a Gantt chart describing the project status, as well as task assignments to key personnel in the project.
Pursuant to the Commission's regulations,
This proceeding involves an application seeking a twenty-year license renewal of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-80 and DPR-82 to authorize Pacific Gas and Electric Company to operate Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, until, respectively, November 2, 2044, and August 26, 2045. In response to a notice published in the
The Board is comprised of the following Administrative Judges:
Jeremy A. Mercer, Chair, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Nicholas G. Trikouros, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
Dr. Gary S. Arnold, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001.
All correspondence, documents, and other materials shall be filed in accordance with the NRC E-Filing rule.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Notices, Instructions, and Reports to Workers: Inspection and Investigations.”
Submit comments by April 12, 2024. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2023-0056 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:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, 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 comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Notices, Instructions, and Reports to Workers: Inspection and Investigations.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s)
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to establish the NYSE American Aggregated Lite (“NYSE American Agg Lite”) market data feed. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to establish the NYSE American Agg Lite market data feed. The NYSE American Agg Lite is a NYSE American-only frequency-based depth of book market data feed of the NYSE American's limit order book for up to ten (10) price levels on both the bid and offer sides of the order book for securities traded on the Exchange and for which the Exchange reports quotes and trades under the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. NYSE American Agg Lite would be a compilation of limit order data that the Exchange would provide to vendors and subscribers. As proposed, the NYSE American Agg Lite data feed would be updated no less frequently than once per second. The NYSE American Agg Lite would include depth of book order data as well as security status messages. The security status message would inform subscribers of changes in the status of a specific security, such as trading halts, short sale restriction, etc. In addition, the NYSE American Agg Lite would also include order imbalance information prior to the opening and closing of trading.
The Exchange proposes to offer NYSE American Agg Lite after receiving requests from vendors and subscribers that would like to receive the data described above in an integrated fashion at a pre-defined publication interval, in this case updates no less than once per second. An aggregated data feed may provide greater efficiencies and reduce errors for vendors and subscribers that currently choose to integrate the above data into a single offering after receiving it from the Exchange through existing products and adjust the publication frequency based on a subscriber's needs. The Exchange believes that providing vendors and subscribers with the option to subscribe to a market data product that integrates a subset of data from existing products and where such aggregated data is published at a pre-defined interval, thus lowering bandwidth, infrastructure and operational requirements, would allow vendors and subscribers to choose the best solution for their specific business needs. The Exchange notes that publishing only the top ten price levels on both the bid and offer sides of the order book where such data is communicated to subscribers at a pre-defined interval would reduce the overall volume of messages required to be consumed by subscribers when compared to a full order-by-order data feed or a full depth of book data feed. Providing data in this format and publication frequency would make NYSE American Agg Lite more easily consumable by vendors and subscribers, especially for display purposes.
The Exchange proposes to offer NYSE American Agg Lite through the Exchange's Liquidity Center Network (“LCN”), a local area network in the Exchange's Mahwah, New Jersey data center that is available to users of the Exchange's co-location services. The Exchange would also offer NYSE American Agg Lite through the ICE Global Network (“IGN”), through which all other users and members access the Exchange's trading and execution systems and other proprietary market data products.
The Exchange will file a separate rule filing to establish fees for NYSE American Agg Lite. The Exchange will announce the implementation date of this proposed rule change by Trader Update, which, subject to the effectiveness of this proposed rule change, will be no later than the second quarter of 2024.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)
The Exchange also believes this proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it protects investors and the public interest and promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing investors with new options for receiving market data as requested by market data vendors and subscribers. The proposed rule change would benefit investors by facilitating their prompt access to the frequency-based depth of book contained in the NYSE American Agg Lite market data feed.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 11(A) of the Act
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that NYSE American Agg Lite is precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:
Efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.
In addition, NYSE American Agg Lite removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing investors with alternative market data and would compete with similar market data products currently offered by the four U.S. equities exchanges operated by Cboe Exchange, Inc.—Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), each of which offers a market data product called BZX Summary Depth, BYX Summary Depth, EDGA Summary Depth and EDGX Summary Depth, respectively (collectively, the “Cboe Summary Depth”).
The Exchange notes that the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's proposed product, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, as well as the continued availability of the Exchange's separate data feeds, ensures that the Exchange is not unreasonably discriminatory because vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives as their individual business cases warrant.
The NYSE American Agg Lite market data feed will help to protect a free and open market by providing additional data to the marketplace and by giving investors greater choices. In addition, the proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because the data feed would be available to all vendors and subscribers through both the LCN and IGN.
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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, 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”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to list and trade shares of the Franklin Ethereum ETF (the “Fund”), a series of the Franklin Ethereum Trust (the “Trust”),
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 list and trade the Shares under BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4),
The Commission has historically approved or disapproved exchange filings to list and trade series of Trust Issued Receipts, including spot-based Commodity-Based Trust Shares, on the basis of whether the listing exchange has in place a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement with a regulated market of significant size related to the underlying commodity to be held.
Recently, the Commission issued an order granting approval for proposals to list bitcoin-based commodity trust and bitcoin-based trust issued receipts (these funds are nearly identical to the Fund, but hold bitcoin instead of ethereum) (“Spot Bitcoin ETPs”).
[B]ased on the record before the Commission and the improved quality of the correlation analysis in the record . . . the Commission is able to conclude that fraud or manipulation that impacts prices in spot bitcoin markets would likely similarly impact CME bitcoin futures prices. And because the CME's surveillance can assist in detecting those impacts on CME bitcoin futures prices, the Exchanges' comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME—a U.S. regulated market whose bitcoin futures market is consistently highly correlated to spot bitcoin, albeit not of “significant size” related to spot bitcoin—can be reasonably expected to assist in surveilling for fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in the specific context of the [p]roposals.
As further discussed below, both the Exchange and the Sponsor believe that this proposal and the included analysis are sufficient to establish that the CME Ether Futures market represents a regulated market of significant size and that this proposal should be approved.
Ethereum (also referred to as “ETH” or “ether”) is free software that is hosted on computers distributed throughout the globe. It employs an array of logic, called a protocol, to create a unified understanding of ownership, commercial activity, and business logic. This allows users to engage in commerce without the need to trust any of its participants or counterparties. Ethereum code creates verifiable and unambiguous rules that assign clear, strong property rights to create a platform for unrestrained business formation and free exchange. It is widely understood that no single intermediary or entity operates or controls the Ethereum network (referred to as “decentralization”), the transaction
Heretofore, U.S. retail investors have lacked a U.S. regulated, U.S. exchange-traded vehicle to gain exposure to ETH. Instead, current options include: (i) facing the counter-party risk, legal uncertainty, technical risk, and complexity associated with accessing spot ether; or (ii) over-the-counter ether funds (“OTC ETH Funds”) with high management fees and potentially volatile premiums and discounts. Meanwhile, investors in other countries, including Germany, Switzerland and France, are able to use more traditional exchange listed and traded products (including exchange-traded funds holding physical ETH) to gain exposure to ETH. Investors across Europe have access to products which trade on regulated exchanges and provide exposure to a broad array of spot crypto assets. U.S. investors, by contrast, are left with fewer and more risky means of getting ether exposure.
To this point, the lack of an ETP that holds spot ETH (a “Spot Ether ETP”) exposes U.S. investor assets to significant risk because investors that would otherwise seek cryptoasset exposure through a Spot Ether ETP are forced to find alternative exposure through generally riskier means. For example, investors in OTC ETH Funds are not afforded the benefits and protections of regulated Spot Ether ETPs, resulting in retail investors suffering losses due to drastic movements in the premium/discount of OTC ETH Funds. An investor who purchased the largest OTC ETH Fund in January 2021 and held the position at the end of 2022 would have suffered a 69% loss due to the premium/discount, even if the price of ETH did not change. Many retail investors likely suffered losses due to this premium/discount in OTC ETH Fund trading; all such losses could have been avoided if a Spot Ether ETP had been available. Additionally, many U.S. investors that held their digital assets in accounts at FTX,
The Exchange and Sponsor applaud the Commission for allowing the launch of ETFs registered under the Investment Company Act of 1940, as amended (the “1940 Act”), that provide exposure to ether primarily through CME Ether Futures (“Ether Futures ETFs”). Allowing such products to list and trade is a productive first step in providing U.S. investors and traders with transparent, exchange-listed tools for expressing a view on ether.
The structure of Ether Futures ETFs provides negative outcomes for buy and hold investors as compared to a Spot Ether ETP. Specifically, the cost of rolling CME Ether Futures contracts will cause the Ether Futures ETFs to lag the performance of ether itself and, at over a billion dollars in assets under management, would cost U.S. investors significant amounts of money on an annual basis compared to Spot Ether ETPs. Such rolling costs would not be required for Spot Ether ETPs that hold ether. Further, Ether Futures ETFs could potentially hit CME position limits, which would force an Ether Futures ETF to invest in non-futures assets for ether exposure and cause potential investor confusion and lack of certainty about what such Ether Futures ETFs are actually holding to try to get exposure to ether, not to mention completely changing the risk profile associated with such an ETF. While Ether Futures ETFs represent a useful trading tool, they are clearly a sub-optimal structure for U.S. investors that are looking for long-term exposure to ether that will unnecessarily cost U.S. investors significant amounts of money every year compared to Spot Ether ETPs and the Exchange believes that any proposal to list and trade a Spot Ether ETP should be reviewed by the Commission with this important investor protection context in mind.
To the extent the Commission may view differential treatment of Ether Futures ETFs and Spot Ether ETPs as warranted based on the Commission's concerns about the custody of physical ether that a Spot Ether ETP would hold (compared to cash-settled futures contracts),
Based on the foregoing, the Exchange and Sponsor believe that any objective review of the proposals to list Spot Ether ETPs compared to the Ether Futures ETFs would lead to the conclusion that Spot Ether ETPs should be available to U.S. investors and, as such, this proposal and other comparable proposals to list and trade Spot Ether ETPs should be approved by the Commission. Stated simply, U.S. investors will continue to lose significant amounts of money from holding Ether Futures ETFs as compared to Spot Ether ETPs, losses which could be prevented by the Commission approving Spot Ether ETPs. Additionally, any concerns related to preventing fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices related to Spot Ether ETPs would apply equally to the spot markets underlying the futures contracts held by an Ether Futures ETF. Both the Exchange and Sponsor believe that the CME Ether Futures market is a regulated market of significant size and that such manipulation concerns are mitigated, as described extensively below. After allowing the listing and trading of Ether Futures ETFs that hold primarily CME Ether Futures, however, the only consistent outcome would be approving Spot Ether ETPs on the basis that the CME Ether Futures market is a regulated market of significant size.
Given the current landscape, approving this proposal (and others like it) and allowing Spot Ether ETPs to be listed and traded alongside Ether Futures ETFs and Spot Bitcoin ETPs would establish a consistent regulatory approach, provide U.S. investors with choice in product structures for ether exposure, and offer flexibility in the means of gaining exposure to ether through transparent, regulated, U.S. exchange-listed vehicles.
CME began offering trading in Ether Futures in February 2021. Each contract represents 50 ETH and is based on the CME CF Ether-Dollar Reference Rate.
The number of large open interest holders
The Commission has approved numerous series of Trust Issued Receipts,
In order to meet this standard in a proposal to list and trade a series of Commodity-Based Trust Shares, the Commission requires that an exchange demonstrate that there is a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement in place
The Commission has also recognized that the “regulated market of significant size” standard is not the only means for satisfying section 6(b)(5) of the Act, specifically providing that a listing exchange could demonstrate that “other means to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” are sufficient to justify dispensing with the requisite surveillance-sharing agreement.
The significant market test requires that there is a reasonable likelihood that a person attempting to manipulate the ETP would also have to trade on that market to manipulate the ETP, so that a surveillance-sharing agreement would assist the listing exchange in detecting and deterring misconduct. In light of the similarly high correlation between spot ETH/CME Ether Futures and spot bitcoin/CME Bitcoin Futures, applying the same rationale that the Commission applied to a Spot Bitcoin ETP in the Spot Bitcoin ETP Approval Order
The assumptions from this statement are also true for CME Ether Futures. CME Ether Futures pricing is based on pricing from spot ether markets. The statement from the Spot Bitcoin ETP Approval Order that the surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME “can be reasonably expected to assist in surveilling for fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in the specific context of the [p]roposals” makes clear that the Commission believes that CME's surveillance can capture the effects of trading on the relevant spot markets on the pricing of CME Bitcoin Futures. This same logic would extend to CME Ether Futures markets where CME's surveillance would be able to capture the effects of trading on the relevant spot markets on the pricing of CME Ether Futures.
The Exchange and Sponsor also believe that trading in the Shares would not be the predominant force on prices in the CME Ether Futures market for a number of reasons. First, because the Fund would not hold CME Ether Futures contracts, the only way that it could be the predominant force on prices in that market is through the spot markets that CME Ether Futures contracts use for pricing.
As noted above, the Commission also permits a listing exchange to demonstrate that “other means to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” are sufficient to justify dispensing with the requisite
The Exchange believes that the proposal is designed to protect investors and the public interest. Over the past several years, U.S. investor exposure to ether through OTC ETH Funds has grown into the tens of billions of dollars and more than a billion dollars of exposure through Ether Futures ETFs. With that growth, so too has grown the quantifiable investor protection issues to U.S. investors through roll costs for Ether Futures ETFs and premium/discount volatility and management fees for OTC ETH Funds. The Exchange believes that the concerns related to the prevention of fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices have been sufficiently addressed to be consistent with the Act and, to the extent that the Commission disagrees with that assertion, also believes that such concerns are now outweighed by these investor protection concerns. As such, the Exchange believes that approving this proposal (and comparable proposals) provides the Commission with the opportunity to allow U.S. investors with access to ether in a regulated and transparent exchange-traded vehicle that would act to limit risk to U.S. investors by: (i) reducing premium and discount volatility; (ii) reducing management fees through meaningful competition; (iii) reducing risks and costs associated with investing in Ether Futures ETFs and operating companies that are imperfect proxies for ether exposure; and (iv) providing an alternative to custodying spot ether.
Delaware Trust Company is the trustee (“Trustee”). Bank of New York Mellon is the custodian for the Fund's cash and cash equivalents
According to the Registration Statement, each Share will represent a fractional undivided beneficial interest in the Fund's net assets. The Fund's assets will only consist of ether, cash, and cash equivalents.
According to the Registration Statement, the Trust is neither an investment company registered under the 1940 Act,
According to the Registration Statement, the Sponsor may, from time to time, stake a portion of the Fund's assets through one or more trusted staking providers, which may include an affiliate of the Sponsor (“Staking Providers”). In consideration for any staking activity in which the Fund may engage, the Fund would receive certain staking rewards of ether tokens, which may be treated as income to the Fund.
When the Fund sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions in large blocks of 50,000 Shares (a “Creation Basket”) at the Fund's net asset value (“NAV”). A third party will use cash to buy and deliver ether to create Shares or withdraw and sell ether for cash to redeem Shares, on behalf of the Fund. For creations, authorized participants will deliver, or facilitate the delivery of, cash to the Fund's account with the Cash Custodian in exchange for Shares. Upon receipt of an approved creation order, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Fund, will submit an order to buy the amount of ether represented by a Creation Basket. Based off ether executions, the Cash Custodian will request the required cash from the authorized participant. Following receipt by the Cash Custodian of the cash from an authorized participant, the Sponsor, on behalf of the Fund, will approve an order with one or more previously onboarded trading partners to purchase the amount of ether represented by the Creation Basket.
According to the Registration Statement and as further described below, the investment objective of the Fund is to generally reflect the performance of the price of ether before payment of the Fund's expenses and liabilities. In seeking to achieve its investment objective, the Fund will hold only ether, cash, and cash equivalents. The Fund will value its Shares daily based on the value of ether as reflected by the CME CF Ether-Dollar Reference Rate—New York Variant (the “Index”), which is an independently calculated value based on an aggregation of executed trade flow of major ether spot trading platforms. Specifically, the Index is calculated based on certain transactions of all of its constituent ether trading platforms, which are currently Bitstamp, Coinbase, itBit, Kraken, Gemini, and LMAX Digital, and which may change from time to time. If the Index is not available or the Sponsor determines, in its sole discretion, that the Index should not be used, the Fund's holdings may be fair valued in accordance with the policy approved by the Sponsor.
As described in the Registration Statement, the Fund will value its Shares daily based on the value of ether as reflected by the Index. The Index is calculated daily and aggregates the notional value of ether trading activity across major ether spot trading platforms. The Index is designed based on the International Organization of Securities Commissions (“IOSCO”) Principals for Financial Indexes. The administrator of the Index is CF Benchmarks Ltd. (the “Index Provider”).
The Index serves as a once-a-day benchmark rate of the U.S. dollar price of ether (USD/ETH), calculated as of 4:00 p.m. ET. The Index aggregates the trade flow of several ether trading platforms, during an observation window between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. ET into the U.S. dollar price of one ether at 4:00 p.m. ET. Specifically, the Index is calculated based on the “Relevant Transactions” (as defined below) of all of its constituent ether trading platforms, which are currently Coinbase, Bitstamp, Kraken, itBit, LMAX Digital and Gemini (the “Constituent Platforms”), as follows:
• All Relevant Transactions are added to a joint list, recording the time of execution, trade price and size for each transaction.
• The list is partitioned by timestamp into 12 equally-sized time intervals of 5 (five) minute length.
• For each partition separately, the volume-weighted median trade price is calculated from the trade prices and
• The Index is then determined by the equally-weighted average of the volume medians of all partitions.
The Index does not include any futures prices in its methodology. A “Relevant Transaction” is any cryptocurrency versus U.S. dollar spot trade that occurs during the observation window between 3:00 p.m. and 4:00 p.m. ET on a Constituent Platform in the ETH/USD pair that is reported and disseminated by a Constituent Platform through its publicly available Application Programming Interface (“API”) and observed by the Index Provider.
The Sponsor believes that the use of the Index is reflective of a reasonable valuation of the average spot price of ether and that resistance to manipulation is a priority aim of its design methodology. The methodology: (i) takes an observation period and divides it into equal partitions of time; (ii) then calculates the volume-weighted median of all transactions within each partition; and (iii) the value is determined from the arithmetic mean of the volume-weighted medians, equally weighted. By employing the foregoing steps, the Index thereby seeks to ensure that transactions in ether conducted at outlying prices do not have an undue effect on the value of the Index, large trades or clusters of trades transacted over a short period of time will not have an undue influence on the Index value, and the effect of large trades at prices that deviate from the prevailing price are mitigated from having an undue influence on the Index value.
In addition, the Sponsor notes that an oversight function is implemented by the Index Provider in seeking to ensure that the Index is administered through codified policies for Index integrity.
Index data and the description of the Index are based on information made publicly available by the Index Provider on its website at
NAV means the total assets of the Fund (which includes ether, cash and cash equivalents) less total liabilities of the Fund. The Administrator will determine the NAV of the Fund on each day that the Exchange is open for regular trading, as promptly as practical after 4:00 p.m. EST. The NAV of the Fund is the aggregate value of the Fund's assets less its estimated accrued but unpaid liabilities (which include accrued expenses). In determining the Fund's NAV, the Administrator values the ether held by the Fund based on the price set by the Index as of 4:00 p.m. EST. The Administrator also determines the NAV per Share.
