Agricultural Marketing Service
Rural Utilities Service
International Trade Administration
National Institute of Standards and Technology
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Air Force Department
Defense Acquisition Regulations System
Navy Department
Energy Information Administration
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Community Living Administration
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
Fish and Wildlife Service
Land Management Bureau
Occupational Safety and Health Administration
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
Comptroller of the Currency
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.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final rule.
This action establishes Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Turlock Municipal Airport, Turlock, CA, to support the airport's transition from visual flight rules (VFR) operations to instrument flight rules (IFR) operations.
Effective date 0901 UTC, September 5, 2024. The Director of the Federal Register approves this incorporation by reference action under 1 CFR part 51, subject to the annual revision of FAA Order JO 7400.11 and publication of conforming amendments.
A copy of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), all comments received, this final rule, and all background material may be viewed online at
FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Nathan A. Chaffman, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3460.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it establishes Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Turlock Municipal Airport, Turlock, CA.
The FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking for Docket No. FAA-2024-0163 in the
Class E5 airspace areas are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document amends the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. FAA Order JO 7400.11H is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
This action amends 14 CFR part 71 by establishing Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Turlock Municipal Airport, Turlock, CA. The airport is transitioning from VFR operations to IFR operations, and it requires Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface to contain departing aircraft until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface and arriving aircraft below 1,500 feet above the surface. The Class E airspace is centered on the airport reference point with a 6.5-mile radius and extends further to the north through the east of the airport to provide additional containment due to rising terrain.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that only affects air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule, when promulgated, does not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
The FAA has determined that this action qualifies for categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures,” paragraph 5-6.5.a. This airspace action is not expected to cause any potentially significant environmental impacts, and no extraordinary circumstances exist that warrant preparation of an environmental assessment.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of the airport, within a 7.3-mile radius of the airport from the 352° bearing clockwise to the 096° bearing, and within 2 miles either side of the airport's 046° bearing extending to 8.2 miles northeast of the airport.
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing, HUD.
Final rule, correction.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is correcting a final rule entitled, “Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016—Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and Project-Based Voucher Implementation; Additional Streamlining Changes” that published on May 7, 2024.
Effective: June 6, 2024.
For information regarding this correction, contact Allison Lack, Assistant General Counsel for Regulations, Department of Housing and Urban Development, 451 7th Street SW, Room 10238, Washington, DC 20410; telephone number 202-708-1793 (this is not a toll-free number). HUD welcomes and is prepared to receive calls from individuals who are deaf or hard of hearing, as well as individuals with speech and communication disabilities. To learn more about how to make an accessible telephone call, please visit
On May 7, 2024, HUD published a final rule amending HUD's regulations to implement changes to the Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and Project-Based Voucher (PBV) programs made by the Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016 (HOTMA) (89 FR 38224) (FR Doc. 2024-08601). In reviewing the May 7, 2024, final rule, HUD identified five inadvertent errors.
First, in the final rule, certain amendments are delayed indefinitely. Initially, in the
Second, amendatory instruction 64 incorrectly states the existing regulatory text in § 982.402(b)(2) as “housing quality standards (HQS)”. In fact, the text to be replaced reads “housing quality standards”.
Third, § 983.10 incorrectly contains paragraph (b)(3) twice, each with the same text. This paragraph should only be included once.
Fourth, § 983.51(e)(2) incorrectly omits paragraph (ii) and instead contains two paragraphs designated “(iii)”, each with the same text. The first of the two paragraphs should be designated as paragraph (ii) and read: “The project meets the environmental review requirements at § 983.56, if applicable; and”.
Fifth, the revisions to part 983, subpart D incorrectly excluded § 983.157, which should have been removed. A subsequent instruction correctly adds a new § 983.157, although it is delayed pending future publication in the
Accordingly, FR Doc. 2024-08601, Housing Opportunity Through Modernization Act of 2016—Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) and Project-Based Voucher Implementation; Additional Streamlining Changes, published on May 7, 2024, (89 FR 38224) is corrected as follows:
1. On page 38224, in the first column, in the
(e) * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) The project meets the environmental review requirements at § 983.56, if applicable; and
The revisions read as follows:
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Correcting amendments.
On February 14, 2024, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC” or “Commission”) published an interim final rule amending its procedural and recordkeeping regulations to include references to the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act (“PWFA”). That document included a few references to the PWFA in sections where they should not have been included, and this document removes those references from the regulations.
Effective on May 28, 2024.
Kathleen Oram, Assistant Legal Counsel, at (202) 921-3240 or
The Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000gg
On February 14, 2024, the Commission issued an interim final rule amending these regulations to add references to the PWFA in order to implement the new law. See Interim Final Rule; Request for Comments, 89 FR 11167.
Administrative practice and procedure, Equal employment opportunity.
Accordingly, 29 CFR part 1602 is corrected by making the following correcting amendments:
42 U.S.C. 2000e-8, 2000e-12; 44 U.S.C. 3501
For the Commission.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Final rule.
The Coast Guard is creating a new operating schedule to govern all movable bridges over the Cuyahoga River. The Coast Guard is also establishing new rules that will assist mariners signal for and anticipate bridge openings. These changes are expected to ensure the safe and efficient flow of traffic on the Cuyahoga River.
This rule is effective June 27, 2024.
To view documents mentioned in this preamble as being available in the docket, go to
If you have questions on this final rule, call or email Mr. Lee D. Soule, Bridge Management Specialist, Ninth Coast Guard District; telephone 216-902-6085, email
On May 22, 2023, the Coast Guard published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), with a request for comments, entitled “Drawbridge Operation Regulation; Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, OH” in the
During the comment period that ended July 21, 2023, we received five comments. Those comments are addressed in Section IV of this final rule.
The Coast Guard is issuing this rule under authority 33 U.S.C. 499. The Coast Guard is establishing new rules that will help mariners signal for and anticipate bridge openings. The Cuyahoga River is considered one of the major industrial centers in the Great Lakes and handles several commodities
The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, at Mile 0.76, is locally known as NS1. Mariners have complained for years that it is too slow to lift for cruise ships, freighters, and recreational boats transiting between the river and Lake Erie. The Coast Guard receives approximately two hundred written formal and informal reports of unreasonable bridge delays across the Great Lakes region each year; the vast majority concern the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 0.76. Businesses in the Cleveland Flats neighborhood, a neighborhood adjacent to the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 0.76, have expressed that problems at the bridge are getting worse. The increase is problems appear to stem from increased recreational river traffic and as a result of Norfolk Southern's decision to move the bridge's dispatch center to Atlanta, Georgia. Local drawtenders maintain that their only duty is to open the bridge when the dispatcher in Atlanta, Georgia orders them to do so.
Emergency responders are also cautious when operating near Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, at Mile 0 76. Norfolk Local police and the Coast Guard patrol boats have expressed concern that their boats could be trapped behind the bridge, thus delaying emergency response to events on the other side.
Modern bridge regulations are needed to allow vessel operators the opportunity to pass through the Cuyahoga River without loitering at the bridges and causing a hazardous condition. These regulatory additions were proposed in response to those concerns.
The conditions of the NPRM were supported by the comments received from the Canadian Chamber of Marine Commerce.
The GBCA concurred with the requirements proposed in the NPRM, including a clock countdown to notify mariners of the next opening of the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge at Mile 0.76. The GBCA expressed its dissatisfaction with operations at Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge at Mile 0.76. The GBCA noted that recreational vessels are often forced to wait for a commercial vessel opening, as the bridge operators are non-responsive to recreational traffic opening requests.
The American Waterways Operators is the tugboat, towboat, and barge industry's advocate. They commented against requiring a countdown clock and would prefer mandated scheduled openings for non-commercial vessels to pass through the bridge. The Coast Guard weighed this option, but elected to move forward with a countdown clock, as the clock best met the needs of recreational boating community as it related to transparency and improved communications.