The NAV for the Fund will be calculated by the Administrator once a day and will be disseminated daily to all market participants at the same time.
If the Index is not available or the Sponsor determines, in its sole discretion, that the Index should not be used, the Fund's holdings may be fair valued in accordance with the policy approved by the Sponsor.
The website for the Fund, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information: (a) the current NAV per Share daily and the prior business day's NAV and the reported closing price; (b) the BZX Official Closing Price
The Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”) will be calculated by using the prior day's closing NAV per Share as a base and updating that value during Regular Trading Hours to reflect changes in the value of the Fund's ether holdings during the trading day, which is based on CME CF Ether-Dollar Real Time Index. The IIV disseminated during Regular Trading Hours should not be viewed as an actual real-time update of the NAV, which will be calculated only once at the end of each trading day. The IIV will be widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours through the facilities of the consolidated tape association (CTA) and Consolidated Quotation System (CQS) high speed lines. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line information services such as Bloomberg and Reuters.
The price of ether will be made available by one or more major market data vendors, updated at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours.
As noted above, the Index is calculated daily and aggregates the notional value of ether trading activity across major ether spot trading platforms. Index data, the Index value, and the description of the Index are based on information made publicly available by the Index Provider on its website at
Quotation and last sale information for ether is widely disseminated through a variety of major market data vendors, including Bloomberg and Reuters. Information relating to trading, including price and volume information, in ether is available from major market data vendors and from the trading platforms on which ether are traded. Depth of book information is also available from ether trading platforms. The normal trading hours for ether trading platforms are 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”).
The Custodian carefully considers the design of the physical, operational and cryptographic systems for secure storage of the Fund's private keys in an effort to lower the risk of loss or theft. The Custodian utilizes a variety of security measures to ensure that private keys necessary to transfer digital assets remain uncompromised and that the Fund maintains exclusive ownership of its assets. The Custodian will keep the private keys associated with the Fund's ether in “cold storage”
When the Fund sells or redeems its Shares, it will do so in cash transactions in blocks of Shares that are based on the quantity of ether attributable to each Share of the Fund (
The authorized participants will deliver only cash to create Shares and will receive only cash when redeeming Shares. Further, authorized participants will not directly or indirectly purchase, hold, deliver, or receive ether as part of the creation or redemption process or otherwise direct the Fund or a third party with respect to purchasing, holding, delivering, or receiving ether as part of the creation or redemption process.
The Fund will create Shares by receiving ether from a third party that is not the authorized participant and the Fund—not the authorized participant—is responsible for selecting the third party to deliver the ether. Further, the third party will not be acting as an agent of the authorized participant with respect to the delivery of the ether to the Fund or acting at the direction of the authorized participant with respect to the delivery of the ether to the Fund. The Fund will redeem Shares by delivering ether to a third party that is not the authorized participant and the Fund—not the authorized participant—is responsible for selecting the third party to receive the ether. Further, the third party will not be acting as an agent of the authorized participant with respect to the receipt of the ether from the Fund or acting at the direction of the authorized participant with respect to the receipt of the ether from the Fund.
A third party, that is unaffiliated with the Fund and the Sponsor, will use cash to buy and deliver ether to create Shares or withdraw and sell ether for cash to redeem Shares, on behalf of the Fund.
The Sponsor (including its delegates) will maintain ownership and control of the Fund's ether in a manner consistent with good delivery requirements for spot commodity transactions.
The Shares will be subject to BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4), which sets forth the initial and continued listing criteria applicable to Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The Exchange represents that, for initial and continued listing, the Fund must be in compliance with Rule 10A-3 under the Act. A minimum of 100,000 Shares will be outstanding at the commencement of listing on the Exchange. The Exchange will obtain a representation that the NAV will be calculated daily and that the NAV and information about the assets of the Fund will be made available to all market participants at the same time. The Exchange notes that, as defined in Rule 14.11(e)(4)(C)(i), the Shares will be: (a) issued by a trust that holds (1) a specified commodity
Upon termination of the Fund, the Shares will be removed from listing. The Trustee, Delaware Trust Company, is a trust company having substantial capital and surplus and the experience and facilities for handling corporate trust business, as required under Rule 14.11(e)(4)(E)(iv)(a) and that no change will be made to the trustee without prior notice to and approval of the Exchange. The Exchange also notes that, pursuant to Rule 14.11(e)(4)(F), neither the Exchange nor any agent of the Exchange shall have any liability for damages, claims, losses or expenses caused by any errors, omissions or delays in calculating or disseminating any underlying commodity value, the current value of the underlying commodity required to be deposited to the Fund in connection with issuance of Commodity-Based Trust Shares; resulting from any negligent act or omission by the Exchange, or any agent of the Exchange, or any act, condition or cause beyond the reasonable control of the Exchange, its agent, including, but not limited to, an act of God; fire; flood; extraordinary weather conditions; war; insurrection; riot; strike; accident; action of government; communications or power failure; equipment or software malfunction; or any error, omission or delay in the reports of transactions in an underlying commodity. Finally, as required in Rule 14.11(e)(4)(G), the Exchange notes that any registered market maker (“Market Maker”) in the Shares must file with the Exchange in a manner prescribed by the Exchange and keep current a list identifying all accounts for trading in an underlying commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures, or any other related commodity derivatives, which the registered Market Maker may have or over which it may exercise investment discretion. No registered Market Maker shall trade in an underlying commodity, related commodity futures or options on commodity futures, or any other related commodity derivatives, in an account in which a registered Market Maker, directly or indirectly, controls trading activities, or has a direct interest in the profits or losses thereof, which has not been reported to the Exchange as required by this Rule. In addition to the existing obligations under Exchange rules regarding the production of books and records (see,
The Exchange is able to obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and the underlying ether, Eth Futures contracts, options on Eth Futures, or any other ether derivative through members acting as registered Market Makers, in connection with their proprietary or customer trades.
As a general matter, the Exchange has regulatory jurisdiction over its Members and their associated persons, which include any person or entity controlling a Member. To the extent the Exchange may be found to lack jurisdiction over a subsidiary or affiliate of a Member that does business only in commodities or futures contracts, the Exchange could obtain information regarding the activities of such subsidiary or affiliate through surveillance sharing agreements with regulatory organizations of which such subsidiary or affiliate is a member.
With respect to trading halts, the Exchange may consider all relevant factors in exercising its discretion to halt or suspend trading in the Shares. The Exchange will halt trading in the Shares under the conditions specified in BZX Rule 11.18. Trading may be halted because of market conditions or for reasons that, in the view of the Exchange, make trading in the Shares inadvisable. These may include: (1) the extent to which trading is not occurring in the ether underlying the Shares; or (2) whether other unusual conditions or circumstances detrimental to the maintenance of a fair and orderly market are present. Trading in the Shares also will be subject to Rule 14.11(e)(4)(E)(ii), which sets forth circumstances under which trading in the Shares may be halted.
If the IIV or the value of the Index is not being disseminated as required, the Exchange may halt trading during the day in which the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the value of the Index occurs. If the interruption to the dissemination of the IIV or the value of the Index persists past the trading day in which it occurred, the Exchange will halt trading no later than the beginning of the trading day following the interruption.
In addition, if the Exchange becomes aware that the NAV with respect to the Shares is not disseminated to all market participants at the same time, it will halt trading in the Shares until such time as the NAV is available to all market participants.
The Exchange deems the Shares to be equity securities, thus rendering trading in the Shares subject to the Exchange's existing rules governing the trading of equity securities. BZX will allow trading in the Shares during all trading sessions on the Exchange. The Exchange has appropriate rules to facilitate transactions in the Shares during all trading sessions. As provided in BZX Rule 11.11(a) the minimum price variation for quoting and entry of orders in securities traded on the Exchange is $0.01 where the price is greater than $1.00 per share or $0.0001 where the price is less than $1.00 per share. The Shares of the Fund will conform to the initial and continued listing criteria set forth in BZX Rule 14.11(e)(4).
The Exchange represents that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Commodity-Based Trust Shares. FINRA conducts certain cross-market surveillances on behalf of the Exchange pursuant to a regulatory services agreement. The Exchange is responsible for FINRA's performance under this regulatory services agreement.
The Exchange or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, will communicate as needed regarding trading in the Shares and Ether Futures with other markets and other entities that are members of the ISG, and the Exchange, or FINRA, on behalf of the Exchange, or both, may obtain trading information regarding trading in the Shares and Ether Futures from such markets and other entities.
In addition, the Exchange also has a general policy prohibiting the distribution of material, non-public information by its employees.
The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund or the Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund or the Shares are not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12.
Prior to the commencement of trading, the Exchange will inform its members in an Information Circular of the special characteristics and risks associated with trading the Shares. Specifically, the Information Circular will discuss the following: (i) the procedures for the creation and redemption of Creation Baskets (and that the Shares are not individually redeemable); (ii) BZX Rule 3.7, which imposes suitability obligations on Exchange members with respect to recommending transactions in the Shares to customers; (iii) how information regarding the IIV and the Fund's NAV are disseminated; (iv) the risks involved in trading the Shares outside of Regular Trading Hours
In addition, the Information Circular will advise members, prior to the commencement of trading, of the prospectus delivery requirements applicable to the Shares. Members purchasing the Shares for resale to investors will deliver a prospectus to such investors. The Information Circular will also discuss any exemptive, no-action and interpretive relief granted by the Commission from any rules under the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is consistent with section 6(b) of the Act
The Commission has approved numerous series of Trust Issued Receipts,
In order to meet this standard in a proposal to list and trade a series of Commodity-Based Trust Shares, the Commission requires that an exchange demonstrate that there is a comprehensive surveillance-sharing agreement in place
The Commission has also recognized that the “regulated market of significant size” standard is not the only means for satisfying section 6(b)(5) of the Act, specifically providing that a listing exchange could demonstrate that “other means to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” are sufficient to justify dispensing with the requisite surveillance-sharing agreement.
The significant market test requires that there is a reasonable likelihood that a person attempting to manipulate the ETP would also have to trade on that market to manipulate the ETP, so that a surveillance-sharing agreement would assist the listing exchange in detecting and deterring misconduct. In light of the similarly high correlation between spot ETH/CME Ether Futures and spot bitcoin/CME Bitcoin Futures, applying the same rationale that the Commission applied to a Spot Bitcoin ETP in the Spot Bitcoin ETP Approval Order
The assumptions from this statement are also true for CME Ether Futures. CME Ether Futures pricing is based on pricing from spot ether markets. The statement from the Spot Bitcoin ETP Approval Order that the surveillance-sharing agreement with the CME “can be reasonably expected to assist in surveilling for fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in the specific context of the [p]roposals” makes clear that the Commission
The Exchange and Sponsor also believe that trading in the Shares would not be the predominant force on prices in the CME Ether Futures market for a number of reasons. First, because the Fund would not hold CME Ether Futures contracts, the only way that it could be the predominant force on prices in that market is through the spot markets that CME Ether Futures contracts use for pricing.
As noted above, the Commission also permits a listing exchange to demonstrate that “other means to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices” are sufficient to justify dispensing with the requisite surveillance-sharing agreement. The Exchange and Sponsor believe that such conditions are present.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is designed to protect investors and the public interest. Over the past several years, U.S. investor exposure to ether through OTC ETH Funds has grown into the tens of billions of dollars and more than a billion dollars of exposure through Ether Futures ETFs. With that growth, so too has grown the quantifiable investor protection issues to U.S. investors through roll costs for Ether Futures ETFs and premium/discount volatility and management fees for OTC ETH Funds. The Exchange believes that the concerns related to the prevention of fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices have been sufficiently addressed to be consistent with the Act and, to the extent that the Commission disagrees with that assertion, also believes that such concerns are now outweighed by these investor protection concerns. As such, the Exchange believes that approving this proposal (and comparable proposals) provides the Commission with the opportunity to allow U.S. investors with access to ether in a regulated and transparent exchange-traded vehicle that would act to limit risk to U.S. investors by: (i) reducing premium and discount volatility; (ii) reducing management fees through meaningful competition; (iii) reducing risks and costs associated with investing in Ether Futures ETFs and operating companies that are imperfect proxies for ether exposure; and (iv) providing an alternative to custodying spot ether.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is designed to prevent fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices in that the Shares will be listed on the Exchange pursuant to the initial and continued listing criteria in Exchange Rule 14.11(e)(4). The Exchange believes that its surveillance procedures are adequate to properly monitor the trading of the Shares on the Exchange during all trading sessions and to deter and detect violations of Exchange rules and the applicable federal securities laws. Trading of the Shares through the Exchange will be subject to the Exchange's surveillance procedures for derivative products, including Commodity-Based Trust Shares. The issuer has represented to the Exchange that it will advise the Exchange of any failure by the Fund or the Shares to comply with the continued listing requirements, and, pursuant to its obligations under section 19(g)(1) of the Exchange Act, the Exchange will surveil for compliance with the continued listing requirements. If the Fund or the Shares are not in compliance with the applicable listing requirements, the Exchange will commence delisting procedures under Exchange Rule 14.12. The Exchange may obtain information regarding trading in the Shares and listed ether derivatives via the ISG, from other exchanges who are members or affiliates of the ISG, or with which the Exchange has entered into a comprehensive surveillance sharing agreement.
In addition to the price transparency of the Index, the Fund will provide information regarding the Fund's ETH holdings as well as additional data regarding the Fund. The website for the Fund, which will be publicly accessible at no charge, will contain the following information: (a) the current NAV per Share daily and the prior business day's NAV and the reported closing price; (b) the BZX Official Closing Price
The IIV will be calculated by using the prior day's closing NAV per Share as a base and updating that value during Regular Trading Hours to reflect changes in the value of the Fund's ether holdings during the trading day, which is based on CME CF Ether-Dollar Real Time Index. The IIV disseminated during Regular Trading Hours should not be viewed as an actual real-time update of the NAV, which will be calculated only once at the end of each trading day. The IIV will be widely disseminated on a per Share basis every 15 seconds during the Exchange's Regular Trading Hours through the facilities of the consolidated tape association (CTA) and Consolidated Quotation System (CQS) high speed lines. In addition, the IIV will be available through on-line information services such as Bloomberg and Reuters.
The price of ether will be made available by one or more major market data vendors, updated at least every 15 seconds during Regular Trading Hours.
As noted above, the Index is calculated daily and aggregates the notional value of ether trading activity across major ether spot trading platforms. Index data, the Index value, and the description of the Index are based on information made publicly available by the Index Provider on its website at
Quotation and last sale information for ether is widely disseminated through a variety of major market data vendors, including Bloomberg and Reuters. Information relating to trading, including price and volume information, in ether is available from major market data vendors and from the trading platforms on which ether are traded. Depth of book information is also available from ether trading platforms. The normal trading hours for ether trading platforms are 24 hours per day, 365 days per year.
Information regarding market price and trading volume of the Shares will be continually available on a real-time basis throughout the day on brokers' computer screens and other electronic services. Information regarding the previous day's closing price and trading volume information for the Shares will be published daily in the financial section of newspapers. Quotation and last-sale information regarding the Shares will be disseminated through the facilities of the CTA.
In sum, the Exchange believes that this proposal is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the Act, that this filing sufficiently demonstrates that the CME Ether Futures market represents a regulated market of significant size, and that on the whole the manipulation concerns previously articulated by the Commission are sufficiently mitigated to the point that they are outweighed by investor protection issues that would be resolved by approving this proposal.
The Exchange believes that the proposal is, in particular, designed to protect investors and the public interest. Premium and discount volatility, high fees, rolling costs, insufficient disclosures, and technical hurdles are putting U.S. investor money at risk on a daily basis that could potentially be eliminated through access to a Spot Ether ETP. As such, the Exchange believes that this proposal acts to limit the risk to U.S. investors that are increasingly seeking exposure to ether by providing direct, 1-for-1 exposure to ether in a regulated, transparent, exchange-traded vehicle, specifically by: (i) reducing premium/discount volatility; (ii) reducing management fees through meaningful competition; (iii) providing an alternative to Ether Futures ETFs which will eliminate roll cost; (iv) reducing risks associated with investing in operating companies that are imperfect proxies for ether exposure; and (v) providing an alternative to custodying spot ether. The investor protection issues for U.S. investors has grown significantly over the last several years, through roll costs for Ether Futures ETFs and premium/discount volatility and management fees for OTC ETH Funds. As discussed throughout, this growth investor protection concerns need to be reevaluated and rebalanced with the prevention of fraudulent and manipulative acts and practices concerns that previous disapproval orders have relied upon. Finally, the Exchange notes that in addition to all of the arguments herein which it believes sufficiently establishes the CME Ether Futures market as a regulated market of significant size, it is logically inconsistent to find that the CME Ether Futures market is a significant market as it relates to the CME Ether Futures market, but not a significant market as it relates to the ether spot market for the numerous reasons laid out above.
For the above reasons, the Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the requirements of section 6(b)(5) of the Act.
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 purpose of the Act. The Exchange notes that the proposed rule change, rather will facilitate the listing and trading of an additional exchange-traded product that will enhance competition among both market participants and listing venues, to the benefit of investors and the marketplace.
The Exchange has neither solicited nor received written comments on the proposed rule change.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
A. by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
B. institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or the “Exchange”) is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”) a proposed rule change to modify the Company Listing Fees as provided under Exchange Rule 14.13. 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 modify the Company Listing Fees under Rule 14.13 to provide for an application fee, entry fee, and annual fee specifically applicable to acquisition companies, as described in Rule 14.2(b) (an “Acquisition Company”). The Exchange also proposes to adopt new fees applicable to a Company that lists additional shares of an existing class of security already listed on the Exchange or an additional class of security, as further described below, (collectively referred to as “Additional Listings”).
Acquisition Companies may be listed as Tier I or Tier II securities on the Exchange, provided that they meet the applicable listing requirements of the applicable tier and the additional requirements set forth in Rule 14.2(b). Currently, Acquisition Companies, among other issuers that are not otherwise identified in Rule 14.13,
First, the Exchange proposes to modify the application fees. The Exchange first proposes to re-letter the existing application fee to Rule 14.13(b)(1)(A) with no substantive change, except as described below. Currently, Acquisition Companies are subject to the application fee of $25,000 or $50,000, as applicable for Tier I or Tier II securities, as provided in Rule 14.13(b)(1). The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 14.13(b)(1)(B), which would provide that an Acquisition Company, under Rule 14.2(b), shall pay to the Exchange a modified application fee of $5,000 regardless of the Tier under which the Acquisition Company lists on the Exchange. The application fee will be $5,000, which must be submitted with the Company's application. If the Company does not list within 12 months of submitting its application, it will be assessed an additional non-refundable $5,000 application fee each 12 months thereafter to keep its application open.
When a Company that lists a substantial period of time after it first submitted its application, the Exchange must complete additional reviews of the application prior to the listing. These additional reviews are substantially equivalent to the review for a newly applying company and include, for example, additional reviews of individuals associated with the company, staff monitoring of disclosures and public filings by the applicant while its application is pending, and often extensive discussions with the applicant. To offset the costs associated with the ongoing monitoring and additional reviews for companies whose application remains open for an extended period, the Exchange proposes to require that an applicant that does not list within 12 months of submitting its application pay an additional $5,000 application fee each subsequent 12-month period. The
Like the proposed application fee, the proposed additional application fee for applications open greater than 12 months would be credited towards the entry fee payable upon listing if the application remains open until such listing.