Norfolk Southern Corporation commented that the Coast Guard did not seek appropriate comment from Norfolk Southern prior to the release of the NPRM. However, the Coast Guard has invited Norfolk Southern to area and regional meetings, including monthly virtual meetings, and the public meeting where the contemplated NPRM was discussed in open forum.
Norfolk Southern commented that they believe the use of a countdown clock would cause an unsafe condition at the bridge because some vessels may race to the bridge to take advantage of the pending opening. To the extent that people may rush toward a bridge opening, this is already happening: Large numbers of recreational boaters that have been waiting at the bridge, often for over an hour and at times in poor weather conditions, crowd the area and rush behind the commercial traffic so they can return to their home docks. This problem is caused primarily by Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge's failure to respond to requests for an opening. The Coast Guard believes that the communication enhancements contained in this final rule, to include a countdown clock, will overall improve safety by increasing Norfolk Southern's transparency, communications and responsiveness as it relates to the boating community.
Norfolk Southern has argued that rail dispatchers have no idea where their trains are or how fast their trains are traveling, and thus Norfolk Southern is unable to determine when a train will arrive at the bridge, which would render a countdown clock to openings meaningless. This comment is not consistent with the Coast Guard's experience as to how railroad operators function.
Most public complaints concern communications between mariners and the drawtenders, specifically the perceived lack of responsiveness by the drawtenders when mariners request an opening or when they request an update for time of the next opening. While the precise cause of each individual public complaint is unclear, poor communications between the Cleveland drawtender and the dispatcher in Atlanta may also contribute to the problem.
This regulation, including a countdown clock, required posting of a phone number, mandatory use of a VHF-FM Marine Radio by the drawtender, and mandatory signage, are all efforts to improve safety and communications between the drawtender and mariners.
The Coast Guard made a typographical error in the NPRM that would require the new signage to indicate to the public that the bridge is remotely operated language. However, the bridge is not currently remotely operated, and the Coast Guard does not intend to require a statement that the bridge is remotely operated.
We developed this rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive Orders related to rulemaking. Below we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive Orders.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This rule has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
This regulatory action determination is based on the ability that vessels can still transit the bridge given advanced notice
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612, as amended, requires federal agencies to consider the
While some owners or operators of vessels intending to transit the bridge may be small entities, for the reasons stated in section V.A above, this rule will not have a significant economic impact on any vessel owner or operator.
Under section 213(a) of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-121), we want to assist small entities in understanding this rule. If the rule would affect your small business, organization, or governmental jurisdiction and you have questions concerning its provisions or options for compliance, please contact the person listed in the
Small businesses may send comments on the actions of Federal employees who enforce, or otherwise determine compliance with, Federal regulations to the Small Business and Agriculture Regulatory Enforcement Ombudsman and the Regional Small Business Regulatory Fairness Boards. The Ombudsman evaluates these actions annually and rates each agency's responsiveness to small business. If you wish to comment on actions by employees of the Coast Guard, call 1-888-REG-FAIR (1-888-734-3247). The Coast Guard will not retaliate against small entities that question or complain about this rule or any policy or action of the Coast Guard.
This rule calls for no new collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
A rule has implications for federalism under Executive Order 13132, Federalism, if it has a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. We have analyzed this rule under that Order and have determined that it is consistent with the fundamental federalism principles and preemption requirements described in Executive Order 13132.
Also, this rule does not have tribal implications under Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments, because it does not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this rule will not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the effects of this rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this rule under Department of Homeland Security Management Directive 023-01, Rev.1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning Policy COMDTINST 5090.1 (series) which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f). The Coast Guard has determined that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This rule promulgates the operating regulations or procedures for drawbridges and is categorically excluded from further review, under paragraph L49, of Chapter 3, Table 3-1 of the U.S. Coast Guard Environmental Planning Implementation Procedures.
Neither a Record of Environmental Consideration nor a Memorandum for the Record are required for this rule.
Bridges.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR part 117 as follows:
33 U.S.C. 499; 33 CFR 1.05-1; DHS Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a) The Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge, mile 0.76, will open on signal.
(1) The bridge owner will maintain and monitor a VHF-FM Marine Radio, and telephone.
(2) The bridge will display a clock that counts down the estimated time of the next bridge opening that is visible to vessels approaching from the upriver or downriver side of the bridge.
(3) The bridge will also display a sign readable from vessels approaching the bridge from upriver or downriver and readable for 500 feet that states:
(i) the name of the bridge;
(ii) the river mile;
(iii) the opening signal of the bridge is one prolonged blast followed by one short blast of the horn or VHF-FM Marine Radio Channel 16, or by calling the number posted by the owner.
(b) All remaining moveable vehicle and railroad bridges on the Cuyahoga River will open on signal, except from December 15 through March 31 when the bridges will open if a 12-hour advance notice is provided. Said bridges include: Willow Avenue Bridge at Mile 1.02; Center Street Bridge, mile 1.28; the Columbus Road Bridge, mile 1.93; the Flats Industrial Railroad Bridge, mile 2.24; the City of Cleveland Railroad Bridge, mile 2.42; the Carter Road Bridge, mile 2.43; the Norfolk Southern Railroad Bridge the West 3rd Street Bridge, mile 3.42; the CSX Railroad Bridge, mile 4.75; the Cleveland Cliffs Railroad Bridge #1, mile 5.42; and the Wheeling & Lake Erie Railroad Bridge.
(c) The Voinovich Pedestrian Bridge, at the mouth of North Coast Harbor, will open on signal except from December 15 through March 31 when the bridge will open if a 12-hour advance notice is provided.
Corporation for National and Community Service.
Final rule.
The Corporation for National and Community Service (operating as AmeriCorps) is revising its regulations governing the AmeriCorps State and National program to provide programmatic and grantmaking flexibilities while protecting program integrity and safeguarding taxpayer funds. This rule limits AmeriCorps State and National grantees' required share of program costs (known as “match” or “cost share”) to a scale that starts at 24 percent for the first three-year grant cycle and increases more incrementally with each successive three-year grant cycle, until it reaches 30 percent in the fourth three-year grant cycle (that is, the tenth year of the grant) and beyond; simplifies the criteria that allow AmeriCorps to waive match for AmeriCorps State and National grantees; allows AmeriCorps to grant waivers of education hour limitations under certain circumstances to permit members serving with AmeriCorps State and National grantees to spend an increased number of hours on education and training activities; and removes the four-term limit on service in AmeriCorps State and National programs, with a clarification of the number of terms for which AmeriCorps will fund member benefits. Non-substantive changes in this rule are updates to nomenclature to reflect that the Corporation for National and Community Service operates as AmeriCorps, deletion of provisions that were based on a statutory provision that has since been deleted, and updates to outdated citations.
This rule is effective on October 1, 2024.
Jennifer Bastress-Tahmasebi, Deputy Director, AmeriCorps State and National at
AmeriCorps is revising its AmeriCorps State and National program regulations to address stakeholder feedback on match requirements, be more consistent with other grant programs within the agency, and reduce barriers to grantee organizations that are specifically designed to provide education and training to members as part of their national service program. AmeriCorps State and National provides grants to States, territories, Indian Tribes, public and private nonprofit organizations, local governments, and institutions of higher education to carry out national service programs, offering a wide range of service opportunities. AmeriCorps State and National also provides general operating funding for State service commissions. AmeriCorps is issuing these revisions under the authority of the National and Community Service Act, as amended, at 42 U.S.C. 12651c(c).
This rule makes four substantive changes to the AmeriCorps State and National regulations, as described below. In addition, this rule makes nomenclature changes to add a definition for “AmeriCorps” and change “the Corporation” to “AmeriCorps” throughout these regulations to reflect that the Corporation for National and Community Service now operates as AmeriCorps, deletes provisions that were based on a statutory provision that has since been deleted, and updates outdated citations. This final rule includes a delayed effective date in order to allow time to prepare for implementation.
The current regulation sets a 20 percent limit to the aggregate total of all service hours in a program that AmeriCorps members may spend in education and training activities. As a result, each program must have at least 80 percent of the aggregate of all AmeriCorps member hours in service. This final rule allows AmeriCorps to waive this limit under certain circumstances, to permit up to 50 percent of the aggregate AmeriCorps member hours in a program to be spent in education and training activities. When deciding whether a waiver is appropriate, AmeriCorps will consider whether the AmeriCorps program:
• Is a Registered Apprenticeship program, or
• Is a job training or job readiness program, or
• Includes activities to support member attainment of a GED or high school diploma or occupational, technical, or safety credentials, or
• Primarily enrolls economically disadvantaged AmeriCorps members and is designed to provide soft skills or life skills development for those members.
The final rule allows members in these types of programs who might benefit from additional education and training—for example, people reentering society after incarceration—to participate in national service while acquiring skills and knowledge to ease their transition. Under the current rule, many workforce development and Registered Apprenticeship programs with full-time participants are only able to offer “less than full-time” AmeriCorps member slots because members' service hours spent in training, in excess of the 20% limit, are not creditable. In turn, this limits the amount of the education award available to their participants and could limit their participants' access to health care, childcare, and other benefits afforded to members enrolled in full-time slots and results in their participants being unable to get credit for a large portion of their hours. The waiver will better allow AmeriCorps to advance equity for underserved communities by helping to address this significant barrier to entry.
AmeriCorps expects to grant waivers to new and existing Registered Apprenticeship programs, job training or job readiness programs, programs that include activities to support member attainment of a GED or high school diploma or other credentials, or programs that primarily enroll economically disadvantaged AmeriCorps members and are designed to provide soft skills or life skills development for those members. Grantees may request waivers in writing as part of their grant application and receive a decision on the waiver prior to grant award. As most of the programs that would benefit from this waiver have participants who are serving in the program full time but may only serve part-time as AmeriCorps members because of the current limits on in-service educational time, there is no expectation that the level of service provided to communities would decline. Programs that receive this waiver will be able to allow their members to spend up to 50 percent of their hours in education and training activities, with the remaining 50 percent in service activities, rather than requiring that 80 percent of the hours be devoted to service activities. While it may appear that these programs would be providing nearly 40 percent fewer hours in service to communities, in fact, eligible programs already have participants serving in their programs full time who serve only part-time as AmeriCorps members. For example, a job readiness program may engage a participant in 50% education and training activities and 50% service activities, and without a waiver, the participant would be serving as an AmeriCorps member only part-time—that is, for the 50% of their time spent in service activities and 20 percent of the hours they spend in education and training.
This rule revises the scale that sets out grantees' program costs not provided by AmeriCorps (known as “match” or “cost share”). The current regulations require a graduated match that incrementally increases each year to a total of 50 percent overall share by the tenth year and for each year afterward without a break in funding of five years or more. This final rule replaces that match scale with one that gradually increases at the end of each three-year grant period (rather than annually) to reach a total of 30 percent overall share by the tenth year and for each year afterward without a break in funding of five years or more.
As described in the next section, this change provides a less aggressive scale over a shorter total time period than the proposed scale, which would have increased match to reach a total of 50 percent overall share by the sixteenth year. That proposal was intended to address the increased difficulty many grantees experience in raising match funds, as evidenced by the increase in waiver requests AmeriCorps receives, and to address many of the comments AmeriCorps received in response to the Request for Information from Non-Federal Stakeholders: Grantee Match Requirements (RFI) it published in 2022.
AmeriCorps estimates that the reduction in required match will total less than $100 million annually and anticipates that reducing the burden on programs to raise and report these dollars will increase economic benefits to the programs and the communities they serve. It has been estimated that each taxpayer dollar spent on AmeriCorps and AmeriCorps Seniors programs generates an over $17 return in benefits to society, program members, and the government.
This rule revises the criteria that grantees must demonstrate when they request a waiver of the matching requirements. Currently, the regulation requires grantees to demonstrate: (1) a lack of resources at the local level; (2) that the lack of resources is unique or unusual; (3) the efforts the grantee has made to raise matching resources; and (4) the amount of matching resources the grantee has raised or reasonably expects to raise. The final rule instead specifies four criteria and requires grantees to demonstrate only one of them, and in addition provide supporting documentation and a description of the efforts made to raise match. The final rule's waiver criteria mirror the waiver criteria required in AmeriCorps Seniors programs, with one additional criterion to allow waivers for organizations with revenue of less than $500,000. Specifically, under the final rule, grantees have to demonstrate one of the following: initial difficulties in developing local funding sources during the first three years of operations; an economic downturn, natural disaster, or similar event in the grantee's service area that severely restricts or reduces sources of local funding support; the unexpected discontinuation of local support from one or more sources that a project has relied on for a period of years; or an organizational revenue of less than $500,000.
The current regulations' waiver requirements are overly burdensome to grantees and enhance the risk that AmeriCorps funds will not be fully expended, because grantees must return AmeriCorps funds at closeout if they do not meet the match requirement or receive a waiver. The new waiver criteria reduce this burden and provide more consistency with AmeriCorps Seniors' match waiver criteria. To ensure consistency between the programs, the new AmeriCorps State and National match waiver criteria are identical in wording to AmeriCorps Seniors' match waiver criteria, with one additional criterion. The additional criterion in this final rule, for organizations with less than $500,000 in revenue (as shown on an IRS Form 990, for example), is intended to encourage new, small organizations and those with programs in underserved communities. The rule still requires a description of efforts made to raise matching resources but clarifies that this description must be provided with the waiver request.
The current regulation provides that individuals who serve in AmeriCorps State and National may receive the benefits offered by AmeriCorps for serving up to, but not more than, four terms. It also includes information on how terms are calculated if an individual is released early under various circumstances. The benefits offered to AmeriCorps members include the AmeriCorps Segal Education Award from the National Service Trust upon successful completion of their terms of service. Benefits during service include a living allowance, financial benefits during an extended term of disaster-related service, childcare, and health care.
Separate regulations at 45 CFR 2525.50 limit participants to receiving no more than the value of two full-time education awards. The final rule removes the four-term limit, thus allowing any individual to serve as many terms as necessary to earn the value of two full-time education awards, regardless of whether those terms are served on a full-time, part-time, or reduced part-time basis. This revision removes an artificial barrier on individuals' ability to continue to serve.
In 2010, AmeriCorps established the four-term limit in the current regulations to ensure that there would be opportunities for all interested Americans to serve because, at the time, applications for AmeriCorps far exceeded available positions.
AmeriCorps published a proposed rule with updates to the AmeriCorps State and National regulations on October 6, 2023.
Most of the comments specifically addressed each of the four proposed substantive changes. The following discussion summarizes the comments received and AmeriCorps' responses to those comments.
A few who commented on the proposed waiver of the 20 percent limit on education and training activities to allow up to 50 percent expressed support for the waiver, as proposed. Among the reasons expressed in support of the waiver were that:
• The waiver allows programs to provide more training to members who might need it, for example by allowing members to shadow more experienced members after formal training is complete;
• The waiver increases the equitability of programs by providing members with the opportunity to develop job skills, earn certifications, and receive other training they may not otherwise have had access to because of past court involvement, physical or learning disabilities, poverty, or other obstacles;
• The waiver would allow for more robust bridgebuilding training (that is, training that equips leaders with skills to bridge divides that limit American potential) and provide professional skills to make AmeriCorps members, including economically disadvantaged members, more adept at navigating challenges;
• The waiver would allow more members to successfully complete their term of service and gain the skills needed for employment.