The Exchange proposes to adopt Rule 14.13(b)(1)(C), which would provide that the fees described in this Rule 14.13(b)(1)(A) and (B) shall not be applicable to Additional Listings, as described in proposed Rule 14.13(b)(2)(D) and further below. Thus, Additional Listings would not be assessed an application fee.
The Exchange also proposes to modify the entry fees. Currently, Acquisition Companies are subject to an entry fee of $50,000 or $100,000 (less the application fee), as applicable for Tier I or Tier II securities, as provided in Rules 14.13(b)(2)(A) and (B). Now, the Exchange proposes to adopt an entry fee specifically applicable to Acquisition Companies under proposed Rule 14.13(b)(2)(C). Proposed Rule 14.13(b)(2)(C) would state that a Company that receives conditional approval to list an Acquisition Company as a Tier I or Tier II security shall pay to the Exchange a fee of $60,000 less the application fee, which covers both the primary equity securities and also warrants and rights, if any. This fee will be assessed on the date the Exchange provides conditional approval. The proposed fee would result in an increased fee of $10,000 for Acquisition Companies that currently list as Tier II securities on the Exchange, and decrease by $40,000 for Acquisition Companies that currently list as Tier I securities on the Exchange.
A Company listed as an Acquisition Company under Rule 14.2(b) (until the Company has satisfied the condition in Rule 14.2(b)(2)
The Exchange also proposes to adopt an entry fee, applicable to all Tier I and Tier II securities listed on the Exchange not otherwise identified in Rule 14.13, for Additional Listings under proposed Rule 14.13(b)(2)(D).
The Exchange proposes to re-letter existing Rules 14.13(b)(2)(C) through (G) to accommodate the addition of proposed Rules 14.13(b)(2)(C) and (D).
The Exchange also proposes to modify the annual fees. Currently, Acquisition Companies are subject to an annual fee of $20,000 or $35,000, as applicable for Tier I or Tier II securities, as provided in Rules 14.13(b)(3)(A) and (B). Now, the Exchange proposes to adopt an annual fee specifically applicable to Acquisition Companies listed as Tier I or Tier II securities on the Exchange under proposed Rule 14.13(b)(3)(C). Proposed Rule 14.13(b)(3)(C) would provide that the issuer of an Acquisition Company listed on the Exchange as a Tier I or Tier II security shall pay to the Exchange an annual fee of $55,000. Therefore, the annual fee would increase by $35,000 for Acquisition Companies currently listed as Tier II securities on the Exchange, and $20,000 for Acquisition Companies currently listed as Tier I securities on the Exchange. The proposed fee would be subject to the provisions of Rule 14.13(b)(3)(D),
Last, the Exchange proposed to adopt Rule 14.13(b)(3)(C), which would provide that the annual fees provided in existing Rules 14.13(b)(3)(A), (B), and (D) would not be applicable to Additional Listings, as described under Rule 14.13(b)(2)(D). Currently, Additional Listings would be subject to the full application and entry fee for Tier I and Tier II Securities, which total $50,000 and $100,000 respectively. Therefore, the proposed annual fee would decrease for all Tier I or Tier II securities that are Additional Listings. Additionally, the Exchange does not propose to charge any annual fee for Additional Listings by Acquisition Companies as the Exchange expects this is unlikely to occur.
The Exchange proposes to re-letter existing Rule 14.13(c)(3)(C) through (H) to accommodate the addition of proposed Rules 14.13(b)(3)(C) and (D). The Exchange also proposes to modify the text of existing Rule 14.13(b)(3)(G) to reference new Rule 14.13(b)(3)(E).
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 Exchange first notes that its corporate listing business operates in a highly competitive market in which Companies can readily list on another national securities exchange if they deem fee levels or any other factor at a particular venue to be insufficient or excessive. The Exchange believes that Exchange Rule 14.13 reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize Companies to list new securities, which the Exchange believes will enhance competition both among Companies, issuers, and listing venues, to the benefit of investors.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable and not unfairly discriminatory to charge Acquisition Companies a lower application fee and lower fee for listing an additional class of security than other operating companies. The proposed application fee for Acquisition Companies is $5,000, which is less than the existing application fee for Tier I and Tier II securities listed on the Exchange, which range from $25,000 to $50,000.
The Exchange acknowledges that the annual fee for Acquisition Companies listed on other exchange listing venues is typically less than the annual fee for operating companies because Acquisition Companies generally require less exchange resources than operating companies. Nonetheless, the Exchange's current annual fee for Tier I and Tier II securities are considerably lower than other competitor listing markets because those fees have not increased since they were adopted in 2011,
The Exchange also believes that the proposal to assess an additional application fee to Acquisition Companies that do not list within 12 months of submitting its application is reasonable because it is designed to recoup a portion of the costs associated with the Exchange having to re-review the Acquisition Company. Further, as described above, all application fees would be credited to the entry fee; thus, for an Acquisition Company that ultimately lists on the Exchange, there would be no change in the collective application fee and entry fee regardless of whether the application was open for greater than 12 months. The Exchange notes that another exchange similarly provides that an additional application fee for Acquisition Companies that do not list within 12 months of submitting its application will be assessed an additional non-refundable application fee each 12 months to keep its application open.
As proposed, the entry fee applicable to an Acquisition Company would decrease for Tier I securities and increase for Tier II securities listed on the Exchange. Specifically, the entry fee
The Exchange believes it is reasonable not unfairly discriminatory to adopt entry fees specifically applicable to Additional Listings for Companies already listed on the Exchange. Under the current fee structure, the listing of additional shares or an additional class of equity security are subject to the application fee and entry fee for a Tier I or Tier II security, as applicable. Now, the Exchange proposes to provide that no application fee will be applicable to Additional Listings, and that the entry fee will be reduced to $10,000. The Exchange believes this proposed change better reflects the value of listing an additional class of security for already listed companies and to better align such value with the Exchange's regulatory resources expended in connection with such applications. In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge only a non-refundable entry fee of $10,000 because the company listing an additional class or additional shares of the same class of security on the Exchange is already subject to Exchange rules, including the applicable corporate governance requirements. Accordingly, the Exchange expects to expend less regulatory resources qualifying an additional class of equity security for listing. The Exchange also notes that other exchanges have similarly adopted separate fees applicable to an additional class of equity security, which are higher than the Exchange's proposed fee.
The Exchange continues to believe that differentiating fees applicable to Acquisition Companies and operating companies from ETPs is reasonable because of the unique and different characteristics of listings ETPs. For example, certain types of ETPs by their nature require multiple listings. The existing fee structure for such listings is designed to encourage issuers of such products to list multiple ETPs on the Exchange at a reduced cost. As such, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and non-discriminatory to assess fees to ETPs in a different manner than Acquisition Companies and operating companies.
Finally, the Exchange believes that the proposed conforming changes to re-letter existing rules and update applicable rule references will maintain the clarity of the Exchange's rulebook, to the benefit of all investors.
Given the foregoing, the Exchange believes the proposed fee amendments are consistent with the Act.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The market for listing services is extremely competitive and listed companies may freely choose alternative venues based on the aggregate fees assessed, and the value provided by each listing.
The proposal changes the application fee, entry fee, and annual fee for Acquisition Companies listed on the Exchange and also changes the application and entry fee applicable to Additional Listings on the Exchange. The Exchange does not believe that these changes will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Specifically, the proposal to assess application fees, entry fees, and annual fees specific to Acquisition Companies listed on the Exchange is reasonable because it provides a tailored fee structure to such companies in a similar manner as other exchanges.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge Acquisition Companies the same entry fee regardless of whether they are listed as a Tier I or Tier II security given that they are treated the same. For example, each receive identical services from the Exchange upon announcing a business combination. The Exchange believes the proposed entry fee strikes a balance between the existing entry fees applicable to Acquisition Companies, and is representative of the Exchange's resources spent in listing such an Acquisition Company on the Exchange.
The Exchange continues to believe that differentiating fees applicable to Acquisition Companies and operating companies from ETPs is reasonable because of the unique and different characteristics of listings ETPs. For example, certain types of ETPs by their nature require multiple listings. The existing fee structure for such listings is designed to encourage issuers of such products to list multiple ETPs on the Exchange at a reduced cost. As such, the Exchange believes it is reasonable and non-discriminatory to assess fees to ETPs in a different manner than Acquisition Companies and operating companies.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposal to adopt entry fees specifically applicable to Additional Listings for Companies already listed on the Exchange will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Under the current fee structure, the listing of additional shares or an additional class of equity security are subject to the application fee and entry fee for a Tier I or Tier II security, as applicable. Now, the Exchange proposes to provide that no application fee will be applicable to Additional Listings, and that the entry fee will be reduced to $10,000. The Exchange believes this proposed change better reflects the value of listing an additional class of security for already listed companies and to better align such value with the Exchange's regulatory resources expended in connection with such applications. In particular, the Exchange believes it is reasonable to charge only a non-refundable entry fee of $10,000 because the company listing an additional class or additional shares of the same class of security on the Exchange is already subject to Exchange rules, including the applicable corporate governance requirements. Accordingly, the Exchange expects to expend less regulatory resources qualifying an
The Exchange believes that the proposed amendments do not encumber competition for listings with other listing venues, which are similarly free to set their fees. Rather, it reflects competition among listing venues and will further enhance competition.
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.
On August 28, 2023, Nasdaq PHLX LLC (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
On September 26, 2023, pursuant to section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
On March 4, 2024, the Exchange withdrew the proposed rule change, as modified by Partial Amendment No. 1 (File No. SR-PHLX-2023-40).
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to establish the NYSE Aggregated Lite (“NYSE Agg Lite”) market data feed. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to establish the NYSE Agg Lite market data feed. The NYSE Agg Lite is a NYSE-only frequency-based depth of book market data feed of the NYSE's limit order book for up to ten (10) price levels on both the bid and offer sides of the order book for securities traded on the Exchange and for which the Exchange reports quotes and trades under the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. NYSE Agg Lite would be a compilation of limit order data that the Exchange would provide to vendors and subscribers. As proposed, the NYSE Agg Lite data feed would be updated no less frequently than once per second. The NYSE Agg Lite would include depth of book order data as well as security status messages. The security status message would inform subscribers of changes in the status of a specific security, such as trading halts, short sale restriction, etc. In addition, the NYSE Agg Lite would also include order imbalance information prior to the opening and closing of trading.
The Exchange proposes to offer NYSE Agg Lite after receiving requests from vendors and subscribers that would like to receive the data described above in an integrated fashion at a pre-defined publication interval, in this case updates no less than once per second. An aggregated data feed may provide greater efficiencies and reduce errors for vendors and subscribers that currently choose to integrate the above data into a single offering after receiving it from the Exchange through existing products and adjust the publication frequency based on a subscriber's needs. The Exchange believes that providing vendors and subscribers with the option to subscribe to a market data product that integrates a subset of data from existing products and where such aggregated data is published at a pre-defined interval, thus lowering bandwidth, infrastructure and operational requirements, would allow vendors and subscribers to choose the best solution for their specific business needs. The Exchange notes that publishing only the top ten price levels on both the bid and offer sides of the order book where such data is communicated to subscribers at a pre-defined interval would reduce the overall volume of messages required to be consumed by subscribers when compared to a full order-by-order data feed or a full depth of book data feed. Providing data in this format and publication frequency would make NYSE Agg Lite more easily consumable by vendors and subscribers, especially for display purposes.
The Exchange proposes to offer NYSE Agg Lite through the Exchange's Liquidity Center Network (“LCN”), a local area network in the Exchange's Mahwah, New Jersey data center that is available to users of the Exchange's co-location services. The Exchange would also offer NYSE Agg Lite through the ICE Global Network (“IGN”), through which all other users and members access the Exchange's trading and execution systems and other proprietary market data products.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)
The Exchange also believes this proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it protects investors and the public interest and promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing investors with new options for receiving market data as requested by market data vendors and subscribers. The proposed rule change would benefit investors by facilitating their prompt access to the frequency-
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 11(A) of the Act
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that NYSE Agg Lite is precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:
Efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.
In addition, NYSE Agg Lite removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing investors with alternative market data and would compete with similar market data products currently offered by the four U.S. equities exchanges operated by Cboe Exchange, Inc.—Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), each of which offers a market data product called BZX Summary Depth, BYX Summary Depth, EDGA Summary Depth and EDGX Summary Depth, respectively (collectively, the “Cboe Summary Depth”).
The Exchange notes that the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's proposed product, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, as well as the continued availability of the Exchange's separate data feeds, ensures that the Exchange is not unreasonably discriminatory because vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives as their individual business cases warrant.
The NYSE Agg Lite market data feed will help to protect a free and open market by providing additional data to the marketplace and by giving investors greater choices. In addition, the proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because the data feed would be available to all vendors and subscribers through both the LCN and IGN.
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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, 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 establish the NYSE Chicago Aggregated Lite (“NYSE Chicago Agg Lite”) market data feed. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to establish the NYSE Chicago Agg Lite market data feed. The NYSE Chicago Agg Lite is a NYSE Chicago-only frequency-based depth of book market data feed of the NYSE Chicago's limit order book for up to ten (10) price levels for securities traded on the Exchange and for which the Exchange reports quotes and trades under the Consolidated Tape Association (“CTA”) Plan or the Nasdaq/UTP Plan. NYSE Chicago Agg Lite would be a compilation of limit order data that the Exchange would provide to vendors and subscribers. As proposed, the NYSE Chicago Agg Lite data feed would be updated no less frequently than once per second. The NYSE Chicago Agg Lite would include depth of book order data as well as security status messages. The security status message would inform subscribers of changes in the status of a specific security, such as trading halts, short sale restriction, etc.
The Exchange proposes to offer NYSE Chicago Agg Lite after receiving requests from vendors and subscribers that would like to receive the data described above in an integrated fashion at a pre-defined publication interval, in this case
The Exchange proposes to offer NYSE Chicago Agg Lite through the Exchange's Liquidity Center Network (“LCN”), a local area network in the Exchange's Mahwah, New Jersey data center that is available to users of the Exchange's co-location services. The Exchange would also offer NYSE Chicago Agg Lite through the ICE Global Network (“IGN”), through which all other users and members access the Exchange's trading and execution systems and other proprietary market data products.
The Exchange will file a separate rule filing to establish fees for NYSE Chicago Agg Lite. The Exchange will announce the implementation date of this proposed rule change by Trader Update, which, subject to the effectiveness of this proposed rule change, will be no later than the second quarter of 2024.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 6(b)
The Exchange also believes this proposal is consistent with section 6(b)(5) of the Act because it protects investors and the public interest and promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing investors with new options for receiving market data as requested by market data vendors and subscribers. The proposed rule change would benefit investors by facilitating their prompt access to the frequency-based depth of book information contained in the NYSE Chicago Agg Lite market data feed.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with section 11(A) of the Act
In adopting Regulation NMS, the Commission granted self-regulatory organizations (“SROs”) and broker dealers increased authority and flexibility to offer new and unique market data to consumers of such data. It was believed that this authority would expand the amount of data available to users and consumers of such data and also spur innovation and competition for the provision of market data. The Exchange believes that NYSE Chicago Agg Lite is precisely the sort of market data product that the Commission envisioned when it adopted Regulation NMS. The Commission concluded that Regulation NMS would itself further the Act's goals of facilitating efficiency and competition:
Efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers who do not need the data beyond the prices, sizes, market center identifications of the NBBO and consolidated last sale information are not required to receive (and pay for) such data. The Commission also believes that efficiency is promoted when broker-dealers may choose to receive (and pay for) additional market data based on their own internal analysis of the need for such data.
In addition, NYSE Chicago Agg Lite removes impediments to and perfects the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system by providing investors with alternative market data and would compete with similar market data products currently offered by the four U.S. equities exchanges operated by Cboe Exchange, Inc.—Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX”), Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (“BYX”), Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (“EDGA”), and Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (“EDGX”), each of which offers a market data product called BZX Summary Depth, BYX Summary Depth, EDGA Summary Depth and EDGX Summary Depth, respectively (collectively, the “Cboe Summary Depth”).
The Exchange notes that the existence of alternatives to the Exchange's proposed product, including real-time consolidated data, free delayed consolidated data, and proprietary data from other sources, as well as the continued availability of the Exchange's separate data feeds, ensures that the Exchange is not unreasonably discriminatory because vendors and subscribers can elect these alternatives as their individual business cases warrant.
The NYSE Chicago Agg Lite market data feed will help to protect a free and open market by providing additional data to the marketplace and by giving investors greater choices. In addition, the proposal would not permit unfair discrimination because the data feed would be available to all vendors and subscribers through both the LCN and IGN.
In accordance with section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
The Exchange has filed the proposed rule change pursuant to section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of 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, 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.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) publishes a list of information collection packages requiring clearance by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in compliance with Public Law 104-13, the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, effective October 1, 1995. This notice includes revisions of OMB-approved information collections, and one new collection for OMB-approval.
SSA is soliciting comments on the accuracy of the agency's burden estimate; the need for the information; its practical utility; ways to enhance its quality, utility, and clarity; and ways to minimize burden on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Mail, email, or fax your comments and recommendations on the information collection(s) to the OMB Desk Officer and SSA Reports Clearance Officer at the following addresses or fax numbers.
(OMB) Office of Management and Budget, Attn: Desk Officer for SSA, Fax: 202-395-6974.
(SSA) Social Security Administration, OLCA, Attn: Reports Clearance Director, Mail Stop 3253 Altmeyer, 6401 Security Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, Fax: 833-410-1631, Email address:
Or you may submit your comments online through
I. The information collection below is pending at SSA. SSA will submit it to OMB within 60 days from the date of this notice. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than May 13, 2024. Individuals can obtain copies of the collection instruments by writing to the above email address.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) is requesting public comments on this information collection. We encourage members of the public to provide their feedback and comments on the following matters outlined in the notice:
a. How can SSA most effectively ask questions related to determining whether or not a respondent is “without fault” in a manner that is minimally burdensome? Specifically, we are soliciting feedback on replacing the free-form response option, “Tell us what you know about why the overpayment may have happened” with a set of structured response options intended to reflect common reasons related to a failure to timely report a change to the agency. SSA is seeking comments on adding the following response options for which the respondent would be able to pick the choice that fits best:
• I did not know that I needed to report the change that SSA says caused the overpayment.
• I did not know about the change that SSA says caused the overpayment.
• I did not believe it was a significant enough change to report.
• I knew that I was supposed to report the change but chose not to report it.
• I thought I reported the change, or I tried to report the change but was unable to.
• I do not believe SSA is correct that there was a change.
• I forgot to report the change.
• I don't know.