Three commenters opposed the change in the 20 percent limit. Among the reasons for their opposition were:
• The intent of AmeriCorps is to provide community service rather than training;
• AmeriCorps should continue to distinguish itself from existing educational and vocational training programs by maintaining its unique status as a service program in which participants learn by doing;
• The current 20 percent limit is adequate for any program whose prime purpose is service; and
• The waiver would create a two-tiered program in which better educated AmeriCorps members spend more time in service but less-educated members spend more time receiving education and training.
Most who commented on the proposed waiver of the current 20 percent limit on education and training activities advocated for removing the limit entirely. These commenters stated that members in general want more professional development and training, and that all grantees should be able to offer members more for their service experience, remain equally competitive in the labor market, and respond to workforce development priorities without the burden of having to apply for a waiver. Commenters stated that the need to apply for a waiver adds bureaucracy and uncertainty to the application and recruitment process for new grantees because programs will not know whether their program design is acceptable in a timely manner.
Many of these commenters noted that AmeriCorps made member development and career pathways a strategic goal for FY22-26 and a competitive criterion in its FY24 grantmaking and asserted that the 20 percent cap undermines this goal. These commenters stated that the 20 percent limit is outdated because it was established in the early days of AmeriCorps as a need to distinguish AmeriCorps from existing educational and vocational programs, but that in execution the limit poses administrative burdens—for timekeeping, categorizing activities as service or education/training, and monitoring—that are unnecessary management challenges and audit risks. These commenters stated that AmeriCorps' grant application review process, grantee performance measures, and service member descriptions all better assess program design, quality, and effectiveness than an arbitrary limit on training and education hours would do. A few commenters also stated that the 20 percent limit should be eliminated because most programs need only moderate relief of the 20 percent limit to meet members' training and development needs. At least one commenter stated that the rule is unnecessary because the statute does not establish a maximum number of education and training hours. A few of these commenters also stated that the waiver approach would create a two-tiered system for programs, based on whether they receive the waiver.
One commenter suggested raising the limit to 50 percent for all organizations, to eliminate the need for the waiver process.
There will be no additional administrative burden imposed, as waivers will be submitted as part of the grant application process. The proposed plan for off-grant-cycle waivers will be streamlined and administered at the regional office level, so grantees will retain their consistent point of contact.
Tracking whether hours are spent in education/training activities versus service is necessary for both the grantee and the agency for compliance. The use of two lines in a timesheet of service and training is not overly burdensome.
Some commenters stated that the criteria for waiving are too restrictive and that all programs, regardless of type or term length, should have the opportunity to provide members sufficient hours both to prepare for service and to enrich their own development. One commenter stated that the criteria are overly narrow and exclude important workforce-focused programs and therefore should be eliminated or, at a minimum, adjusted to include programs that “utilize a pre-apprenticeship model” and focus on “workforce development.”
A few commenters suggested edits to the waiver criteria including adding “or” after each provision to clarify that they are alternatives and changing or removing the criterion for “economically disadvantaged” because most members could be considered economically disadvantaged.
A few commenters asked about how the waiver process would work, including:
• Whether commissions will have the authority to approve the waivers for formula programs (and if not, how it would work for AmeriCorps, given that the agency is planning not to have formula sub-applications submitted under the eGrants replacement system);
• Whether the waiver process will include an extra form or narrative during the grant application process;
• Whether the applicant will need to specify a percentage when it requests a waiver; and
• Whether applicants will be able to request a waiver during a continuation year (asked because the timing of lining up partnerships might not coincide with the recompete timeline, but allowing requests during continuation years adds administrative burden to track which years a waiver applies to).
A few commenters supported the proposed scale, and particularly supported increasing the required match percentage based on grant cycle rather than annually.
Several grantees noted that match is a challenge not only for new and small programs but also for long-term grantees across the country, as it takes years to cultivate a donor base and donor retention does not typically occur in perpetuity. Some commenters stated that programs are not applying for all the funds for which they are eligible, and that they need, because they cannot raise match. Commenters also noted that the match requests to date are not a good measure of the need for match relief because American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) funding was available for cash match replacement in fiscal years 2021-2023.
Many commenters stated that the proposed delayed match scale only puts off the consequences of funding loss and grantee destabilization, because donor giving does not keep pace with rising costs. One commenter provided citations to several sources stating that charitable giving has been declining over the past several years.
A few commenters said AmeriCorps programs could still be required to document match, but that the burden of providing 50 percent for longstanding programs is unnecessary and overwhelming.
A few commenters noted the impact of inflation, which leads programs to reduce their size and scope if they are unable to increase their fundraising and find new sources of match to keep pace with the increased member living allowance and cost per member service year (MSY). Some commenters noted that the Biden Administration's prioritization of raising member living allowances and the maximum cost per MSY means the amount of match funding increases proportionately each year, foreclosing organizations from accessing federal funds or forcing them
Commenters stated that, compared to other Federal programs, AmeriCorps' match percentages are “misleading” and “uniquely high” because its match is based on total program costs (
Many commenters stated that the proposed match scale perpetuates a detrimental regulation that was established to steadily decrease government investment, but instead undermines outcomes in communities and deters prospective grantees. Commenters also stated that match requirements impede organizations' efforts to provide the best experience for AmeriCorps members. A few commenters argued that raising and documenting match increases the amount of time program staff must spend on administrative activities that could be better spent supporting members and community service.
A few commenters stated that the proposed change to frequency that the scale increases (from every year to every 3 years in a grant period and reaching 50 percent match in year 16 rather than year 10) provides only minor, temporary relief for new grantees, but for all grantees, the match scale poses risks and challenges associated with raising, tracking, and reporting match. A few commenters said AmeriCorps programs could still be required to document match, but the burden of a 50 percent match for longstanding programs is unnecessary and overwhelming.
Most of the commenters who addressed revising the match requirements opposed the proposed scale and instead advocated for a flat required match of 25 percent, regardless of the year of the grant. These commenters noted the difficulties that programs—particularly those in small organizations and those based in marginalized communities without philanthropic networks—face in meeting match, forcing them to withdraw or deterring them from applying in the first place. Commenters asserted that AmeriCorps' emphasis on fiscal sustainability and diversity of funding streams has deprived some communities of needed support services by driving some successful programs out of existence and incentivizing others to transform their program models to reduce match burden. Commenters stated that capping match at a flat 25 percent would:
• Encourage more prospective grantees to apply;
• Encourage programs to invest in higher living allowances for members without facing the heightened match requirements that correspond with higher allowances;
• Better align with other federal grant programs that require a flat match rather than a graduated match scale;
• Reduce burden on new and existing programs by providing immediate relief;
• Enhance program efficiency;
• Improve programs' ability to serve underrepresented populations;
• Reduce audit liabilities, as programs turn to the difficult-to-document in-kind support to meet an increasing match burden;
• Simplify the current match scale, which is confusing to grant applicants;
• Simplify accounting; and
• Eliminate the burden on grantees of having to apply for a match waiver (as long as the 25 percent match is met).
Many commenters reiterated points made in comments that responded to the Request for Information from Non-Federal Stakeholders: Grantee Match Requirements (RFI) (87 FR 26740 (May 5, 2022)) in support of a flat 25 percent match, including that Congress's original intent was that the Federal share not exceed 75 percent, regardless of the number of years a grantee has had the grant.
Several commenters noted that programs will continue to raise outside funds to support their programs if there is a 25 percent flat match, but the proposed scale imposes unnecessary red tape and wastes taxpayer resources without improving program outcomes. Commenters also stated that grantees must necessarily raise more than the 25 percent match because the current cost per MSY exceeds the funding AmeriCorps provides, but the time and risk associated with documenting match is unnecessarily burdensome.
Two commenters responded to the comments requesting a flat 25 percent match and stated their opposition to doing so. One noted that the ability to obtain match is a testament to a program's integrity, weeds out programs that are not a cost-effective use of Federal funds, and keeps programs accountable. The other stated that it would limit the ability to garner support. A few advocated for keeping the current scale.
One commenter suggested a two-tiered system for match to reduce complexity.
A few commenters asserted that the rationale for requiring match is not appropriate for AmeriCorps programs. For example, at least one commenter stated that match scales are based on an investment capital theory of winning additional donors and developing sustainable funding sources that is inappropriate for AmeriCorps programs because AmeriCorps programs fund national service positions and AmeriCorps exists to improve lives, strengthen communities, and foster civic engagement. Other commenters stated that a type of “match” is already built into AmeriCorps programs because members are already giving their time and talents to a degree that provides value far above the cost of their living allowances and benefits.
Commenters stated that the proposal to meet one of four criteria, rather than meeting all, would make the process less burdensome and more equitably support communities in need.
Most who commented on the proposed match waiver criteria stated that the criteria are an improvement but do not address the underlying need to reform match requirements, and opposed relying on match waivers as a means to give grantees relief from the proposed match scale. Commenters stated that the waiver-based system creates uncertainty for applicants and complicates their budget planning. A few noted that it is difficult for grantees to do program outreach and development when approval of the match waiver is not guaranteed.
Several commenters requested reverting from the proposed criterion “initial difficulties in developing local funding sources during the first three years of operations” to the current criterion, “lack of resources at the local level,” to allow programs in underserved areas to continue to obtain match relief even though they may be beyond year three of their grant.
Several commenters suggested adding reference to historical challenges the program or community might face in securing match because the organizations that might most need AmeriCorps funding are often those with smaller staff and resources and less overall capacity to secure match.
Several commenters suggested replacing the flat $500,000 threshold with the single audit threshold, because it is updated periodically, rather than being a static monetary threshold.
A commenter requested that AmeriCorps allow waiver requests both early in the application process and during a grant when a grantee is faced with an unexpected financial situation, and ensure prompt approval and clear documentation of the waiver.
Nearly every commenter who remarked on the proposed removal of the four-term limit supported the proposal. Among the reasons expressed in support of the removal of the limit were that it would:
• Increase individuals' ability to serve their community and engage in workforce development;
• Make service more equitable by allowing anyone who serves successfully to earn the value of two education awards;
• Remove an unnecessary barrier to attracting and enrolling members.
A few commenters noted that over the past decade, a very small percentage of individuals are serving more than two full-time terms of service, but that the term limit should be removed regardless of the recruiting or economic environment to ensure that positions are accessible to communities and individuals based on the mission of the program to engage citizens in addressing community needs. These commenters also noted that service as a pathway to employment is critical for individuals with disabilities or other challenges, as serving multiple terms would allow them to more deeply develop skills they need to successfully re-enter the workforce. Examples of situations commenters noted where term limits would be problematic included:
• A retired teacher who had already served four terms in a college-affiliated program but would like to serve more terms as a high-impact reading tutor;
• A parent with school-age children who was in a part-time 900-hour service term in a rural county where part-time professional positions and after-school childcare options were extremely limited, and continued service would have allowed her to both maintain her professional skills and be at home with
• A member who started serving as a high school senior then, due to her service, decided to change her major and become a teacher but already served four terms and so could not continue to serve through the remainder of her preparation to become a public school teacher; and
• College students who, because they are juggling education and work commitments, can only serve in less-than-full-time AmeriCorps positions, and would like to serve more than four terms over the course of their education.
Commenters noted that people may come to AmeriCorps at a wide range of ages, and a term limit can keep people from returning to service and benefitting from the skill development and community building they need at a particular life stage—whether post-high school or -college, job transitions, parenthood, retirement, etc., if they served multiple terms at a younger age. Programs sometimes lose their most effective, experienced members because they have reached their four-term limit. A number of commenters with rural-serving programs and a smaller pool of potential service candidates noted the importance of returning members to the success of their program, including in building trust with partners and communities.
Many commenters expressed the benefits to removing the limitation on terms of service, including:
• Members serving multiple terms gain experience with the programs and develop into potential program coordinators, managers, and state or national officers, as well as becoming advocates for national service;
• Members serving multiple terms support and mentor new members and those who have limited service or job experience, offering essential training, professionalism, and perspectives.
Several commenters requested clarification of whether members may elect to serve additional terms after they have earned the aggregate value of two full-time education awards, because the proposed regulation, as written, could unintentionally be interpreted to prevent members from continuing to serve once they have attained that aggregate value. Under that interpretation, members could not even serve the currently permitted four full-time terms. A few commenters provided examples of members who have served the four full-time terms and noted the negative effect this interpretation would have on programs' ability to recruit and retain members.
Several commenters stated that, in their experience, only a few members choose to return to service beyond their initial two years (one commenter estimated less than 2 percent of members serve more than two terms), but those that do are exceptionally valuable for the programs, leveraging their prior service experience to assume leadership roles and maintain continuity in programs and service, while maximizing their professional development experience. Commenters noted that for a select number of individuals, particularly those with the most barriers to workforce success, more than two full-time terms may be needed for the member to step seamlessly into their next workplace (or other) role.
A commenter pointed out that there is no term limit in the statute. Commenters suggested that AmeriCorps and State service commissions can take certain steps to ensure that removal of the term limit is not abused, including working with programs to ensure they are not relying on members serving multiple terms of service, that no organizational grantee has a disproportionate number of long-term participants, and that all long-term participants are truly carrying out vital service to the community.
A few commenters stated their understanding that removal of the term limit would allow individuals who receive two full-time education awards to receive the other benefits of serving in AmeriCorps, such as earning a living allowance, if they continue to serve.
The final rule makes a change to the proposed match scale and clarifies the parameters for unlimited member terms in response to comments. The final rule also makes two technical updates to replace an outdated provision and outdated citations. Each of these is described below.
At § 2521.60(a), the final rule adjusts the proposed match scale. AmeriCorps proposed a match scale that would have increased more gradually than the existing required match until it reached 50 percent of the overall program cost by the sixteenth year. In response to the comments, which were nearly unanimous in their assertion that the proposed scale would not provide sufficient match relief, the final rule adjusts the match to an even less abrupt and steep match scale, establishing a required minimum match of 30 percent of the overall program cost by the tenth year and beyond. The final rule retains the proposed rule's approach of increasing match less often (by grant period, rather than annually) to reduce the burden on grantees of raising, tracking, and reporting increasing annual percentages. It further simplifies the match scale by establishing the highest minimum required match in year 10, rather than year 16, relieving grantees of the need to track and keep abreast of two additional increases in the minimum match. Specifically, the proposed rule would have established the following match schedule:
The final rule establishes the following match schedule, to provide grantees with match relief and minimize any deterrent the current match scale may have on prospective grantees that have less access to matching funds (
These changes to the proposed match schedule are intended to reduce burden and are not designed or intended to decrease the number of members serving or shift the investment from grantee match to agency contribution. As noted in the proposed rule, lowering the match amount does not change the cost to run a strong AmeriCorps program. Thus, grantees will continue to have to raise additional funds beyond the required match generally, for the sustainability of their organization, but they will no longer be in danger of having to return AmeriCorps funds at the end of their grants if they fail to raise match that is so far in excess of the 25 percent indicated by statutory text. To the extent they are able, grantees are strongly encouraged to raise funding beyond the required match amount to extend the reach of national service as much as possible.