• Other (this option would allow for a fill-in text box to include the reason).
b. Currently, Question #2, part 2 of the SSA-632 asks for the reason for requesting an overpayment waiver through a write-in text box. Please comment on other ways for us to request this information.
c. How can SSA revise the SSA-632, associated notice, or agency business processes to most effectively create a minimally burdensome collection of the questions we currently ask on the form?
d. How can SSA revise the form, associated notice, or agency business processes to most effectively minimize the burdensome collection requirements for individuals who have already pursued an appeal in good faith, but still have an overpayment as the result of receiving benefits under the statutory benefits continuation policy?
e. Please provide other suggestions for improving the design or communication on the form or associated notices to reduce burden on respondents.
f. Should SSA provide a mechanism on the form to allow for respondents to jointly request a reconsideration and a waiver on the same form?
g. Are there less burdensome ways SSA can ask respondents about the expenses they incur, or are there alternative ways for us to ask whether or not a claimant uses their income for ordinary and necessary living expenses?
h. Should SSA require documentation for expenses when an individual's alleged expenses are not unusually high?
i. In your experience, are there particular payment rules that, are particularly difficult to comply with or understand, resulting in overpayments?
j. Does SSA's burden estimate of 60 minutes accurately reflect the beginning-to-end time burden associated with this form? As stated in our documentation, the current time burden may include reviewing and understanding relevant notices; reading and understanding instructions; tracking down records and documentation; filling out the form; consulting with any third parties to help navigate form requirements (to include time spent by third-parties separate from the respondent's time spent); and any travel associated with the collection.
Your input on these items is valuable to us as we strive to improve our processes and better serve the public. In addition, we encourage you to comment on any other aspects of this information collection.
SSA established the eCBSV service in response to section 215 of the Economic Growth, Regulatory Relief, and Consumer Protection Act of 2018 (Banking Bill), Public Law 115-174. Permitted entities are able to submit the SSN, name, and DOB of the number holder in connection with a credit transaction, or any circumstances described in Section 604 of the Fair Credit Reporting Act to SSA for verification via an application programming interface. eCBSV allows SSA to verify permitted entities who submit SSN, name, and DOB Matches, or does not match the data contained in SSA's records. After obtaining number holders' consents, a permitted entity submits the names, DOBs, and SSNs of number holders to the eCBSV service. SSA matches the information against our Master File, using SSN, name, and DOB. The eCBSV service responds in real time with a match, or no match indicator (and an indicator if our records show that the number holder died). SSA does not provide specific information on what data elements did not match, nor does SSA provide any SSNs or other identifiable information. The verification does not authenticate the identity of the number holders or conclusively prove the number holders we verify are who they are claiming to be.
Under the eCBSV process, the permitted entities does not submit the number holder's consent forms to SSA. SSA requires each permitted entity to retain a valid consent for each SSN verification request submitted for a period of 5 years. SSA permits the permitted entities to retain the consent in an electronic format, and SSA requires a wet or electronic signature on the consent. Permitted entities may request verification of a number holder's SSN on behalf of a financial institution pursuant to the terms of the Banking Bill, the user agreement between SSA and the PE, and the SSN Holder's consent. The permitted entity ensures the financial institution agrees to the terms in the user agreement to only use the SSN verification for the purpose stated in the consent, and prohibits public entities from further using or disclosing the SSN verification. This relationship is subject to the terms in the user agreement between SSA and the PE.
SSA requires each permitted entity to undergo compliance reviews which are conducted by an SSA approved certified public accountant (CPA). The compliance reviews ensure the permitted entities meet all terms and conditions of the user agreement, including obtaining valid consent from number holders. The permitted entities pays all compliance review costs through the eCBSV fees. In general, SSA requests annual reviews with additional reviews as necessary. The CPA follows review standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and contained in the Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS).
Initially, SSA only allowed 10 permitted entities access to use the service, with an estimated 307,000,000 requests. Now, with the open enrollment, eCBSV is available to all interested permitted entities, as defined in Section 215 of the Banking Bill with an estimated annual 77,000,000 requests. The respondents are permitted entities; members of the public who consent to SSN verifications; and CPAs
The public cost burden depends on the number of permitted entities using the service and the annual transaction volume. SSA based the current tier fee schedule below on 20 participating public entities in fiscal year (FY) 2023 submitting an anticipated annual volume of 65 million transactions. For FY 2024, we are maintaining the current tier structure, based our analysis, which estimated 20 participating public entities with an anticipated annual volume of 52 million. Since our analysis and initial estimate, one permitted entity noted the potential for a significant increase in volume in FY 2024. The total cost for developing and operating the service is $62 million through FY 2023. Of this amount, $37 million remains unrecovered/unreimbursed. The current subscription tier structure and associated fees intend to recover these costs over a four-year period, assuming projected enrollments and transaction volumes meet these projections. SSA uses the fee to allocate for forecasted systems and operational expenses; agency oversight; and overhead necessary to sustain the service.
SSA calculates fees based on forecasted systems and operational expenses, agency oversight, overhead, and Certified Public Accountant audit contract costs.
Section 215(h)(1)(B) of the Banking Bill requires that the Commissioner shall “periodically adjust” the price paid by users to ensure that amounts collected are sufficient to fully offset the costs of administering the eCBSV system. SSA will monitor costs incurred to provide eCBSV services on at least and annual basis, and will revise the tier fee schedule accordingly. SSA will notify permitted entities of the tier fee schedule in effect at the renewal of the eCBSV user agreements; when a permitted entity begins a new 365-day agreement period; and via notice in the
II. SSA submitted the information collections below to OMB for clearance. Your comments regarding these information collections would be most useful if OMB and SSA receive them 30 days from the date of this publication. To be sure we consider your comments, we must receive them no later than April 12, 2024. Individuals can obtain copies of these OMB clearance packages by writing to the
Notice of request for public comment.
The Department of State (the Department) is seeking Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we are requesting comments on this collection from all interested individuals and organizations. The purpose of this notice is to allow 60 days for public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
The Department will accept comments from the public up to May 13, 2024.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
You must include the DS form number (if applicable), information collection title, and the OMB control number in any correspondence.
Direct requests for additional information regarding the collection listed in this notice, including requests for copies of the proposed collection instrument, and supporting documents, to Sharmeen Khan, who may be reached on 202-647-2615 or at
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department to:
• Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department.
• Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used.
• Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected.
• Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Please note that comments submitted in response to this Notice are public record. Before including any detailed personal information, you should be aware that your comments as submitted, including your personal information, will be available for public review.
The Subnational Diplomacy Unit under the Department runs the Reta Jo Lewis Local Diplomat Program, which details a Foreign Service Officer or Civil Service employee to a local office, including a city, state, or county, for a year. The selection of local offices for this program must be competitive to provide a fair opportunity to all local offices that are interested in participating in the program. Therefore, to select local offices to participate in the program, the Subnational Diplomacy Unit must collect applications from local offices interested in the program.
The form will be emailed to local governments. After completion by the local governments, the form will be submitted via Microsoft Forms to the Department.
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by section 7014(b) of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2022 (Div K, Pub. L. 117-103) (FY 2022 SFOAA), and Department of State Delegation of Authority 513, I hereby determine that a significant change in circumstances makes it unlikely that the following funds specifically designated for particular programs or activities by the FY 2022 SFOAA or any other act can be obligated during the original periods of availability of such funds: $45,050,000 in development assistance account; $11,637,500 in the global health programs-USAID account; $11,190,193 in the nonproliferation, anti-terrorism, demining, and related programs account; and $2,128,660 in the peacekeeping operations (PKO) account. This determination shall be published in the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice.
The FAA is considering a proposal to change 4.31 acres of airport land from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use and to authorize the sale of airport property located at Grand Rapids/Itasca County Airport, Grand Rapids, MN. The aforementioned land is not needed for aeronautical use. The subject property is a wooded area located outside of the airport perimeter fence on the west side of Runway 16/34. The proposed use of the property is to be sold to a private company for industrial use development.
Comments must be received on or before April 12, 2024.
All requisite and supporting documentation will be made available for review by appointment at the FAA Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, Jeremy McLeod, Program Manager, 2301 University Dr., Bldg. 23B, Bismarck, ND 58504. Telephone: (701) 323-7380.
Written comments on the Sponsor's request may be submitted using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Jeremy McLeod, Program Manager, Federal Aviation Administration, Dakota-Minnesota Airports District Office, 2301 University Dr., Bldg. 23B, Bismarck, ND 58504. Telephone Number: (701) 323-7380.
In accordance with section 47107(h) of title 49, United States Code, this notice is required to be published in the
The subject property makes up a portion of airport Parcel 45. Parcel 45 is 4.99 acres and was acquired by the airport sponsor on May 5, 1978 with FAA Airport Development Aid Program (ADAP) grant number 6-27-0037-02 funding. A 0.68-acre portion of the parcel is used for the airport perimeter road and fence. The airport will retain this portion of Parcel 45. The remaining 4.31-acre portion of the parcel to be sold is vacant wooded land and does not serve an aeronautical use. The airport plans to sell the land at fair market value to a privately held retail company for industrial use.
The disposition of proceeds from the sale of the airport property will be in accordance with FAA's Policy and Procedures Concerning the Use of Airport Revenue, published in the
This notice announces that the FAA is considering the release of the subject airport property at the Grand Rapids/Itasca County Airport, Grand Rapids, MN, from federal land covenants, subject to a reservation for continuing right of flight as well as restrictions on the released property as required in FAA Order 5190.6B section 22.16. Approval does not constitute a commitment by the FAA to financially assist in the disposal of the subject airport property nor a determination of eligibility for grant-in-aid funding from the FAA.
Commencing at the southeast corner of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter; thence on an assigned bearing of North 01 degrees 20 minutes 08 seconds West, along the east line of said Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter, a distance of 151.91 feet to the point of beginning of the line herein described; thence North 14 degrees 18 minutes 12 seconds West 523.41 feet to the north line of the South Half of the Southeast Quarter of the Northeast Quarter and said line terminating thereat.
Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice; extension of comment period.
FMCSA extends the comment period for its February 16, 2024, notice requesting information from the public, including commercial motor vehicle drivers, to assist the Agency's Truck Leasing Task Force in reviewing such leases to identify terms and conditions that may be unfair to drivers. FMCSA extends the comment period until April 2, 2024.
The comment period for the request for information published
You may submit comments identified by Docket Number FMCSA-2023-0143 using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
•
To avoid duplication, please use only one of these four methods. See the “Confidential Business Information” portion of the
Shannon L. Watson, Senior Advisor to the Associate Administrator for Policy and Deputy Designated Federal Officer, Truck Leasing Task Force (TLTF), Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001; (202) 360-2925;
If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this request for information (RFI) (FMCSA-2023-0143), 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 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
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 RFI contain commercial or financial information that is customarily treated as private, that you actually treat as private, 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 RFI. Submissions containing CBI should be sent to Brian Dahlin, Chief, Regulatory Analysis Division, Office of Policy, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001. Any comments FMCSA receives not specifically designated as CBI will be placed in the public docket.
To view comments, as well as any documents mentioned in this RFI as being available in the docket, go to
DOT posts comments received, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
On February 16, 2024, FMCSA published a notice in the
The Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association (OOIDA) filed a comment to the public docket requesting that the comment period be extended. OOIDA stated:
This will give drivers and other members of the public sufficient time to collect and submit leasing information. We also believe extending the comment period will allow feedback from OOIDA members and other drivers who will be attending the Mid-America Trucking Show that will be held March 21st through 23rd in Louisville, Kentucky.
FMCSA believes it appropriate to extend the March 18, 2024, deadline to provide interested parties additional time to submit responses to the docket. Therefore, FMCSA extends the comment period until April 2, 2024.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on December 20, 2023, and February 29, 2024, the City of San Clemente, California, (the City) and the Southern California Regional Rail Authority (Metrolink) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations
Specifically, the City and Metrolink (Petitioners) jointly seek relief from the requirements of 49 CFR 222.59(a)(1), to continue use of a Pedestrian Audible Warning System (PAWS), which is similar to a wayside horn, when approaching seven highway-rail grade crossings, instead of a locomotive horn. Petitioners also request to extend relief from certain provisions of 49 CFR part 222, appendix E (Paragraphs 4 and 6), to allow a minimum sound level of 80 dB(A) and direction of the PAWS. The seven crossings that are the subject of this request are:
In support of its request, Petitioners submitted maintenance, communication, and malfunction/response plans for the PAWS.
In its February 26, 2024, addendum, Petitioners note their plans to augment the existing fencing system along “the beach trail from Mile Post 203.71 . . . to Mile Post 206.00.” They explain that the plan “is in response to the current deficiency in fencing elevation along certain portions of the trail and is intended to improve the public safety of the area.”
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by May 13, 2024 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on January 23, 2024, and February 13, 2024, Union Pacific Railroad Company (UPRR) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for an extension of a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 232 (Brake System Safety Standards for Freight and Other Non-Passenger Trains and Equipment; End-of-Train Devices). The relevant Docket Number is FRA-2007-28454.
Specifically, UPRR requests to extend its existing waiver in this docket, which provides conditional relief from the requirements for performing the single car air brake test (SCABT) as prescribed in 49 CFR 232.305(b)(2),
In support of its request, UPRR states that the in-train repair “wheel change outs have allowed for a reduced stress state[,] resulting in fewer derailments attributed to broken rails, joint bars, and other track infrastructure deterioration.” UPRR also asserts that there has been a “41% reduction in wheel, axle, and bearing related incidents” on UPRR.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested parties desire an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by May 13, 2024 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), DOT solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Under part 211 of title 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), this document provides the public notice that on February 12, 2024, Strasburg Rail Road Company (SRC) petitioned the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) for a waiver of compliance from certain provisions of the Federal railroad safety regulations contained at 49 CFR part 240 (Qualification and Certification of Locomotive Engineers). FRA assigned the petition Docket Number FRA-2024-0029.
Specifically, SRC requests relief from § 240.201, which requires that only certified persons operate locomotives and trains. The relief would allow noncertified persons to operate a historic locomotive as part of a visitor experience program, under the supervision of qualified personnel. In support of its petition, SRC notes that the relief would only apply to persons participating in the program, and that participants would be 18 years of age or older and under the direct supervision of a certified and qualified locomotive engineer. Further, all movements would take place during daylight hours and at restricted speed on approximately one mile of track, and no public grade crossings will be traversed.
A copy of the petition, as well as any written communications concerning the petition, is available for review online at
Interested parties are invited to participate in these proceedings by submitting written views, data, or comments. FRA does not anticipate scheduling a public hearing in connection with these proceedings since the facts do not appear to warrant a hearing. If any interested party desires an opportunity for oral comment and a public hearing, they should notify FRA, in writing, before the end of the comment period and specify the basis for their request.
All communications concerning these proceedings should identify the appropriate docket number and may be submitted at
Communications received by May 13, 2024 will be considered by FRA before final action is taken. Comments received after that date will be considered if practicable.
Anyone can search the electronic form of any written communications and comments received into any of our dockets by the name of the individual submitting the comment (or signing the document, if submitted on behalf of an association, business, labor union, etc.). Under 5 U.S.C. 553(c), the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) solicits comments from the public to better inform its processes. DOT posts these comments, without edit, including any personal information the commenter provides, to
Issued in Washington, DC.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
On March 22, 2022, PHMSA announced an initiative to convert historical letters of interpretation (LOI) applicable to the Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) that have been issued to specific stakeholders into broadly applicable frequently asked questions (FAQ). On December 9, 2022, PHMSA published the first set of FAQ regarding applicability of the HMR. On August 18, 2023, PHMSA published the second set of FAQ regarding incident reporting. Today's notice contains the third set of FAQ regarding training requirements.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before April 12, 2024. Comments received after that date will be considered to the extent practicable.
You may submit comments identified by the Docket Number PHMSA-2021-0109 by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Arthur Pollack, Standards and Rulemaking Division, 202-366-8553, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
On March 22, 2022, PHMSA
This initiative provides additional value to PHMSA's Online Code of Federal Regulations (oCFR) tool.
The requirements for hazmat training are outlined under Subpart H to Part 172 of the HMR—specifically, §§ 172.700 through 172.704.
• general awareness/familiarization training;
• function-specific training;
• safety training;
• security awareness training; and
• in-depth security training if a security plan is required.
Additionally, § 172.700 requires hazmat employees receive modal-specific training for the individual modes of transportation the employee operates.
This training can be performed by the hazmat employer, by the hazmat employee, or by a contracted training service so long as all the training requirements in Subpart H to Part 172 are met.
• the hazmat employee's name;
• date of the most recently completed training;
• information about the training materials;
• name and address of the trainer; and
• a certification that the hazmat employee has been trained and tested in accordance with the HMR.
Regardless of who performs the training or generates the records, the hazmat employer is ultimately responsible for compliance with the recordkeeping requirements of § 172.704(d).
Although the requirements in § 172.702(d) do not state that a hazmat employee must “pass” a test, a hazmat employee must be trained in accordance with the applicable HMR and may only be certified in those areas in which the hazmat employee can successfully perform their assigned duties. Employees may be tested on the training requirements specified in § 172.704 by any appropriate means.
With the completion of this set of FAQ specific to training requirements, PHMSA will begin consideration for its next set of FAQ based on public input received. As such, PHMSA will continue concurrent work on future FAQ notices and subsequent topics may include FAQ pertaining to classification, hazard communication, hazardous substances, hazardous wastes, modal-specific requirements, or packaging.
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice.
PHMSA is publishing this notice to inform interested parties on how PHMSA evaluates and determines whether a special permit can be considered consistent with the public interest. This notice outlines the criteria PHMSA used to evaluate special permit applications on the basis of public interest.
Don Burger, Standards and Rulemaking Division, 202-366-4314, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590-0001.
PHMSA is responsible for regulations to ensure the safe transport of hazardous materials. The Hazardous Materials Regulations (HMR) have many performance-oriented regulations that provide the regulated community some flexibility in meeting safety requirements. Even so, not every transportation situation can be anticipated and addressed by the current regulations. The hazardous materials community develops new materials, technologies, and innovative ways to move hazardous materials safely. Such innovation strengthens our economy, and some new technologies and operational techniques may enhance safety.
In order to accommodate and encourage continued development and innovation in the safe transport of hazardous materials, PHMSA is authorized to issue variances from the HMR via special permits, which set forth alternative requirements to those currently in the HMR. Special permits provide a mechanism for applying new technologies, promoting increased transportation efficiency and productivity, and ensuring global competitiveness without compromising safety. In addition, special permits enable the hazardous materials industry to integrate new products and technologies into production and the transportation stream safely, quickly, and effectively.
The Department of Transportation (DOT), through PHMSA, issues special permits under the Hazardous Materials Program Procedures (49 CFR part 107, subpart B). By issuing a special permit, PHMSA is in effect waiving requirements of the HMR and often imposing alternative requirements,
The HMR requires that special permits must achieve a level of safety that is at least equal to that required by the regulation from which the special permit is sought; or, if a required safety level does not exist, is consistent with the public interest.
Various stakeholders have inquired about the criteria for evaluating special permits consistent with the public interest, as well as how these special permits are evaluated. PHMSA is publishing this guidance to inform stakeholders and interested parties seeking a special permit in the public interest of the types of information PHMSA requires when it reviews a special permit application, and to provide examples of previous approved
PHMSA guidance—such as this notice—is not substantive rules themselves and does not create legally enforceable rights, assign duties, or impose new obligations not otherwise contained in the existing regulations and standards. Instead, PHMSA guidance is intended as an aid to demonstrate compliance with the relevant regulations. An individual who can demonstrate compliance with PHMSA guidance is likely to demonstrate compliance with the relevant regulations. If a different course of action is taken by an individual, the individual must be able to demonstrate that its conduct is in accordance with the regulations.
In the past, PHMSA has considered a special permit consistent with the public interest if the special permit provides a positive net benefit to the welfare or well-being of the public;
Section 107.105(d)
• Information describing all relevant shipping and incident experience of which the applicant is aware that relates to the application.