The final rule clarifies the proposed rule's language, which stated that the number of terms a member may serve is limited to the number of terms needed to attain the aggregate value of two full-time education awards. As described in the response to comments, the final rule more explicitly states that an individual may continue to serve beyond that point, but that AmeriCorps will fund the member benefits only to that point. The final rule further clarifies that the grantee organization may choose to fund members' benefits, such as the living allowance, for any additional terms beyond that point. This approach aligns the time AmeriCorps resources contribute to benefits with the time required to attain the value of two full-time education awards and safeguards taxpayer funds.
The final rule deletes outdated provisions that limited the Federal share of a member's living allowance to 85 percent of the minimum required living allowance. These provisions are outdated because the Serve America Act eliminated the requirement for grantees to match 15% of the member living allowance and member support cost.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Office of Management and Budget has determined that this rule is not a significant regulatory action.
As required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
For purposes of Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 2 U.S.C. 1531-1538, as well as Executive Order 12875, this regulatory action does not contain any Federal mandate that may result in increased expenditures in Federal, State, local, or Tribal Governments in the aggregate, or impose an annual burden exceeding $100 million on the private sector.
Under the PRA, an agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of information unless the collections of information display valid control numbers. The application for AmeriCorps State and National grants are authorized under OMB Control Number 3045-0047, which expires September 30, 2026. Applicants for grants who would like to request a waiver under this proposed rule would do so as part of the application process, but the request is exempted from the definition of “information” subject to PRA requirements because it is a simple acknowledgment that the applicant is requesting a waiver based on one of the criteria.
Executive Order 13132, Federalism, prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local Governments and is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. This rulemaking does not have any federalism implications, as described above.
This rule does not affect a taking of private property or otherwise have taking implications under Executive Order 12630 because this rule does not affect individual property rights protected by the Fifth Amendment or involve a compensable “taking.” A takings implication assessment is not required.
This rule complies with the requirements of Executive Order 12988. Specifically, this rulemaking: (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.
AmeriCorps recognizes the inherent sovereignty of Indian Tribes and their right to self-governance. We have evaluated this rulemaking under our consultation policy and the criteria in Executive Order 13175 and determined that this rule does not impose substantial direct effects on federally recognized Tribes.
Grant programs—social programs, Volunteers.
Grant programs—social programs, Volunteers.
Grant programs—social programs, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volunteers.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, under the authority of 42 U.S.C. 12651c(c), the Corporation for National and Community Service amends Chapter XXV, title 45 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
42 U.S.C. 12571-12595.
(a) No more than 20 percent of the aggregate of all AmeriCorps member service hours in your program, as reflected in the member enrollments in the National Service Trust, may be spent in education and training activities, unless AmeriCorps grants a waiver under paragraph (c) of this section.
(b) Capacity-building activities and direct service activities do not count towards the 20 percent cap on education and training activities.
(c) AmeriCorps may waive the limit in paragraph (a) of this section to allow up to 50 percent of the aggregate of all AmeriCorps member service hours in your program to be spent in education and training activities if your program:
(1) Is a Registered Apprenticeship program;
(2) Is a job training or job readiness program;
(3) Includes activities to support member attainment of a GED or high school diploma or occupational, technical, or safety credentials; or
(4) Primarily enrolls economically disadvantaged AmeriCorps members and employs a program design that also includes soft skills or life skills development.
42 U.S.C. 12571-12595
The limitations on the Federal government's share are different—in type and amount—for member support costs and program operating costs.
(a)
(1) If you are a professional corps described in § 2522.240(b)(2)(i) of this chapter, you may not use AmeriCorps funds for the living allowance.
(2) Your share of member support costs must be non-Federal cash.
(3) AmeriCorps's share of health care costs may not exceed 85 percent.
Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, if your program continues
(a)
(2) A State commission may meet its match based on the aggregate of its grantees' individual match requirements.
(b)
(a) AmeriCorps may waive, in whole or in part, the requirements of §§ 2521.45 and 2521.60 if AmeriCorps determines that a waiver would be equitable because of a lack of available financial resources at the local level.
(b) If you are requesting a waiver, you must demonstrate:
(1) Initial difficulties in the development of local funding sources during the first three years of operations; or
(2) An economic downturn, the occurrence of a natural disaster, or similar events in the service area that severely restrict or reduce sources of local funding support; or
(3) The unexpected discontinuation of local support from one or more sources that a project has relied on for a period of years; or
(4) Organizational revenue of less than $500,000.
(c) You must provide with your waiver request:
(1) A description of the efforts you have made to raise matching resources; and
(2) A request for the specific amount of match you are asking AmeriCorps to waive; and
(3) A budget and budget narrative that reflect the requested level in matching resources.
42 U.S.C. 12571-12595; 12651b-12651d; E.O. 13331, 69 FR 9911, Sec. 1612, Pub. L. 111-13.
The number of terms an individual may serve in an AmeriCorps State and National program are not limited, but an individual may attain only the aggregate value of two full-time education awards and AmeriCorps will fund the benefits described in §§ 2522.240 through 2522.250 only for the number of terms needed to attain the aggregate value of two full-time education awards. Grantees may choose to fund benefits for any additional terms.
(a)
(b) * * *
(6)
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of agency decision of an amendment to a fishery management plan.
On May 20, 2024, the Regional Administrator of NMFS West Coast Region, with the concurrence of the Assistant Administrator for NMFS, approved amendment 21 to the Coastal Pelagic Species Fishery Management Plan (CPS FMP). Amendment 21 implements a number of non-substantive, administrative changes to the CPS FMP including defining acronyms upon first use, adding hyperlinks, removing repetitive language, and rearranging sections for clarity and logical sequence. These changes, colloquially referred to as “housekeeping” changes, do not change the management of the fishery. This amendment is intended to promote the goals and objectives of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, the CPS FMP, and other applicable laws.
Amendment 21 was approved on May 20, 2024.
Taylor Debevec, Sustainable Fisheries Division, NMFS, (562) 980-4066,
The CPS fishery in the U.S. exclusive economic zone off the West Coast is managed under the CPS FMP. The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) developed the CPS FMP pursuant to the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act, 16 U.S.C. 1801
The Magnuson-Stevens Act requires each regional fishery management council to submit any amendment to an FMP to NMFS for review and approval, disapproval, or partial approval. The Magnuson-Stevens Act also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an amendment to an FMP, immediately publish notification in the
Amendment 21, colloquially referred to as a “housekeeping” amendment, made edits to the CPS FMP as amendment document for clarity and content and made no changes to the management of CPS fisheries. In addition to minor editorial clarifications in the FMP, most of the proposed changes fall into the following categories: abbreviations and acronyms, hyperlinks, chub mackerel, headings and structure, and organizational terminology.
Additional background on this amendment can be found in the NOA. A complete list of the changes in amendment 21 to the CPS FMP is available on the Council website at
16 U.S.C. 1801
Office of Government Ethics.
Proposed rule.
The U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE) is issuing a proposed rule to revise the component designations of one agency for purposes of the one-year post-employment conflict of interest restriction for senior employees. Specifically, based on the recommendation of the Department of Health and Human Services, OGE is proposing to designate one new component in its regulations.
Written comments are invited and must be received on or before June 27, 2024.
You may submit comments, in writing, to OGE on this proposed rule, identified by RIN 3209-AA59, by any of the following methods:
Kimberly L. Sikora Panza, Senior Associate Counsel, U.S. Office of Government Ethics, 250 E Street SW, Suite 750, Washington, DC 20024-3249; Telephone: 202-482-9300; TTY: 800-877-8339; FAX: 202-482-9237.