• A statement identifying any increased risk to safety or property that may result if the special permit is granted, and a description of the measures to be taken to address that risk.
• Either one of the following:
○ Substantiation, with applicable analyses, data, or test results, (
○ If the regulations do not establish a level of safety, an analysis that identifies each hazard, potential failure mode, and the probability of its occurrence, and how the risks associated with each hazard and failure mode are controlled by the provisions of the prospective permit.
Without the applicant providing information outlined in § 107.105(d), PHMSA may not be able to complete its evaluation of the application as required by § 107.113(f). Further, in providing the above information and analysis, the applicant should demonstrate that the proposed alternative will achieve a level of safety that is consistent with the public interest and will adequately protect against the risks to life and property inherent in the transportation of hazardous materials in commerce.
As discussed above, an applicant seeking a special permit consistent with public interest must demonstrate that their proposed alternative to the HMR will achieve a level of safety that adequately protects against risks to life and property.
A special permit application seeking to show it is consistent with the public interest must include information on how the applicant will minimize any safety risk to the maximum extent practicable. Applicants should include explanations of: (1) the hazardous material and how it is contained; (2) known risks of the hazardous material; (3) mitigation of the risks posed by the hazardous material via packaging, hazard communication, and/or operational controls; and (4) any other relevant factors to support mitigation of any safety risks.
Operational controls to help minimize transportation risks are also important features of permits issued in the public interest. Operational controls are requirements designed to enhance safety and oversight when transporting hazardous materials under special permits. Though special permits may waive some regulatory requirements due to unusual circumstances, operational controls allow permit holders to improve safety through policies, procedures, and communication. Operational controls in special permits have included selecting and training specific personnel; implementing additional equipment inspections and maintenance; limiting transport to certain times, routes, or conditions; using tracking and communication systems; documenting the permitted shipment; and other measures tailored to the situation. Operational controls may also limit the movement of the hazardous material to specific modes of transportation.
Providing detailed supporting documentation is key to supporting PHMSA's decision-making process. PHMSA evaluates all information and data outlined in this notice in reviewing and issuing a special permit application
Finally, PHMSA will consider the length of time that the special permit issued in the public interest should remain in effect. New special permits are limited to a maximum of two years in duration by 49 U.S.C. 5117(a)(2). Emergencies—
This notice serves as guidance for interested parties looking to obtain special permits in the public interest. PHMSA encourages applicants seeking a special permit in the public interest to ensure applications include all necessary information to address the requirements of the HMR as outlined in this notice.
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 continuing information collections, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The IRS is soliciting comments concerning carryover of passive activity losses and credits and at-risk losses to bankruptcy estates of individuals.
Written comments should be received on or before May 13, 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
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 (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, Passive Activity Los Limitations.
Written comments should be received on or before May 13, 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)
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 (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, Acquisition or Abandonment of Secured Property.
Written comments should be received on or before May 13, 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 (IRS), as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites the general public and other Federal agencies to take this
Written comments should be received on or before May 13, 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.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule.
The Federal Communications Commission (the FCC or Commission) adopted a Report and Order in PS Docket No. 18-64, FCC 24-4, on January 25, 2024, and released on January 26, 2024. This document is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order. The Report and Order adopted rules to more precisely route wireless 911 calls and Real-Time Texts (RTT) to Public Safety Answering Points (PSAPs), which can result in faster response times during emergencies. Wireless 911 calls have historically been routed to PSAPs based on the location of the cell tower that handles the call. Sometimes, however, the 911 call is routed to the wrong PSAP because the cell tower is not in the same jurisdiction as the 911 caller. This can happen, for instance, when an emergency call is placed near a county border. These misrouted 911 calls must be transferred from one PSAP to another, which consumes time and resources and can cause confusion and delay in emergency response. The Report and Order requires wireless providers to deploy technology that supports location-based routing, a method that relies on precise information about the location of the wireless caller's device, on their internet Protocol (IP)-based networks and to use location-based routing to route 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 originating on those networks when caller location is accurate and timely. The Report and Order provides six months for nationwide wireless providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and provides 24 months for non-nationwide wireless providers to implement location-based routing of wireless 911 voice calls. The Report and Order provides 24 months for all wireless providers to implement location-based routing for RTT communications to 911.
Rachel Wehr, Attorney Advisor, Policy and Licensing Division, Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, (202) 418-1138,
This document is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order. The full text of the Report and Order is available for public inspection at
The Commission has determined, and the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, concurs, that this rule is major under the Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order to Congress and the Government Accountability Office pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A).
1. This document is a summary of the Commission's Report and Order. In this document, we require Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) providers
2. In December 2022, the Commission adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking proposing to require CMRS providers and covered text providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and texts nationwide.
3. To facilitate the implementation of location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911, we take the following actions:
• We require CMRS providers to deploy location-based routing technology for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 on their internet Protocol (IP)-based
• We require CMRS providers to use location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 when caller location information available to the CMRS provider's network at time of routing is ascertainable within a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 90%. In the absence of these conditions, CMRS providers must use alternative routing methods based on “best available” location information, which may include but is not limited to device-based or tower-based location information.
• We adopt the proposed six-month timeline for nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and provide twenty-four months for non-nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing of wireless 911 voice calls.
• We require CMRS providers within 60 days of the applicable compliance deadlines to certify and submit evidence of compliance with location-based routing requirements. At that time, CMRS providers also must submit one-time live call data reporting on the routing methodologies for calls in live call areas, and they must certify the privacy of location information used for location-based routing.
• We defer consideration of proposals in the notice of proposed rulemaking to require CMRS providers and covered text providers
• We defer consideration of proposals and issues raised in the notice of proposed rulemaking concerning IP-formatted delivery of wireless 911 voice calls, texts, and associated routing information for consideration in the Commission's pending Next Generation 911 (NG911) Transition docket (PS Docket No. 21-479—Facilitating Implementation of Next Generation 911 Services).
4. Legacy Enhanced 911 Routing. When the first 911 call was placed in 1968, 911 service was provided to the public over wireline telephone networks, and wireline providers used the fixed location of the calling telephone to route 911 calls to the nearest PSAP.
5. Wireless 911 Voice Call Misroutes. Technical limitations of legacy E911 routing can result in a CMRS provider routing a wireless 911 voice call to a PSAP other than the one designated by the relevant state or local 911 authority to receive 911 calls from the caller's actual location.
6. When a wireless 911 voice call is misrouted, the answering telecommunicator must transfer the call to the PSAP that has jurisdiction to dispatch aid to the 911 caller's location. This process consumes time and resources for both the transferring PSAP and the receiving PSAP and delays the dispatch of first responders to render aid. Commenters submit anecdotal evidence that a typical misroute introduces a delay of about a minute.
7. Location-Based Routing Notice of Inquiry. In 2018, the Commission released a Notice of Inquiry seeking comment on issues related to misrouted wireless 911 calls, including the feasibility of location-based routing. Historically, generating precise caller location information typically required too much time to be used for 911 call routing. The Commission noted, however, that then-recent advances in location technology suggested it was feasible to pinpoint a wireless 911 voice caller's location quickly enough to support an initial routing determination. The Commission also found that many location-based routing methods were promising. The record received in response to the Notice of Inquiry confirmed the emergence of potential location-based routing solutions but also indicated uncertainty about the capabilities of such solutions at the time.
8. Location-Based Routing Public Notice. In June 2022, the Commission released a Public Notice to refresh the record on location-based routing developments since the Notice of Inquiry.
9. Location-Based Routing Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. On December 22, 2022, the Commission adopted the notice of proposed rulemaking in this proceeding, which proposed rules for CMRS and covered text providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and 911 texts
10. The Commission also proposed that when location information does not meet one or both of these requirements, CMRS providers and covered text providers would be required to route 911 calls and texts based on the best available location information, which could include cell tower coordinates. In addition, to help ensure that public safety jurisdictions transitioning to NG911 could realize the benefits of location-based routing in an efficient and cost-effective manner, the Commission proposed to require CMRS providers and covered text providers to deliver wireless 911 voice calls, texts,
11. Virtually all public safety commenters and some additional commenters support Commission action to require CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls. Multiple public safety commenters and Intrado support the Commission's proposal that CMRS providers implement location-based routing nationwide. Commenters representing wireless interests urge the Commission to allow CMRS providers to implement location-based routing voluntarily or on a PSAP-by-PSAP basis, as opposed to a nationwide mandate. With respect to text-to-911, numerous commenters support requiring covered text providers to implement location-based routing, but some commenters contend that such a requirement would be premature. Citing a lack of technical standards for routing SMS texts to 911, NENA, ATIS, and Southern Linc oppose requiring covered text providers to implement location-based routing for SMS but suggest that the Commission should require location-based routing for IP-based text solutions such as RTT.
12. In response to the Commission's proposed timeliness and accuracy requirements for use of location-based routing, some commenters express support for the proposed requirements,
13. NG911 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. In June 2023, the Commission adopted a notice of proposed rulemaking in PS Docket No. 21-479 to advance the nationwide transition to Next Generation 911 (NG911 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking). In the NG911 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed to require wireline, interconnected Voice over internet Protocol (VoIP), and internet-based Telecommunications Relay Service (TRS) providers to complete all translation and routing to deliver 911 calls, including associated location information, in the requested IP-based format to an Emergency Services IP network (ESInet) or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be answered, upon request of 911 authorities who have certified the capability to accept IP-based 911 communications. This proposal is similar to that proposed for CMRS and covered text providers in the notice of proposed rulemaking in this proceeding.
14. Ongoing Location-Based Routing Deployment. As the Commission noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking, several developments indicate that location-based routing has become a viable methodology for CMRS providers to route wireless 911 voice calls and texts. These developments include studies on misroutes and location-based routing technology and increased deployment of DBH location technologies on consumer handsets.
15. The three nationwide CMRS providers are continuing to deploy location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls on their networks. AT&T completed the rollout of location-based routing on its network in June 2022 and uses location-based routing to deliver wireless 911 voice calls to nearly all PSAPs nationwide, regardless of whether such PSAPs support legacy E911 or are transitioning to NG911.
16. For wireless 911 voice calls, AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon have, to date, implemented their own different thresholds to determine whether device location information arriving with the call is sufficiently precise for routing. According to Intrado, AT&T's location-based routing solution uses a threshold with a radius of 165 meters and 90% confidence, which has enabled AT&T to use location-based routing for over 80% of all wireless 911 voice calls on its network. T-Mobile reports that it has implemented “a location estimate uncertainty threshold for LBR currently set to 300 meters with a confidence level of 90%,” and reports that more than 95% of location estimates available at call routing fall within these metrics.
17. Text Messaging Platforms. Since 2014, all CMRS providers and covered text providers have been required to support delivery of 911 texts to PSAPs that are capable of receiving them. While availability of text-to-911 has increased significantly as more PSAPs become text-capable, the number of 911 texts sent by the public is far smaller than the number of wireless 911 voice calls.
18. SMS is the predominant mobile wireless messaging technology in use for 911 texts today. SMS is not an IP-native format, though IP-enabled networks can deliver SMS traffic. All three nationwide CMRS providers report that they are using location-based routing for at least some SMS texts to 911, but this implementation appears to be distinct from and less extensive than the implementation of location-based routing for 911 voice calls. According to Verizon, “SMS still uses call path, routing and device processing methods that are distinct from VoLTE and RTT calls, with architecture configurations that still resembles second- and third-generation networks in some respects.” AT&T reports that it provides device-based hybrid location for “the majority of text messages” but does not provide specifics.
19. RTT, unlike SMS, is a native IP technology, in which each text character appears on the receiving device at roughly the same time it is typed on the sending device, allowing for a conversational flow of communication. RTT also allows text characters to be sent simultaneously with voice, which allows the PSAP to both see the typed message and hear background noises and potentially the voice of the caller. The Commission's rules require that CMRS providers choosing to implement RTT to and from any PSAP served by their network in lieu of text telephone (TTY) technology must do so in a manner that fully complies with all applicable 911 rules.
20. While SMS is used more frequently than RTT for messaging to 911, CMRS providers are beginning to partner with some PSAPs to implement end-to-end RTT capabilities. T-Mobile reports that it is currently operating NG911 RTT technology at a PSAP in Hood County, Texas. Verizon indicates that it now supports RTT for 911 in Livingston Parish, Louisiana, and Logan County, West Virginia. The record does not indicate the degree to which CMRS providers have implemented location-based routing for RTT communications to 911, but the providers and other industry commenters state that location-based routing for RTT communications to 911 is feasible.
21. We adopt requirements for nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing as proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking for voice calls, with certain modifications. Specifically, we require all CMRS providers to (1) deploy technology that supports location-based routing on their IP-based networks (
22. We require nationwide CMRS providers to comply with these location-based routing requirements for voice calls within six months after the effective date of the final rules. We require non-nationwide CMRS providers to comply with these location-based routing requirements for voice calls within 24 months after the effective date of the final rules in recognition of resource constraints faced by these providers. As discussed below, we adopt these requirements in light of record support that location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls promotes public safety, is technologically feasible at reasonable cost for both nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers, and has been deployed by the three nationwide CMRS providers. We find that these requirements are necessary to extend the demonstrated, life-saving benefits of location-based routing to all wireless 911 callers nationwide.
23. We require all CMRS providers to deploy location-based routing technologies for voice calls across their IP-based networks. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on whether CMRS providers should be required to use location-based routing to deliver 911 calls to all PSAPs served by their networks, or whether the requirement should be triggered by PSAP request or limited to certain categories of PSAPs. We find that requiring CMRS providers to implement this technology across their IP network areas is necessary to ensure that wireless 911 callers receive the demonstrated benefits of improved routing, regardless of the caller's geographic location or CMRS provider.
24. We find that nationwide implementation of location-based routing will reduce 911 call transfers and improve wireless 911 service. As wireless 911 voice calls account for the vast majority of communications to 911, we consider it to be particularly important that these calls are routed to the appropriate PSAP.
25. Further, the public safety community strongly supports requiring CMRS providers to deploy location-based routing on a nationwide basis. Several public safety organizations urge the Commission to require CMRS providers to implement location-based
26. We also find that requiring location-based routing to all PSAPs nationwide supports the Commission's goal to promote parity of wireless 911 service across jurisdictions. NASNA states, and we agree, that “[a]ttempting to create areas of exclusive enhanced location accuracy fosters deployment of disparate levels of service; all those who call or text 911 should benefit from LBR.” NENA points out, and we agree, that “[i]t would be inequitable to restrict the life-saving benefits of location-based routing only to residents of and visitors to the United States with the good fortune of having an emergency in a convenient location.” Commenters also urge the Commission not to limit deployment of this technology to jurisdictions subject to frequent misroutes or to jurisdictions that have deployed NG911 capabilities. Intrado comments that even in low misroute areas, the implementation of location-based routing will result in a significant reduction in misroutes compared to relying exclusively on tower-based routing.
27. Wireless industry commenters oppose a mandatory nationwide approach,
28. Per-PSAP Implementation. We decline to adopt a per-PSAP deployment approach. Contrary to the assertion of industry commenters, the record does not demonstrate that individual PSAPs must take specific technical steps in order to be ready to receive wireless 911 calls routed using location-based routing. The generation of location-based routing information as contemplated in this proceeding occurs entirely within CMRS provider networks prior to call delivery to the PSAP,
29. AT&T's completed rollout of location-based routing on its nationwide network provides additional evidence that location-based routing can be successfully deployed without requiring PSAPs to demonstrate technical readiness. AT&T deployed location-based routing in 2022 on a region-by-region basis and completed its nationwide rollout in less than six months.
30. We also do not agree with commenters' assertions that PSAPs are not ready from an operational perspective to manage changes in call distribution or volume resulting from the implementation of location-based routing on a nationwide basis. T-Mobile asserts that “[m]any emergency authorities want to understand the impact LBR will have on operations, call volume, and workflows before deploying it; they often also want the ability to implement reporting and tracking of call transfers prior to enabling LBR in order to understand and see the effects of the new 911 routing.”
31. CMRS providers' assertions about potential adverse operational impacts to PSAPs are also contradicted by virtually all statements of public safety commenters on the record. Despite industry commenters' preference,
32. We are also not persuaded by commenters who compare implementation of location-based routing to past implementation of the Commission's E911 Phase I and Phase II location requirements
33. Voluntary Implementation. We also decline to permit CMRS providers to deploy location-based routing on a
34. Technological Feasibility. We find that implementing location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls is technologically feasible for nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers. The three nationwide CMRS providers have implemented location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls across or for some part of their networks. CCA, an industry association with membership including non-nationwide CMRS providers, states that “wireless carriers can eventually deploy location-based routing to any PSAP” if provided with adequate time and financial support. iCERT agrees that location-based routing is technologically feasible. NGA 911 also offers support for this conclusion, stating that both Google's Emergency Location Service (ELS) and Apple's Hybridized Emergency Location (HELO) provide a device location estimate, and these mobile operating systems comprise 99.62% of the handset market. NENA states that AT&T's nationwide deployment of location-based routing demonstrates that “transitional location-based routing mechanisms are technically feasible and improve 9-1-1 outcomes, and are in use today.” No commenter argues that implementing location-based routing on CMRS provider networks is technologically infeasible.
35. Calls originating on IP-based networks. In light of the technical obstacles and ongoing retirement of legacy networks, we apply our location-based routing requirements to IP-based networks but we decline to require location-based routing for 911 calls originating on circuit-switched, time-division multiplex (TDM) networks. This is consistent with the Commission's proposal in the notice of proposed rulemaking and is supported by commenters. For example, the Rural Wireless Association (RWA) agrees that requiring location-based routing for 911 calls originating on TDM networks would be unduly burdensome. CCA asserts that “TDM networks can lack the speed and capacity necessary to transmit and evaluate confidence and uncertainty information and query the location server for PSAP routing instructions prior to the time for a call to commence.” ATIS assumes for purposes of
36. PSAP Boundary Maps. Some commenters contend that location-based routing requirements should be conditioned on 911 authorities providing updated maps or shapefiles of PSAP boundaries to CMRS providers. We conclude that such a condition is unnecessary. We recognize that accurately mapping PSAP jurisdictional boundaries is important to the accurate routing of 911 calls. However, the record demonstrates that CMRS providers and the third-party vendors they use to route 911 calls already have maps and shapefile records of PSAP boundaries generated to support earlier E911 deployments and upgrades,
37. The record indicates that CMRS providers and their vendors can use existing PSAP boundary information to support location-based routing to the same extent that such information has supported tower-based routing. The purpose of this information is to associate a specified location—whether it is the caller's location or the tower location—with the jurisdiction served by a particular PSAP, and CMRS providers are already using this information to support their implementation of location-based routing. If PSAP boundary maps are not updated to reflect current jurisdictional boundaries, it is possible that some calls originated near those boundaries could be misrouted even when location-based routing is used. However, the overall frequency of misroutes is still likely to be lower than with tower-based location because tower-based location routes all calls in a cell sector to the same PSAP regardless of the jurisdiction where the caller is located. For example, GCI states that “existing shapefiles could likely be used to route calls using more precise on-device location” information on its network, although the importance of updated maps may be affected in some locations by factors such as population density near the PSAP boundary area, the number of PSAPs served, and the density of cell sites. BRETSA comments that the record does not indicate whether the provider of the PSAP boundary maps AT&T is relying on “could and would also provide them to non-national providers and on what terms.” As noted above, we conclude
38. While we do not require PSAPs to provide updated shapefiles as a prerequisite to location-based routing, we recognize that location-based routing is most effective when service providers use up-to-date shapefiles that precisely and accurately identify jurisdictional boundaries for routing purposes. In addition, we recognize that 911 authorities and PSAPs are the most authoritative source for current jurisdictional boundary information. Therefore, we encourage CMRS providers and their third-party vendors to work with 911 authorities and PSAPs to ensure that location-based routing decisions on CMRS provider networks are based on shapefiles that accurately reflect current boundaries. NENA suggests establishment of an “authoritative database for PSAP boundary information” and states that with sufficient funding and appropriate governance, this tool could be expanded to serve as the industry's authoritative reference for location-based routing purposes. We encourage 911 authorities, relevant industry groups, and CMRS providers to consider further whether such a database is needed, what steps to take, and what parties should take them.