The Director of OGE (Director) is authorized by 18 U.S.C. 207(h) to designate distinct and separate departmental or agency components in the executive branch for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c), the one-year post-employment conflict of interest restriction for senior employees. Under 18 U.S.C. 207(h)(2), component designations do not apply to persons employed at a rate of pay specified in or fixed according to subchapter II of 5 U.S.C. chapter 53 (the Executive Schedule). Component designations are listed in appendix B to 5 CFR part 2641.
The representational bar of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) usually extends to the whole of any department or agency in which a former senior employee served in any capacity during the year prior to termination from a senior employee position. However, 18 U.S.C. 207(h) provides that whenever the Director “determines that an agency or bureau within a department or agency in the executive branch exercises functions which are distinct and separate from the remaining functions of the department or agency and that there exists no potential for use of undue influence or unfair advantage based on past Government service,” the Director shall by rule designate that agency or bureau as a separate component of that department or agency. As a result, a former senior employee who served in a designated component of a parent department or agency is barred from communicating to or making an appearance before any employee of that component, but is not barred as to any employee of the parent, of another designated component, or of any other agency or bureau of the parent that has not been designated. Likewise, a former senior employee who served in a “parent” department or agency is not barred by 18 U.S.C. 207(c) from making communications to or appearances before any employees of any designated component of that parent, but is barred as to employees of that parent or of other components that have not been separately designated.
The Director regularly reviews the component designations listed in appendix B to part 2641, and in consultation with the department or agency concerned, makes such additions and deletions as are necessary. Specifically, pursuant to 5 CFR 2641.302(e)(3), the Director “shall, by rule, make or revoke a component designation after considering the recommendation of the designated agency ethics official.” Before designating an agency component as distinct and separate for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c), the Director must find that the component is an agency or bureau within a parent agency that exercises functions which are distinct and separate from the functions of the parent agency and from the functions of other components of that parent, and that there exists no potential for use of undue influence or unfair advantage based on past Government service.
Pursuant to the procedures prescribed in 5 CFR 2641.302(e), one agency provided a complete request to update its components listed in appendix B to part 2641. After carefully reviewing the requested change in light of the criteria in 18 U.S.C. 207(h) as implemented in 5 CFR 2641.302(c), OGE is proposing to grant this request and amend appendix B as explained below.
The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has requested that OGE designate the Administration for Strategic Preparedness and Response (ASPR) in appendix B to part 2641 as a separate component of HHS for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c) because it exercises functions that are distinct and separate from the functions of the parent agency and other components. ASPR—previously operated as the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response—was originally created in December 2006 when Congress passed the Pandemic and All-Hazards Preparedness Act, Public Law 109-417, 120 Stat. 2831. On July 22, 2022, HHS announced the reclassification of ASPR from a staff division to an Operating Division at HHS, which elevated ASPR to a standalone agency within HHS. All of the other Operating Divisions of HHS are currently designated as separate agency components in 5 CFR part 2641,
The factors set forth in 5 CFR 2641.302(c) support designation of ASPR as a separate agency component in appendix B. As discussed above, the office was originally created by statute in 2006, and its reclassification as an Operating Division became effective on February 11, 2023.
In absolute terms, ASPR is a small component that has just over 1,200 employees and a budget of $3.63 billion in fiscal year (FY) 2024; the entirety of HHS employs over 87,000 individuals. In relative terms, ASPR is larger than 3 of the 11 HHS components currently designated in appendix B, and smaller than the other 8.
According to HHS, designation of ASPR as a separate agency component would not create the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage based on the past Government service of ASPR employees. As discussed above, ASPR is unique in that its mission focuses on assisting the country to prepare for, respond to, and recover from public health emergencies and disasters, and in furtherance of this mission, ASPR engages in work that differentiates it from other HHS components and the larger agency.
OGE therefore is proposing to grant the request of HHS and amend the agency's listing in appendix B to part 2641 to add ASPR as a new component for purposes of 18 U.S.C. 207(c). ASPR is separate and distinct from its parent organization and other HHS components, and given the manner in which ASPR works independently from other Operating Divisions and the entirety of the agency, there exists no potential for the use of undue influence or unfair advantage based on past Government service.
As indicated in 5 CFR 2641.302(f), a designation “shall be effective on the date the rule creating the designation is published in the
As Acting Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I certify under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) that this proposed rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because it affects only Federal departments and agencies and current and former Federal employees.
The Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35) does not apply to this proposed rule because it does not contain information collection requirements that require the approval of the Office of Management and Budget.
For purposes of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. chapter 25, subchapter II), this proposed rule will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments and will not result in increased expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (as adjusted for inflation) in any one year.
The proposed rule is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. chapter 8, Congressional Review of Agency Rulemaking.
In promulgating this rule, the Office of Government Ethics has adhered to the regulatory philosophy and the applicable principles of regulation set forth in Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review (58 FR 51735, Oct. 4, 1993); Executive Order 13563, Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review (76 FR 3821, Jan. 21, 2011); and Executive Order 14094, Modernizing Regulatory Review (88 FR 21879, Apr. 11, 2023). Executive Orders 13563 and 12866 direct agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select the regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including economic, environmental, public health and safety effects, distributive impacts, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility.
This proposed rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 because it is not a “significant” regulatory action for the purposes of that order.
As Acting Director of the Office of Government Ethics, I have reviewed this proposed rule in light of section 3 of Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform, and certify that it meets the applicable standards provided therein.
The Office of Government Ethics has evaluated this proposed rule under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 13175 and determined that tribal consultation is not required as this proposed rule has no 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.
Conflict of interests, Government employees.
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, the U.S. Office of Government Ethics proposes to amend 5 CFR part 2641 as set forth below:
5 U.S.C. ch. 131; 18 U.S.C. 207; E.O. 12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to amend United States Area Navigation (RNAV) Routes Q-1 and Q-902, Very High Frequency Omnidirectional Range (VOR) Federal Airway V-495, and Jet Route J-502; revoke Jet Route J-589; and establish of United States RNAV Route T-487 and Canadian RNAV Route T-895 in Northwestern United States. The FAA is proposing these airspace actions due to the pending decommissioning of the Victoria, British Columbia (BC), Canada, VOR/Distance Measuring Equipment (VOR/DME).
Comments must be received on or before July 12, 2024.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. FAA-2024-1347 and Airspace Docket No. 23-AWP-47 using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Steven Roff, Rules and Regulations Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-8783.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would amend the airway structure as necessary to preserve the safe and efficient flow of air traffic within the National Airspace System.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
United States RNAV routes (Q-routes) are published in paragraph 2006, VOR Federal airways are published in paragraph 6010, Jet Routes are published in paragraph 2004, United States RNAV routes (T-routes) are published in paragraph 6011, and Canadian RNAV routes (T-routes) are published in paragraph 6013 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023, and effective September 15, 2023. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
In 2003, Congress enacted the Vision 100-Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act (Pub L., 108-176), which established a joint planning and development office in the FAA to manage the work related to the Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen). Today, NextGen is an ongoing FAA-led modernization of the nation's air transportation system to make flying safer, more efficient, and more predictable.
In support of NextGen, this proposal is part of an ongoing, large, and comprehensive route modernization project. As part of this project, the FAA evaluated the existing Airway structure for: (a) direct replacement (
The aviation industry/users have indicated a desire for the FAA to transition the en route navigation structure away from dependency on NDBs and move to develop and improve the RNAV route structure.
Additionally, Canada is modernizing their airway systems by reducing the number of ground-based Navigational Aids (NAVAID) and transitioning to the use of the Global Positioning System (GPS) as the primary means of airway navigation. As part of this process, unused or unneeded ground-based NAVAIDs are being decommissioned. As part of NAV CANADA's program, the Victoria, BC, Canada, VOR/DME will be decommissioned and replaced with the new VIXOR, BC, Canada, waypoint (WP). The VIXOR WP will be approximately 43 feet from the current location of the Victoria VOR/DME. As a result of the NAVAID decommissioning, the airways/routes currently utilizing the Victoria VOR/DME will require amending or revocation. The Victoria VOR/DME decommissioning will impact J-589, J-502, Q-902 and V-495. In a separate initiative, the FAA and NAV CANADA are jointly replacing boundary computer navigation fix (CNF) names that are unpronounceable with five letter waypoints, which will be easier to pronounce.