39. NG911 Geospatial Routing. NASNA and the Texas 9-1-1 Entities suggest that as jurisdictions transition to NG911, location-based routing by CMRS providers may not be necessary and could cause delay in call routing by NG911-capable jurisdictions that will use ESInets and geospatial routing to route calls to individual PSAPs.
40. First, while many states have already made significant commitments to implementing NG911, the NG911 transition remains ongoing, and there are no fully enabled NG911 systems yet operating. As COPUC notes, “most 911 call delivery networks do not have the ability to provide geospatial routing at this time and it is unknown when such technology will be universally deployed. Requiring CMRS providers to deploy LBR in the meantime is essential . . . .”
41. Second, the provision of location-based routing information by CMRS providers will remain essential in the NG911 environment because NG911 systems will need this information to perform the additional geospatial routing functions necessary to direct 911 calls to the correct PSAP behind the ESInet.
42. Overview. We require nationwide CMRS providers to comply with the location-based routing requirements within six months after the effective date of the final rules, as proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. We require non-nationwide CMRS providers to comply with the location-based routing requirements within 24 months after the effective date of the final rules, a time frame which is six months longer than the eighteen months proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. We also permit a PSAP and a CMRS or covered text provider to set, by mutual consent, alternative deadlines to implement location-based routing in the PSAP's jurisdiction that are different from those otherwise established by the rules.
43. Nationwide CMRS Providers. We require nationwide CMRS providers to comply with the location-based routing requirements within six months after the effective date of the final rules, as proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. NENA, COPUC, NASNA, DISA, and iCERT support the proposed six-month timeline for nationwide CMRS providers, and no commenter indicates that it would be infeasible or burdensome for nationwide CMRS providers to complete the implementation of location-based routing within six months. The three nationwide CMRS providers have already deployed or are actively working toward deploying location-based routing capabilities on their networks, indicating that they have made substantial progress in implementing this technology at the network level.
44. The nationwide CMRS providers do not argue for an implementation timeline that is longer than six months from the effective date of the rules. Instead, T-Mobile, AT&T, Verizon, and CTIA support a six-month timeline for nationwide providers conditioned on each PSAP requesting location-based routing and demonstrating technical and operational readiness. As discussed above, we have determined that a per-PSAP request mechanism would delay the critical benefits of a nationwide deployment of location-based routing and is not a necessary component to ensure PSAP operational continuity during the transition. Industry commenters' arguments nevertheless indicate that nationwide providers are capable, from both a technical and cost perspective, of deploying location-based routing within a six month timeframe. Indeed, if the Commission were to adopt a per-PSAP request mechanism and all or virtually all PSAPs opted in immediately, the nationwide CMRS providers would effectively be required to deploy location-based routing nationwide within six months. Finally, we accord little weight to AT&T's request to condition CMRS provider compliance timelines on PSAP requests, as AT&T deployed location-based routing on a nationwide basis and states that it “was able to deploy location-based routing to virtually all PSAPs within a six-month timeframe,” with few exceptions.
45. Some commenters point out that the nationwide CMRS providers had several years to plan and carry out their voluntary implementation of location-based routing. However, we disagree that this argues in favor of allowing the nationwide providers more than six months to complete nationwide implementation. Location-based routing technology is no longer nascent, unknown to PSAPs, or unproven. Use of location-based routing has expanded significantly since 2020, when T-Mobile first deployed it, technical standards now exist for its implementation, all three nationwide carriers have deployed it on their networks, and public safety is aware of and eager for this improved routing technology. Given the extent of this progress, we believe that six months is more than adequate for nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing nationwide. We therefore find that six months from the effective date of the rules provides adequate time for these providers to complete the implementation on their networks. NENA, COPUC, NASNA, DISA, and iCERT support the proposed six-month timeline for nationwide CMRS providers, and no commenter indicates that it would be infeasible or burdensome for nationwide CMRS providers to complete the implementation of location-based routing within six months.
46. APCO, Adams County et al., and Fenwick support a timeline shorter than six months for nationwide providers to deploy location-based routing. We decline to adopt a shorter mandatory timeline, as it is unclear whether it is feasible for all three nationwide CMRS providers to complete their deployment of location-based routing in fewer than six months. However, nationwide CMRS providers may deploy location-based routing voluntarily prior to the compliance deadline.
47. Non-Nationwide CMRS Providers. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission proposed an 18-month timeline for non-nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing.
48. The Commission has previously recognized that non-nationwide CMRS providers can face obstacles that warrant additional time for compliance beyond the time afforded to nationwide CMRS providers during technology transitions. Smaller CMRS providers may have difficulty obtaining necessary commitments from device makers, technology vendors, and software service providers to implement location-based routing within a time frame that would be feasible for nationwide CMRS providers. We therefore adopt a timeline of twenty-four months (two years) from the effective date of the rules for non-nationwide CMRS providers to deploy and begin using location-based routing. This timeline provides an additional 18 months beyond the deadline applicable to nationwide CMRS providers. We adopt this extended timeline in recognition of the obstacles that non-nationwide CMRS providers may encounter in deploying location-based routing on their networks. We also anticipate that the additional time will assist non-nationwide CMRS providers in absorbing capital costs. It is consistent with past Commission decisions to permit non-nationwide CMRS providers additional time to
49. We decline to extend the timeline for compliance for non-nationwide CMRS providers to thirty-six months or four years, as advocated by RWA and CCA, respectively. RWA argues that small non-nationwide CMRS providers should have 36 months to comply with location-based routing requirements because they are simultaneously focusing “substantial time and attention” on replacing network equipment under the Secure and Trusted Communications Networks Reimbursement Program (Reimbursement Program), which they assert takes “top priority over regulatory compliance unrelated to national security.” We see no basis for extending the 24-month location-based routing timeline for non-nationwide CMRS providers based on their concurrent obligations under the Reimbursement Program. Protecting national security and ensuring effective 911 emergency response are both important regulatory obligations that all CMRS providers must meet. We reject the view that one takes priority over the other. In addition, RWA has failed to show how the timeline for the Reimbursement Program would conflict with non-nationwide provider implementation of location-based routing when Reimbursement Program removal, replacement, and disposal deadlines are determined on an application-specific basis
50. RWA also argues that location-based routing should only be required “to the extent that there is federal financial support afforded to small providers for the cost of compliance and additional time afforded for compliance beyond that proposed in the NPRM.” The Commission has never conditioned CMRS providers' compliance with 911 obligations on the receipt of Federal funding and we decline to do so. Further, the record does not provide compelling evidence that such funding is necessary. RWA fails to provide any specific estimates as to the actual cost of compliance for its members or to otherwise document a need for Federal financial support.
51. CCA argues that a four-year timeline is needed to account for “levels of support the nation's smaller wireless carriers typically receive from device makers, technology vendors, and software service providers and with the continued, incremental progress of PSAP systems in all areas of the country to support the location-based routing of emergency communications.” However, CCA has not documented the need for a four-year timeline as opposed to twenty-four months to address the specific obstacles faced by these providers. Once nationwide CMRS providers complete their six-month deployment obligation, non-nationwide providers will have 18 months to engage with device makers, vendors, and consultants. In addition, as noted above, the timeline is not dependent on PSAPs making “incremental progress” to support location-based routing because PSAPs do not need to take any specific technical steps to be ready to receive location-based routed calls.
52. CCA and RWA also argue that non-nationwide CMRS providers should be afforded a four-year timeline because “AT&T required four years to deploy location-based routing.” We disagree. First, AT&T states that it was able to deploy location-based routing to virtually all PSAPs within six months, not four years as asserted by CCA and RWA.
53. CCA also argues that non-nationwide CMRS providers need longer timelines to ensure network reliability and quality of service before undertaking network-wide location-based routing implementation. Again, CCA fails to provide specific examples of how non-nationwide CMRS providers' network reliability and quality of service would be compromised by implementing location-based routing within a 24-month timeline. CCA also asserts that non-nationwide CMRS providers may use “different LTE and 5G-NR network specifications” than the nationwide providers and that it will be challenging for non-nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing given the “array of potentially viable standards any one of which might, over time, fail to achieve scale and fall behind the other standards in features, support, and adoption.” We believe a 24-month timeline is sufficient to address these issues. As BRETSA notes, non-nationwide CMRS providers have not provided specific vendor estimates as to the actual cost to implement location-based routing. We agree with BRETSA that nationwide CMRS providers have provided a path for implementing location-based routing, and there is no reason to delay implementation by non-nationwide CMRS providers beyond the two years afforded. We conclude that the considerable benefits of improved 911 routing should extend to all callers, including subscribers to non-nationwide CMRS providers' services, and that delaying improved 911 routing by more than 24 months would be inequitable for these subscribers.
54. Some entities representing non-nationwide CMRS providers argue that location-based routing will provide minimal improvement in the areas which their members serve, and therefore that the Commission either should not require location-based routing or should further delay compliance with location-based routing rules for non-nationwide CMRS providers. CCA asserts that “location-based routing may not provide any meaningful improvement over the status quo at the cost of dangerously longer call set up times” for smaller CMRS providers that tend to serve less densely populated areas.
55. Modification of Deadlines by Agreement. We recognize that there may be some narrow scenarios in which individual PSAPs need additional time to facilitate location-based routing.
56. We require nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers to deploy and use location-based routing for RTT communications to 911 within 24 months from the effective date of the final rules adopted. This is a modification of the rules proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking, which would have required CMRS providers and all other covered text providers to deploy and use location-based routing for all 911 texts within 18 months.
57. Location-Based Routing for RTT. We find that it is technologically feasible for CMRS providers to enable location-based routing for RTT communications. Because RTT is an IP-native service, RTT communications are processed on IP-based networks
58. Compliance Deadlines for Location-Based Routing for RTT. We require CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for RTT within 24 months after the effective date of the final rules on location-based routing. This timeline is six months longer than the eighteen-month period the Commission proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking for all covered text providers to route all texts to 911. Most of the comments received on timelines address 911 texts in general, without specifically addressing issues related to RTT implementation in particular.
59. We conclude that a timeline of 24 months after the effective date of the rules is technically feasible for CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for RTT. We also believe that 24 months will provide sufficient time for both nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for RTT. We decline to adopt a shorter timeline for nationwide CMRS providers and instead opt, consistent with the notice of proposed rulemaking, to apply the same timetable to all providers for implementation of location-based routing for RTT communications. Unlike for 911 voice calls, the extent to which nationwide CMRS providers have implemented location-based routing for RTT is not clear, though we note that T-Mobile and Verizon explicitly support this step. In addition, few PSAPs have developed the capability to receive end-to-end RTT communications.
60. Location-based routing for SMS. Some public safety commenters urge the Commission to require location-based routing for all texts to 911, including SMS, so that improved text routing is available to individuals who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have speech related disabilities, and to people in situations where the sound of a voice call would place them in peril.
61. In particular, commenters note that enabling location-based routing for SMS would require updates to the relevant technical standard, ATIS/TIA J-STD-110.
62. We recognize that the three nationwide CMRS providers are using non-standardized location-based routing techniques to route some SMS texts to 911 today.
63. We decline to adopt commenters' alternative proposal to require CMRS providers to route SMS text messages using “best available” location information. Instead of a tiered system, in which CMRS providers would use precise location information within a radius of 165 meters at a 90% confidence level and otherwise default to best available location information, these commenters suggest a requirement to route SMS text messages based on best available location information (
64. Under the Commission's existing text-to-911 rules, “covered text providers must obtain location information sufficient to route text messages to the same PSAP to which a 911 voice call would be routed, unless the responsible local or state entity designates a different PSAP to receive 911 text messages . . . .”
65. Location-based routing for other text-messaging platforms. We decline to consider location-based routing for other types of text-messaging platforms, such as Multimedia Messaging Service
66. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission proposed to define “location-based routing” as routing based on the location of the calling device rather than the location of network elements such as cell site or sector. The Commission also proposed a definition of “device-based location information” and sought comment on whether the definition adequately encompasses current and future location technologies. We adopt these definitions as proposed and find that they will add clarity to the rules while remaining flexible and allowing for the future evolution of new technologies. We defer consideration of the proposed definitions of other terms relating to IP delivery for NG911 networks to the separate NG911 transition proceeding in PS Docket No. 21-479.
67. Location-Based Routing. The notice of proposed rulemaking proposed to define “location-based routing” as the use of information on the location of a device, including but not limited to device-based location information, to deliver 911 calls and texts to point(s) designated by the authorized local or state entity to receive wireless 911 calls and texts, such as an Emergency Services internet Protocol Network (ESInet) or PSAP, or to an appropriate local emergency authority. Most commenters addressing the issue, including NASNA, NENA, COPUC, and Alaska Telecom, support the proposed definition.
68. APCO and AT&T suggest that the definition avoid reference to “device-based location information” or to ESInets. APCO states that it does not disagree with the assumption that ESInets may be a potential delivery point for 911 calls, but contends that “a simpler approach that does not reference ESInets could avoid unintentional limitations.”
69. We adopt the proposed definition in order to provide guidance to regulated entities on how to comply with our location-based routing rules. This definition of location-based routing does not extend to tower-based routing methodologies. We disagree with APCO that referring to ESInets in the rules as an illustrative example could unintentionally limit the location-based routing definition. APCO objects to referencing ESInets in the definition because “ESInets may or may not be capable of performing location-based routing.” However, the term is used in the definition merely to identify ESInets as a potential delivery point for 911 voice calls and RTT communications, without any reference to the technical capabilities of ESInets. Including ESInets as an illustrative example clarifies that providers can use location-based routing to deliver 911 calls to ESInets, without precluding or limiting use of other network architectures and end points. We similarly disagree with the view that use of the term “device-based location information” in the definition is too limiting. Again, the term is included as an illustrative example rather than a technological restriction. Thus, location technologies that do not use device-based location information may also fall within the scope of the location-based routing definition.
70. Device-Based Location Information. The notice of proposed rulemaking proposed to define “device-based location information” as “[i]nformation regarding the location of a device used to call or text 911 generated all or in part from on-device sensors and data sources.” The Commission noted that this term is used in the existing rule on delivery of 911 text messages and that the proposed definition would also apply to that rule. We conclude that this definition of “device-based location information” provides useful guidance to regulated entities for compliance with the location-based routing rules, while remaining flexible enough to account for future technological development. COPUC supports the definition proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking. Several other commenters urge the Commission to ensure that the definition is flexible enough to encompass current and future technologies.
71. We also decline to adopt several suggestions from the record to modify the definition of “device-based location information.” AT&T supports “a definition of `device-based location information' that is tied to timeliness and accuracy metrics . . . .” However, the “device-based location information” definition is intended to describe a mechanism for deriving location
72. We require CMRS providers to use location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 when the location information available to the CMRS provider's network at time of routing is ascertainable within a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 90%. We anticipate that a substantial percentage of wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 will route on location information meeting the accuracy and timeliness threshold under the rules adopted. If location information meeting this threshold is not available at the time of routing, we require CMRS providers to use the “best available” location information for routing wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911. Such “best available” location information may include but is not limited to device-based location information that does not meet the accuracy threshold, tower-based location information (
73. As noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking, location-based routing requires information about the caller's location to be available quickly enough to enable the call to be routed without delaying the normal call set-up process. We adopt the Commission's proposal from the notice of proposed rulemaking to require the use of location-based routing only if caller location information is available to the CMRS provider network at the time that the CMRS provider would otherwise route the call.
74. The record indicates that currently available technology is routinely capable of delivering location information to CMRS provider networks for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 in time for routing without delay.
75. Some commenters suggest that the Commission should require CMRS providers to route 911 calls within five seconds to “prevent a CMRS provider from holding onto a call for eight to ten seconds or even longer waiting for a location fix.”
76. We also decline to specify, as suggested by DISA, that the location information used for routing be determined “at origination (setup) of [a] voice call.” While we expect that location for most calls will be determined at origination, DISA's proposal could inadvertently be too restrictive, if location were to arrive after the setup of a voice call but before routing. We believe it is sufficient to require only that location information be available at the time of call routing, regardless of when the location is determined.
77. NGA 911 asserts that a timeliness requirement “appears to leave a big gap in the implementation because a carrier may always be able to claim the information was not available at time of call routing.” The record indicates, however, that CMRS providers are already deploying technology that routinely provides the required location information at the time of call routing with no delay. For example, Intrado states that in AT&T's network, location information meeting the threshold is available in time to route wireless 911 voice calls 80% of the time, and that routing on the network “requires no call delay.” We intend to monitor the deployment and use of location-based routing on CMRS provider networks with reporting requirements discussed herein. Should we learn that some CMRS providers are not taking full advantage of available technology that provides location-based routing information at the time of the call, we will consider whether additional measures are needed.
78. Turning to the required accuracy threshold for location-based routing, we adopt the requirement that CMRS providers use location-based routing to route wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 if the location information available at the time of routing identifies the horizontal location of the device within a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 90%. This requirement is consistent with the requirement the Commission proposed in the notice of proposed rulemaking.
79. We adopt the 165-meter threshold with a confidence level of at least 90% in light of the demonstrated efficacy of location-based routing using such a threshold and because this threshold provides enough flexibility to be compatible with nationwide CMRS providers' existing implementations of location-based routing. We believe that this location accuracy threshold will substantially reduce the number of misroutes associated with legacy E911 routing. AT&T has applied a location accuracy threshold with a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of 90% in its own network. Intrado states that location information meeting this location accuracy threshold is available to AT&T's network to route calls 80% of the time, and most calls route on information that identifies the location of the device within 50 meters. As a result, AT&T's solution “provid[es] a more optimal route than sector-based routing for approximately 10% of all wireless 911 calls” and “[t]herefore, 10% of calls will be getting to the correct PSAP on the first try and will not require transfers from the neighboring PSAP.”
80. We agree with public safety entities and Intrado that it is imperative that we set an accuracy threshold that is realistic in light of existing technology while also providing room for future technological improvement.
81. Some wireless industry commenters oppose the proposed location accuracy threshold and claim that additional flexibility is needed for providers to set individualized thresholds.
82. We conclude that a mandatory threshold is necessary. The accuracy threshold we set ensures that all CMRS providers will use location-based routing nationwide for 911 calls and RTT communications to 911 when location information at the time of routing meets a high accuracy standard. We also disagree that there is a need to wait for the development of best practices, as the location-based routing rules we adopt require CMRS providers to use this methodology when the location information available to the network is highly accurate, and further permit CMRS providers to use location-based routing methodologies in additional scenarios. We observe that the nationwide CMRS providers have all completed or are currently implementing location-based routing on their IP-based networks, and all use location-based routing to route wireless 911 voice calls when available location meets this mandatory threshold for
83. While we require CMRS providers to use location-based routing when available location information is within a 165-meter radius at a standardized 90% confidence level, we emphasize that CMRS providers may also use location-based routing when location information available at time of routing is less precise than the accuracy threshold we adopt. To this extent, we agree with Verizon that CMRS providers should have flexibility to identify “provider-optimized threshold range[s] to accommodate individual service providers' vendor capabilities and user device capabilities.” We therefore provide flexibility to providers to set their own thresholds for use of location-based routing at a radius exceeding 165 meters at a 90% confidence level. While AT&T uses the 165-meter accuracy threshold, Verizon and T-Mobile have implemented accuracy thresholds of 200 meters and 300 meters, respectively, with a standardized 90% confidence level.
84. We confirm that the location accuracy threshold used for location-based routing of a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 90% would apply equally to both estimated civic address and coordinate-based location. We agree with NENA that a CMRS provider may have access to an estimated civic address for a calling device that may be used for location-based routing.
85. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission proposed that when location information does not meet one or both thresholds for accuracy and timeliness under our rules, CMRS and covered text providers would be required to route wireless 911 voice calls and texts to 911 based on the best location information available at the time the call is routed, which may include cell tower coordinates. We adopt this requirement as proposed for CMRS providers' routing of wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911. We find that this approach allows flexibility for CMRS providers to determine the best available location information for routing when the available location information does not meet the thresholds for timeliness and accuracy.
86. Commenters generally support a flexible fallback approach to routing of calls and texts that do not meet the timeliness and accuracy thresholds for location-based routing.
87. Some commenters argue that CMRS providers should be required to use tower-based routing when the device-based location information available to the network at the time of routing exceeds the threshold,
88. We make minor modifications to the rule to clarify that the “best available location information” to the network at time of routing may take several forms. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the proposed rule stated that best available location information “
89. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on whether to require validation of location information for wireless 911 voice calls and texts to 911 for purposes of location-based routing and, if so, what validation steps CMRS and covered text providers should be required to take. Some commenters support validation, citing concerns that 911 calls can be spoofed or purposefully misrouted for swatting incidents. However, AT&T states that in its experience, invalid location under location-based routing is “extremely rare.” BRETSA contends that requiring validation would be counterproductive because “[v]alidating caller/device locations against cell-site (Phase I) location would appear to defeat the purpose of device-based LBR.”
90. We decline to implement a validation requirement for the location information used by CMRS providers for routing at this time, as validation protocols are still evolving.
91. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission proposed requiring CMRS and covered text providers to deliver 911 calls, texts, and associated routing information in IP format upon request of 911 authorities who have established the capability to accept NG911-compatible IP-based 911 communications. In the subsequent NG911 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, the Commission proposed similar requirements for wireline, interconnected VoIP, and internet-based TRS providers. Several commenters express support for addressing IP delivery requirements for CMRS and covered text providers as part of a consolidated NG911 proceeding.
92. We agree that consolidating similar issues and aligning requirements for NG911 services across different types of originating service providers will result in more consistent rules and avoid confusion among stakeholders. Accordingly, we defer consideration of IP delivery for CMRS and covered text providers, including all associated proposals and issues raised in the notice of proposed rulemaking, to the NG911 transition proceeding, PS Docket No. 21-479. We acknowledge the comments in the record of this proceeding regarding the Commission's proposals on this issue, and we will address those comments in the NG911 proceeding.
93. Certification and Reporting Requirements. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission sought comment on whether it should implement any new data collections to assist in monitoring compliance with the proposed location-based routing rules. The Commission also sought comment on what information providers should include and how frequently they should be required to report. In addition, the Commission asked whether it should require providers to certify that they are in compliance with requirements for location-based routing.
94. NASNA and COPUC support an information collection to assess compliance and implementation of location-based routing. To help the Commission monitor compliance with the location-based routing requirements we adopt, we adopt certain one-time certification and reporting requirements. Specifically, we require that within sixty days after CMRS providers' respective compliance deadlines, they must certify that they are in compliance with the location-based routing requirements applicable to them. As part of the certification, CMRS providers must substantiate compliance by identifying specific network architecture, systems, location validation,
95. CTIA requests that we establish a “presumption of confidentiality from disclosure of detailed network information” that is required to be included in the certifications outlined in the Report and Order. In support of its request, CTIA states that “wireless providers customarily treat network information as confidential for competitive and security reasons” and cites to a proceeding in which the Commission concluded that outage reports should be routinely treated as confidential information and are presumptively protected from public disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act. Based on the current state of the record, we decline to establish a presumption of confidentiality for the one-time certification and reporting requirements adopted in the Report and Order. CMRS providers may request confidential treatment under the Commission's existing confidentiality rules
96. CTIA requests that the Commission permit providers to submit certifications in the public docket “while separately allowing providers to submit the required network information and live call data directly to Commission staff.” We direct the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau to issue a Public Notice prior to the deadline for nationwide CMRS providers to file compliance certifications and live call data. Such a Public Notice will include necessary instructions for CMRS providers to file certifications and reports in compliance with the requirements adopted.
97. CMRS providers must file the required certifications and live call data within 60 days after the compliance deadlines applicable to them under the location-based routing rules. This means that for voice calls to 911, a nationwide CMRS provider must file its certification and live call data within 60 days after the six-month deadline for deploying location-based routing technology on its IP-based networks, and a non-nationwide CMRS provider must file its certification and live call within 60 days after the 24-month deadline for deploying location-based routing technology on its IP-based networks. In addition, all CMRS providers that have implemented the capability for RTT communications to 911 must file a certification within 60 days after the 24-month deadline for deploying a technology that supports location-based routing for RTT communications. We do not require live call data reporting for RTT communications to 911.
98. Under the one-time reporting requirement for live 911 calls, CMRS providers must collect and report on (1) the number and percentage of wireless 911 voice calls routed with device-based location information that meets the accuracy threshold we adopt (
99. We believe that these limited data collections strike an appropriate balance between the public safety community's interest in greater transparency with respect to compliance and our goal of limiting the burden of responding to mandatory information collections, particularly for small entities. These limited information collections will promote transparency by ensuring that the public has a clear understanding of timelines for providers' implementations of location-based routing technology and the level of compliance with location-based routing rules. Moreover, they will promote accountability by requiring CMRS providers to show steps they are taking to ensure that wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 are routed to the appropriate PSAP.
100.
101. Privacy and Security. The Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) expresses concern about potential misuse of emergency location data and urges the Commission to clarify that the privacy and security requirements for dispatchable location and z-axis location data also apply to location-based routing data.
102. We agree that it is imperative for service providers to ensure the privacy and security of location-based routing information, and we adopt a rule clarifying that the Commission's existing rules on the privacy and security of dispatchable location and z-axis information apply to information used for location-based routing. In particular, we require CMRS providers to certify that neither they nor any third party they rely on to obtain location information or associated data used for compliance with the location-based routing requirements will use such information or associated data for any non-911 purpose, except with prior express consent or as otherwise required by law. The certification also must state that the CMRS providers and any third parties they rely on to obtain location information or associated data used for compliance with the location-based routing requirements have implemented measures sufficient to safeguard the privacy and security of such information.
103. EPIC also asks the Commission to clarify how its privacy and security rules, including those governing using, disclosing, and permitting access to Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI), apply to device-based location data.
104. We decline EPIC's request to clarify the definition of “911 purposes.” We believe that the Commission's existing privacy protections for 911 location data are sufficiently clear, and that determining whether a particular use of location data is for “911 purposes” is likely to be a fact-specific inquiry best addressed on a case-by-case basis as the need arises. We decline to address the issue of law enforcement's ability to use 911 location data for investigative or law enforcement purposes, as this is an area outside the Commission's regulatory authority. We also decline EPIC's request to require CMRS and covered text providers to delete location data as outside the scope of this proceeding, as the notice of proposed rulemaking did not propose or seek comment on requirements for data minimization. We recognize data minimization as an important tool to protect the privacy and security of customers' information, and we encourage providers not to retain 911 location routing data longer than is necessary to fulfill the 911 purpose of the data or comply with applicable law.
105. Per-Call Disclosure Requirements. The Commission sought comment on whether to require CMRS providers to disclose to PSAPs or state or local 911 authorities the routing methodology used for each 911 call, although the Commission declined to propose such a requirement. COPUC and BRETSA urge the Commission to require per-call disclosure. COPUC states that “[n]ot knowing whether the call was routed using LBR technology or default E911 methodology, the PSAP will have to follow up on
106. Several commenters raised additional issues or proposals in response to the notice of proposed rulemaking. We discuss each of these issues or proposals in turn below.
107. Role of Next Generation Core Services (NGCS) Providers. NENA and T-Mobile indicate that the proposals in the notice of proposed rulemaking
108. 2019 Wireline Forbearance Memorandum Opinion and Order. We received a comment from Mr. Ronald R. Fenwick urging the Commission to revisit and revise a 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order in another proceeding which granted price cap incumbent Local Exchange Carriers (LECs) forbearance from legacy regulatory obligations. Mr. Fenwick asserts that the Memorandum Opinion and Order resulted in diminishing subscribers to traditional landline services, and that wireless customers are not properly apprised of the advantages of wireline service. We decline to revisit the 2019 Memorandum Opinion and Order, which does not deal with wireless services and is therefore outside the scope of this proceeding.
109. Calls and Texts Originating Outside the United States. We received a comment from staff of the Defense Information Systems Agency (DISA) asking the Commission to consider location-based routing for 911 calls and texts originating outside the United States and its territories. This request raises legal and policy issues that are beyond the scope of this proceeding.
110. Location-Based Routing for VoIP. We received a comment from DISA asking the Commission to apply location-based routing requirements to “landline-based VoIP 9-1-1 calls coming from Ethernet wired end instruments and connecting to the Public Switch Telephone Network using Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) trunks from an IP-PBX.” We note that in the Next Generation 911 proceeding (PS Docket 21-479), the Commission proposed rules (NG911 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking) requiring interconnected VoIP providers to complete all translation necessary to deliver 911 calls, including associated location information, in the requested IP-based format to an ESInet or other designated point(s) that allow emergency calls to be answered. We defer consideration of this issue to the Next Generation 911 proceeding.
111. As noted in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission is engaged in a continuing effort to advance digital equity for all,
112. Several parties submitted comments on these issues. NENA states that location-based routing should be deployed regardless of a jurisdiction's NG911 status and that “[i]t would be inequitable to restrict the life-saving benefits of location-based routing” only to those “with the good fortune of having an emergency in a convenient location” with NG911 capability. As discussed herein, we adopt rules that require CMRS providers to implement location-based routing on their IP-based networks for wireless 911 voice calls nationwide, regardless of whether a particular jurisdiction has NG911 capability. These rules will help to ensure that location-based routing is available for wireless 911 voice calls nationwide and regardless of the service provider the caller has chosen.
113. NASNA notes that in the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission sought comment not just on equity-related considerations, but also “on the degree to which funding and operating transitional facilities extend the timeline and add to the cost incurred by state and local 911 authorities to transition to NG911.” NASNA believes that “these two issues are inextricably linked,” and NASNA raises “the issues facing our members in providing equal access to 911 services to all citizens through local NG911 systems.” Pointing to the NG911 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking comment record as well, NASNA urges that “the equity-access consideration for 911 at this point in time should begin at the network level in which 911 calls themselves are transported.” NASNA states, “If all those calling or texting 911 do not have a consistent level of access to network functionality, we believe the gap in digital disparity in effective and reliable access to 911 across the country will widen all the more.” Because NASNA's comments regarding equity and access are more closely related to the NG911 proceeding than the instant proceeding, we defer consideration of these points to the NG911 proceeding.
114. COPUC advocates for applying the same implementation time frames for 911 texts that are being applied to wireless 911 voice calls (
115. EPIC states that government entities, carriers, and others have misused location data to target individuals and groups, and says that “the lack of clear privacy and security safeguards would have a disproportionately negative impact on certain vulnerable groups.”
116. In sum, we acknowledge the importance of the continuing effort to advance digital equity for all. We believe that the rules we adopt, requiring CMRS providers to implement location-based routing on their IP-based networks for wireless 911 voice calls nationwide and requiring CMRS providers to implement location-based routing where they deploy RTT capabilities, will help to advance those goals.
117. As we discuss below, the implementation of location-based routing has potential annual benefits of over $173 billion in terms of reduced mortality and reduced call transfer burdens to PSAPs. We determine that the rules we adopt, which will affect CMRS providers, will result in an industry-wide compliance cost of $215 million.
118. We believe that the Commission's benefit assessment from the notice of proposed rulemaking remains valid. The Commission estimated that implementation of location-based routing would save 13,837 lives annually. While the Commission did not attempt to place a value on human life, it relied on the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) valuation of a statistical life (VSL) of $11.8 million from base year 2021.
119. The Commission sought specificity on the time and cost savings to PSAPs and state and local 911 authorities under the proposed rules. While we received no specific figures in the record, BRETSA agrees that misrouting of 911 calls ties up resources at the PSAP to which the call was misrouted and delays receipt of the call at the PSAP that can dispatch first responders, while T-Mobile states that call transfers can delay emergency response and result in the loss of vital incident information, including caller location. The Commission estimated that with implementation of location-based routing, “1,368,000 calls would avoid the need for a transfer due to a misroute, reducing the response time for these calls by one minute.”
120. In the notice of proposed rulemaking, the Commission provided separate cost estimates for materials and labor. The Commission sought comment
121. Material Costs. The Commission tentatively concluded that CMRS providers implement location-based routing at the PSAP level, while CMRS providers incur material costs on a per-PSAP basis. The Commission estimated that the average material cost of software features or component upgrades for each CMRS provider would be $10,000 per PSAP as an upper bound, with an “implied material cost upper bound [of] approximately $106 million.”
122. We agree with commenters that providers have certain material costs associated with the network core that are not necessarily dependent on the number of PSAPs they serve. We clarify, however, that the material costs that we calculated on a per-PSAP basis in the notice of proposed rulemaking also include other costs that are not necessarily incurred at the PSAP. We agree that implementation costs of upgrading equipment or software can, for instance, involve changes to the network core. We also note that such costs vary with the size of the network that remains to be converted to location-based routing, especially if any equipment needs to be updated. We therefore chose the per-PSAP basis because we find it a convenient proxy of remaining network area. T-Mobile and Verizon report partial implementation of location-based routing based on the number of PSAPs. For providers with no known implementation, the number of their covered PSAPs serves as a proxy for the size of their entire network. We therefore continue to use the per-PSAP basis as a proxy for network size in our current material costs calculations. We note, additionally, that even if the per-PSAP cost that we use below were to double, the aggregate expected costs of our rules would fall well below the expected benefits.
123. The latest NENA data indicate that 5,748 PSAPs operate in the United States. AT&T has already deployed location-based routing nationwide, so our rules impose no additional material costs for AT&T. The Commission did not provide an estimate of T-Mobile's material costs in the notice of proposed rulemaking. As of December 2023, T-Mobile states that it has fully implemented location-based routing for 1,591 PSAPs, with an additional 596 PSAPs in progress. Thus, T-Mobile must implement location-based routing to 3,561 remaining PSAPs. The Commission did not provide an estimate of Verizon's material costs in the notice of proposed rulemaking, but Verizon states that it has “fully implemented LBR for 414 PSAPs; implementation is in progress for an additional 277 PSAPs.” Thus, the rules would impose no additional material costs for existing and planned deployments to Verizon for 691 PSAPs, which leaves 5,057 PSAPs remaining for Verizon to implement location-based routing. The remaining CMRS providers collectively must upgrade the full national set of 5,748 PSAPs, assuming no more than one remaining CMRS provider serving a particular PSAP.
124. Labor Costs. The Commission estimated that the labor cost per CMRS provider is $366,600.
125. Labor Costs (i): Internal Planning. CCA described CMRS providers' internal planning tasks prior to implementation of location-based routing, which we categorize under labor. CCA states that carriers will need to vet and select potentially appropriate technical location-based routing solutions, budget for related required procurements, and make related plans to allocate and prioritize necessary resources to the projects.
126. Labor Costs (ii): Outreach. Next, CCA described providers' outreach tasks, such as collaboration with network and handset vendors; and work with device makers, technology vendors, and software service providers. However, CCA notes that non-nationwide CMRS providers face challenges attracting attention and assistance from global and national vendors who are more responsive to larger clients.
127. Labor Costs (iii): Deployment. Commenters provided few details of labor tasks associated with deployment, including equipment and device installation and upgrades.
128. Labor Costs (iv): Testing. Commenters described CMRS providers' testing tasks involved with location-based routing implementation. RWA states that providers will need to “test, modify, [and] perfect” location-based routing solutions. CCA states that AT&T performed extensive lab testing, performance testing, trials at PSAPs, evaluation of results with its vendor Intrado, and additional PSAP testing. CCA states that AT&T “confirm[ed] the metrics, obtain[ed] feedback from the PSAPs, and implement[ed] several proprietary changes.”
129. While the notice of proposed rulemaking explicitly mentioned the tasks of installing equipment and running trials as part of its labor calculation, the estimate was not meant to be solely inclusive of all tasks. According to Commission staff experience with typical network upgrades, team members will often work on tasks from multiple of the above categories of internal planning, outreach, deployment, and testing. The notice of proposed rulemaking calculation assumes a large team of ten workers over a period of six months to account for the various phases of labor and shifting tasks amongst workers.
130. Absent more specific data in the record on each task category, we rely on the Commission's labor cost estimation methodology per CMRS provider.
131. In addition to network costs, several commenters indicate that public safety-grade GIS data or shapefiles that precisely define PSAP boundaries should be developed or provided, though they differ on which parties should be responsible.
132. In addition, the one-time certification of compliance with our requirements together with the submission of data on call percentages by routing methods will impose a one-time cost on CMRS providers. As this required information should be available to each provider internally, we anticipate work to compile this information to take no longer than a week of five business days. We believe that one network engineer would be sufficient to complete this task in this time frame, resulting in a total provider cost of 40 work-hours. Assuming the same hourly labor cost of network engineers as in the previous cost estimate for network implementation, the total cost of reporting is $280,000 (≉ $117.87 per hour × 40 hours × 59 providers = $278,173.20).
133. The Commission sought comment on costs to state and local 911 authorities. Intrado and APCO state that PSAPs will not need to make changes to their networks or call handling systems. We agree. Likewise, because we find that providers must maintain their own jurisdictional maps, we do not recognize any costs for state and local 911 authorities and PSAPs.
134. Because we are adopting location-based routing requirements for RTT, we also consider the costs for CMRS providers. Given that CMRS providers process and route RTT communications similarly to voice calls, we assume that CMRS providers' material and labor costs to deploy location-based routing for RTT are included in our cost estimates above. As part of this analysis, we note that as of the release date of the Report and Order, we are aware of only a small number of PSAPs that are receiving RTT communications.
135. In sum, we estimate upper bounds of the costs that CMRS providers will bear to be material costs of $143.7 million, network implementation costs of $71.1 million, GIS costs of $134,000, and certification costs of $280,000. Altogether, the upper bound of costs is approximately $215 million. However, we underscore that this cost is far outweighed by the benefits of over $173 billion in terms of reduced mortality and call transfer time eliminated.
136.
137.
138. As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended (RFA), an Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) was incorporated in the
139. Technical limitations of legacy Enhanced 911 (E911) routing can result in a Commercial Mobile Radio Service (CMRS) provider routing a wireless 911 call to a Public Safety Answering Point (PSAP) other than the one designated by the relevant state or local 911 authority to receive calls from the actual location of the caller. Misroutes can occur for several reasons, including when more than one PSAP is within the coverage area of a cell site or sector. Such legacy tower-based routing results in approximately 12% of wireless 911 calls arriving at the incorrect PSAP for the caller's location. When a 911 call is misrouted, the answering telecommunicator must transfer the call to the PSAP that has jurisdiction to
140. In the Report and Order, the Commission adopted rules and procedures to require CMRS providers to implement location-based routing (LBR) for wireless 911 voice calls and real-time text (RTT) communications to 911 nationwide. With location-based routing as implemented under the Commission's rules, CMRS providers will use precise location information to route wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 to the appropriate public safety answering point. For the millions of individuals seeking emergency assistance each year by wireless 911 voice call or RTT communication to 911, improving routing for these services will reduce emergency response time and save lives.
141. To facilitate the implementation of location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911, the Commission took the following actions:
• The Commission required CMRS providers to deploy location-based routing technology for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 on their internet Protocol (IP)-based networks (
• The Commission required CMRS providers to use location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 when caller location information available to the CMRS provider's network at time of routing is ascertainable within a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 90%. In the absence of these conditions, CMRS providers must use alternative routing methods based on “best available” location information, which may include but is not limited to device-based or tower-based location information.
• The Commission adopted the proposed six-month timeline for nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and provided twenty-four months for implementation by non-nationwide CMRS providers. In addition, the Commission provided 24 months for all CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for RTT communications to 911.
• The Commission required CMRS providers within 60 days of the applicable compliance deadlines to certify and submit evidence of compliance with location-based routing requirements and to certify the privacy of location information used for location-based routing. At that time, CMRS providers also must submit one-time live call data reporting specifying routing methodologies for calls in live call areas.
• The Commission deferred consideration of proposals in the
• The Commission deferred consideration of proposals and issues raised in the
142. There were no comments filed that specifically addressed the proposed rules and policies presented in the IRFA.
143. Pursuant to the Small Business Jobs Act of 2010, which amended the RFA, the Commission is required to respond to any comments filed by the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business Administration (SBA), and to provide a detailed statement of any change made to the proposed rules as a result of those comments. The Chief Counsel did not file any comments in response to the proposed rules in this proceeding.
144. The RFA directs agencies to provide a description of and, where feasible, an estimate of the number of small entities that may be affected by the rules adopted. The RFA generally defines the term “small entity” as having the same meaning as the terms “small business,” “small organization,” and “small governmental jurisdiction.” In addition, the term “small business” has the same meaning as the term “small business concern” under the Small Business Act.” A “small business concern” is one which: (1) is independently owned and operated; (2) is not dominant in its field of operation; and (3) satisfies any additional criteria established by the SBA.
145.
146. Next, the type of small entity described as a “small organization” is generally “any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.” The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) uses a revenue benchmark of $50,000 or less to delineate its annual electronic filing requirements for small exempt organizations. Nationwide, for tax year 2020, there were approximately 447,689 small exempt organizations in the U.S. reporting revenues of $50,000 or less according to the registration and tax data for exempt organizations available from the IRS.
147. Finally, the small entity described as a “small governmental jurisdiction” is defined generally as “governments of cities, counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts, with a population of less than fifty thousand.” U.S. Census Bureau data from the 2017 Census of Governments indicate there were 90,075 local governmental jurisdictions consisting of general purpose governments and special purpose governments in the United States. Of this number, there were 36,931 general purpose governments (county, municipal, and town or township) with populations of less than 50,000 and 12,040 special purpose governments—independent school districts with
148. Pursuant to 47 CFR 9.10(a), the Commission's 911 service requirements are only applicable to CMRS providers, excluding mobile satellite service (MSS) operators, to the extent that they: (1) offer real-time, two way switched voice service that is interconnected with the public switched network; and (2) use an in-network switching facility that enables the provider to reuse frequencies and accomplish seamless hand-offs of subscriber calls. These requirements are applicable to entities that offer voice service to consumers by purchasing airtime or capacity at wholesale rates from CMRS licensees.
149. Below, for those services subject to auctions, we note that, as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Also, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated.
150.
151.
152. According to Commission data as December 2021, there were approximately 4,472 active AWS licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to AWS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. For the auction of AWS licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $40 million, and a “very small business” as an entity with average annual gross revenues for the preceding three years not exceeding $15 million. Pursuant to these definitions, 57 winning bidders claiming status as small or very small businesses won 215 of 1,087 licenses. In the most recent auction of AWS licenses 15 of 37 bidders qualifying for status as small or very small businesses won licenses.
153. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
154.
155.
156.
157. Based on Commission data as of November 2021, there were approximately 5,060 active licenses in the Broadband PCS service. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Broadband PCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for these services. In auctions for these licenses, the Commission defined “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has had average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years. Winning bidders claiming small business credits won Broadband PCS licenses in C, D, E, and F Blocks.
158. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
159.
160. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 4,211 active
161. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to WCS involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses for the various frequency bands included in WCS. When bidding credits are adopted for the auction of licenses in WCS frequency bands, such credits may be available to several types of small businesses based average gross revenues (small, very small and entrepreneur) pursuant to the competitive bidding rules adopted in conjunction with the requirements for the auction and/or as identified in the designated entities section in part 27 of the Commission's rules for the specific WCS frequency bands.
167. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
168.
169.
170.
171. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 224 active 700 MHz Guard Band licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to 700 MHz Guard Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these definitions, five winning bidders claiming one of the small business status classifications won 26 licenses, and one winning bidder claiming small business won two licenses. None of the winning bidders claiming a small business status classification in these 700 MHz Guard Band license auctions had an active license as of December 2021.
172. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the
173.
174. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 2,824 active Lower 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Lower 700 MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For auctions of Lower 700 MHz Band licenses the Commission adopted criteria for three groups of small businesses. A very small business was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average annual gross revenues not exceeding $15 million for the preceding three years, a small business was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and an entrepreneur was defined as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling interests, has average gross revenues not exceeding $3 million for the preceding three years. In auctions for Lower 700 MHz Band licenses seventy-two winning bidders claiming a small business classification won 329 licenses, twenty-six winning bidders claiming a small business classification won 214 licenses, and three winning bidders claiming a small business classification won all five auctioned licenses.
175. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
176.
177. According to Commission data as of December 2021, there were approximately 152 active Upper 700 MHz Band licenses. The Commission's small business size standards with respect to Upper 700 MHz Band licensees involve eligibility for bidding credits and installment payments in the auction of licenses. For the auction of these licenses, the Commission defined a “small business” as an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues not exceeding $40 million for the preceding three years, and a “very small business” an entity that, together with its affiliates and controlling principals, has average gross revenues that are not more than $15 million for the preceding three years. Pursuant to these definitions, three winning bidders claiming very small business status won five of the twelve available licenses.
178. In frequency bands where licenses were subject to auction, the Commission notes that as a general matter, the number of winning bidders that qualify as small businesses at the close of an auction does not necessarily represent the number of small businesses currently in service. Further, the Commission does not generally track subsequent business size unless, in the context of assignments or transfers, unjust enrichment issues are implicated. Additionally, since the Commission does not collect data on the number of employees for licensees providing these services, at this time we are not able to estimate the number of licensees with active licenses that would qualify as small under the SBA's small business size standard.
179.
180.
181.
182. The rules adopted to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT communications to 911 will impose new or additional reporting, recordkeeping, and/or other compliance obligations on small entities. Small and other CMRS providers are required to certify their compliance with the applicable location-based routing requirements, and inform the Commission of the specific network architecture, systems, and location validation procedures used to comply with the location-based routing requirements. More specifically, the adopted rules require small and other CMRS providers, within 60 days after their respective deadlines, to deploy location-based routing on their IP-based networks, and submit a one-time certification with substantiating evidence of compliance with location-based routing requirements applicable to them as of the deadline. As part of the certification, small and other CMRS providers must: (i) substantiate compliance by identifying specific network architecture, systems, location validation, and procedures used to comply with the location-based routing rules; (ii) collect and report aggregate information on the routing technologies for all live wireless 911 voice calls in the locations specified for live 911 call location data under the Commission's rule at 47 CFR 9.10(i)(3)(ii); and (iii) certify that location information used for location-based routing by service providers and third parties will only be used for valid 911 purposes. Small and other CMRS providers can request confidential treatment of any information they submit in accordance with the Commission's confidentiality rules.
183. In the
184. In the
185. Our total labor costs analysis added internal planning, outreach, and testing to the costs for equipment installation and conducting trials the Commission proposed and discussed in the
186. In addition to network costs, several commenters indicate that public safety-grade GIS data or shapefiles that precisely define PSAP boundaries should be developed or provided, though they differ on which parties should be responsible. We agree with
187. In addition, the one-time certification of compliance with our requirements together with the submission of data on call percentages by routing methods will impose a one-time cost on CMRS providers. As this required information should be available to each provider internally, we anticipate work to compile this information to take no longer than a week of five business days. We believe that one network engineer would be sufficient to complete this task in this time frame, resulting in a total provider cost of 40 work-hours. Assuming the same hourly labor cost of network engineers as in the previous cost estimate for network implementation, the total cost of reporting is $280,000 (≉ $117.87 per hour × 40 hours × 59 providers = $278,173.20).
188. Because we are adopting location-based routing requirements for RTT communications to 911, we also consider the costs for CMRS providers. Given that CMRS providers process and route RTT communications to 911 similarly to voice calls, we assume that CMRS providers' material and labor costs to deploy location-based routing for RTT are included in our cost estimates above. As part of this analysis, we note that as of the release date of the Report and Order, we are aware of only a small number of PSAPs that are receiving RTT communications.
189. In sum, we estimate upper bounds of the costs that CMRS providers will bear to be material costs of $143.7 million, network implementation costs of $71.1 million, GIS costs of $134,000, and certification costs of $280,000. Altogether, the upper bound of costs is approximately $215 million. We note that the three major CMRS providers (AT&T, T-Mobile, and Verizon) have already implemented location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls nationwide, or are in the process of implementing it. Although some commenters argue that this progress by three major carriers will not necessarily translate into reduced costs and greater efficiency for smaller providers to implement location-based routing, it appears that this progress by larger providers may have at least some measure of positive impact on implementation by smaller providers, such as by demonstrating potential implementation technologies and strategies, although they may be required to hire professionals to fulfill their compliance obligations.
190. The important public safety benefits that will result from the requirements the Commission adopted outweigh the associated implementation and compliance burdens for CMRS providers. The rule changes to implement nationwide location-based routing will significantly decrease misrouted wireless 911 calls and RTT communications to 911, reduce emergency response time, save lives, and save many PSAP personnel hours and resources lost in 911 transfers. Accordingly, these rule changes serve the public interest.
191. The RFA requires an agency to provide “a description of the steps the agency has taken to minimize the significant economic impact on small entities . . . including a statement of the factual, policy, and legal reasons for selecting the alternative adopted in the final rule and why each one of the other significant alternatives to the rule considered by the agency which affect the impact on small entities was rejected.”
192. In the previous section we described the significant public safety benefits to be achieved from requiring all CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls and RTT messages originating on IP-based networks on a nationwide basis. From the record in this proceeding, it appears to be technologically feasible for CMRS providers to implement location-based routing for a significant percentage of wireless 911 voice calls and RTT messages. In the Report and Order we expressly found that it is technologically feasible for all CMRS providers, nationwide and non-nationwide, to support location-based routing for a significant percentage of wireless 911 voice calls. The Commission considered comments advocating for a voluntary location-based routing approach to allow providers the flexibility which would take into account the differences in providers' networks, configurations and devices. We found, however, that implementing location-based routing on a voluntary basis is not consistent with the Commission's goal of ensuring that location-based routing is available to all wireless 911 callers on a nationwide basis. Accordingly, the rules we adopt require both nationwide and non-nationwide CMRS providers to implement location-based routing consistent with the proposals in the
193. The Commission also considered a per-PSAP approach to implement location-based routing but determined that there could be uneven and inconsistent implementation in routing approaches between jurisdictions, and there was also a risk of 911 misroutes for jurisdictions that do not request location-based routing service. The Commission found that a per-PSAP approach was not consistent with its interest in facilitating improved routing of 911 voice calls, and was not in the public interest. Additionally, we determined this approach would impose unnecessary cost burdens on PSAPs to affirmatively request such service. The rules we adopted in the Report and Order were intended to be cost effective and minimally burdensome for small and other entities impacted by the rules. Below we discuss the specific steps the Commission has taken to minimize costs and reduce the economic impact for small entities, as well as various alternatives considered.
194. Location-Based Routing Requirements. Consistent with the Commission's proposal in the
195. Rather than imposing a rigid location-based routing requirement, the rules the Commission adopted provide flexibility to small and other entities to route wireless 911 voice calls or RTT communications based on the best available location information (which may include cell tower coordinates or other information) when the location information available at time of routing does not meet either one or both of the rules' requirements for accuracy and timeliness. The Commission recognized the continued need for legacy E911 routing, at least as a fallback method, because accurate device location information is not available in all scenarios. Further, the Commission's requirement to default to best available location is consistent with the
196. The Report and Order also adopted baseline requirements involving the accuracy and timeliness of location information used for location-based routing that are consistent with industry standards. Under the rules adopted, CMRS providers must use location-based routing only if the location information is available to the provider network at the time the wireless 911 voice call or RTT communication is routed, and the information identifies the caller's horizontal location with a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 90%. These metrics are consistent with AT&T's successful nationwide implementation of location-based routing, and received support as a model for other wireless carriers to implement location-based routing. In addition, the rule's confidence metric is consistent with ATIS's recommendation that uncertainty values for location-based routing “be standardized to a 90% confidence for effective call handling.” When location information does not meet the baseline accuracy and timeliness requirements, the adopted requirements allow CMRS providers to instead route based on best available location information, which may include device-based location information that does not meet the accuracy threshold, the centroid of the area served by the cell sector that first picks up the call, or other location information. This will help to minimize any significant economic impact on small entities and other CMRS providers.
197. Compliance Timelines. The rules adopted in the Report and Order provide small and other providers flexibility in the compliance timelines to implement the location-based routing requirements, which should reduce the economic burden for small entities. The compliance timelines differ from those the Commission proposed in the
198. The Commission has also minimized any significant economic impact on small entities by limiting the requirement to implement location-based routing to operators of IP-based networks only when certain requirements are met. Small entities are not required to comply with the location-based routing requirement if they do not operate an IP-based network, or if the location information available on the IP-based network does not meet either one or both of the requirements for timeliness and accuracy, in which case, small entities may use the best available location information for routing. Small entities will further benefit from the Commission's adoption of provisions that allow PSAPs and CMRS providers to enter into agreements that establish an alternate timeframe for meeting the location-based routing requirements. The flexibility to negotiate an alternative timeframe that meets a CMRS provider's business and financial needs is a significant step by the Commission that could minimize the economic impact for small entities.
199. Reporting and Certification Requirements. The Commission considered the level of data collection, reporting, and certification, if any, that should be required from CMRS providers on location-based routing issues, weighing the potential burden of such requirements on small and other entities against the need to ensure compliance with the rules. The Commission also considered not adopting a certification requirement. However, absent a certification requirement, the Commission and the public would have no insight into providers' implementation of location-based routing. Furthermore, the Commission's ability to easily determine whether carriers are in compliance would be limited. Another alternative the Commission evaluated was adopting periodic reporting requirements. However, such ongoing reporting requirements have the potential to overburden providers, particularly small entities. Therefore, the rules adopted do not contain any periodic reporting requirements. We believe the one-time certification and
200. Deferral of Certain Proposed Rules and Removal From This Rulemaking Proceeding. In the Report and Order, the Commission deferred taking action on certain rules that were proposed in the
201. The Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, in a report to Congress pursuant to the Congressional Review Act. In addition, the Commission will send a copy of the Report and Order, including this FRFA, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA. A copy of the Report and Order and FRFA (or summaries thereof) will also be published in the
1. Accordingly,
2.
3.
4.
Communications, Communications common carriers, Communications equipment, Internet, Radio, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Satellites, Security measures, Telecommunications, Telephone.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission amends 47 CFR part 9 as follows:
47 U.S.C. 151-154, 152(a), 155(c), 157, 160, 201, 202, 208, 210, 214, 218, 219, 222, 225, 251(e), 255, 301, 302, 303, 307, 308, 309, 310, 316, 319, 332, 403, 405, 605, 610, 615, 615 note, 615a, 615b, 615c, 615a-1, 616, 620, 621, 623, 623 note, 721, and 1471, and Section 902 of Title IX, Division FF, Pub. L. 116-260, 134 Stat. 1182, unless otherwise noted.
(a)
(s)
(ii) By May 13, 2026, non-nationwide CMRS providers must deploy a technology that supports location-based routing for wireless 911 voice calls on their internet Protocol-based networks (4G LTE, 5G, and subsequent generations of internet Protocol-based networks). At that time, non-nationwide CMRS providers must route all wireless 911 voice calls originating on their internet Protocol-based networks pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (s)(3) of this section.
(2)
(3)
(A) The location information reports the horizontal location uncertainty level of the device within a radius of 165 meters at a confidence level of at least 90%; and
(B) The location information is available to the CMRS provider network at the time of routing the wireless 911 voice call or real-time text communication to 911.
(ii) When the location information does not meet either one or both of the requirements in paragraphs (s)(3)(i)(A) and (B) of this section, CMRS providers must route the wireless 911 voice call or real-time text communication to 911 based on the best available location information, which may include but is not limited to device-based location information that does not meet the requirements in paragraphs (s)(3)(i)(A) and (B), the centroid of the area served by the cell sector that first picks up the call, or other location information.
(4)
(i) CMRS providers must:
(A) Certify that they are in compliance with the requirements specified in paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (ii) and (s)(2) of this section applicable to them;
(B) Identify specific network architecture, systems, and procedures used to comply with paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (ii) and (s)(2) of this section, including the extent to which the CMRS provider validates location information for routing purposes and the validation practices used in connection with this information; and
(C) Certify that neither they nor any third party they rely on to obtain location information or associated data used for compliance with paragraph (s)(1)(i) or (ii) or (s)(2) of this section will use such location information or associated data for any non-911 purpose, except with prior express consent or as otherwise required by law. The certification must state that the CMRS provider and any third parties it relies on to obtain location information or associated data used for compliance with paragraph (s)(1)(i) or (ii) or (s)(2) have implemented measures sufficient to safeguard the privacy and security of such location information or associated data.
(ii) CMRS providers also must:
(A) Collect and report aggregate data on the routing technologies used for all live wireless 911 voice calls in the locations specified for live 911 call location data in paragraph (i)(3)(ii) of this section for a thirty-day period which begins on the compliance date(s) specified in paragraphs (s)(1)(i) and (ii) of this section. CMRS providers must retain live wireless 911 voice call data gathered pursuant to this section for a period of 2 years. CMRS providers must collect and report the following data, expressed as both a number and percentage of the total number of live wireless 911 voice calls for which data is collected pursuant to this section:
(
(
(
(5)
(6)