The FAA is proposing an amendment to 14 CFR part 71 to amend RNAV Routes Q-1 and Q-902, VOR Federal Airway V-495, and Jet Route J-502. The FAA is also proposing the revocation of Jet Route J-589 and the establishment of United States RNAV Route T-487 and Canadian RNAV Route T-895 in Northwestern United States. The FAA is proposing this airspace action due to the pending decommissioning of the Victoria, BC, Canada, VOR/DME.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
From Kotzebue, AK; Fairbanks, AK; to Northway, AK.
From Fort Jones, CA; INT Fort Jones, CA 340° and Roseburg, OR 174° radials; INT Roseburg 355° and Corvallis, OR 195° radials; Corvallis; Newberg, OR; Battle Ground, WA; to Seattle, WA.
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
This action proposes to establish Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Akiachak Airport, Akiachak, AK. This action will support the airport's transition from visual flight rules (VFR) to instrument flight rules (IFR).
Comments must be received on or before July 12, 2024.
Send comments identified by FAA Docket No. [FAA-2024-1076] and Airspace Docket No. [23-AAL-55] using any of the following methods:
*
*
*
*
FAA Order JO 7400.11H, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, and subsequent amendments can be viewed online at
Nathan A. Chaffman, Federal Aviation Administration, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 2200 S 216th Street, Des Moines, WA 98198; telephone (206) 231-3460.
The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the United States Code. Subtitle I, Section 106 describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would establish Class E airspace to support IFR operations at Akiachak Airport, Akiachak, AK.
The FAA invites interested persons to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written comments, data, or views. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal. The most helpful comments reference a specific portion of the proposal, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include supporting data. To ensure the docket does not contain duplicate comments, commenters should submit only one time if comments are filed electronically, or commenters should send only one copy of written comments if comments are filed in writing.
The FAA will file in the docket all comments it receives, as well as a report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this proposed rulemaking. Before acting on this proposal, the FAA will consider all comments it receives on or before the closing date for comments. The FAA will consider comments filed after the comment period has closed if it is possible to do so without incurring expense or delay. The FAA may change this proposal in light of the comments it receives.
An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the internet at
You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Operations office (see
Class E5 airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005 of FAA Order JO 7400.11, Airspace Designations and Reporting Points, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 on an annual basis. This document proposes to amend the current version of that order, FAA Order JO 7400.11H, dated August 11, 2023 and effective September 15, 2023. These updates would be published in the next update to FAA Order JO 7400.11. That order is publicly available as listed in the
FAA Order JO 7400.11H lists Class A, B, C, D, and E airspace areas, air traffic service routes, and reporting points.
Class E airspace beginning at 700 feet above the surface should be established at Akiachak Airport to contain departing aircraft until reaching 1,200 feet above the surface and arriving aircraft below 1,500 feet above the surface. The proposed airspace is centered on the Akiachak Airport reference point, with a 6.5-mile radius to encompass the diverse departure environment.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore: (1) is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this proposed rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
This proposal will be subject to an environmental analysis in accordance with FAA Order 1050.1F, “Environmental Impacts: Policies and Procedures” prior to any FAA final regulatory action.
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface within a 6.5-mile radius of Akiachak Airport.
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Proposed rule; extension of comment period.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or the Agency) is extending the comment period for the reopening notice entitled “Color Additive Certification; Increase in Fees for Certification Services; Reopening of the Comment Period” that appeared in the
FDA is extending the comment period on the notice “Color Additive Certification; Increase in Fees for Certification Services; Reopening of the Comment Period” published in the
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
Bryan Bowes, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Cosmetics and Colors (HFS-105), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-1122; or Carrol Bascus, Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, Office of Regulations and Policy (HFS-024), Food and Drug Administration, 5001 Campus Dr., College Park, MD 20740, 240-402-2378.
In the
FDA received a request for a 90-day extension of the comment period for the reopening notice. We are extending the comment period for 30 days until June 27, 2024. The Agency believes that the extension is reasonable and allows adequate time for interested parties to review the supporting information added to the administrative record and to develop and submit additional comments to the proposed rule.
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Coast Guard is proposing to establish a safety zone for the navigable waters of the Sector Delaware Bay Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone, to be enforced in the event of hurricanes, tropical storms, and other storms with high winds. This action is necessary to ensure the safety of the waters of the Sector Delaware Bay COTP Zone. It would establish actions to be completed by industry and vessels within the COTP Zone before and after hurricanes, tropical storms, and other storms with high winds threatening the States of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania make landfall. We invite your comments on this proposed rulemaking.
Comments and related material must be received by the Coast Guard on or before June 27, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by docket number USCG-2024-0251 using the Federal Decision-Making Portal at
If you have questions about this proposed rulemaking, call or email LT Owen Mims, Chief Waterways Management Division, U.S. Coast Guard; 215-271-4814,
Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania have the potential to be affected by hurricanes and tropical storms on a yearly basis, especially between the months of June and November. Additionally, severe storms generating high winds and rough seas are also common in the winter months. The Coast Guard proposes establishing a safety zone to protect mariners, port infrastructure, and the environment during and after these severe weather events in the Sector Delaware Bay Captain of the Port (COTP) Zone. The Coast Guard is proposing this rulemaking under authority in 46 U.S.C. 70034.
The Coast Guard proposes to establish a safety zone on the navigable waters of the Sector Delaware Bay COTP Zone during hurricanes, tropical storms, and other storms with high winds. This safety zone would facilitate planning by establishing actions to be completed by local industry and vessels in the COTP zone prior to and after landfall of hurricanes, tropical storms, and other storms with high winds threatening the States of Delaware, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Port Conditions (WHISKEY, X-RAY, YANKEE, ZULU, and RECOVERY) are standardized Coast Guard terms within the Coast Guard's Atlantic Area for states of operation declared by the COTP and communicated to port facilities, vessels, and members of the Marine Transportation System (MTS). Notice of Port Conditions and their requirements would be given via Marine Safety Information Bulletins and Broadcast Notice to Mariners.
Actions to be taken by vessels are provided in the language of the proposed rule. In addition, ports and waterfront facilities are encouraged to act when specific Port Conditions are declared. Under Port Condition WHISKEY, all ports and waterfront facilities shall remove all potential flying debris and secure potential flying hazards. Upon declaration of Port Condition X-RAY, all ports and waterfront facilities shall ensure that all requirements under Port Condition WHISKEY are implemented in addition to the removal of all hazardous materials, and securing all loose cargo, and cargo equipment. Upon a declaration of Port Condition YANKEE, all ports and waterfront facilities should ensure that all requirements under Port Condition X-RAY are implemented, and terminal operators shall cease all cargo operations not associated with storm preparations.
Under the proposed rule, the COTP would retain flexibility in exercising control over vessel traffic during periods of heavy weather, and the proposed rule would allow for the expedited resumption of the MTS following such events. The proposed safety zone would consist of all waters of the territorial seas within the Sector Delaware Bay COTP Zone, as defined in 33 CFR 3.25-05. Portions of the safety zone might be activated at different times, as conditions dictated. The regulatory text we are proposing appears at the end of this document.
We developed this proposed rule after considering numerous statutes and Executive orders related to rulemaking. Below, we summarize our analyses based on a number of these statutes and Executive orders, and we discuss First Amendment rights of protestors.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess the costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits. This NPRM has not been designated a “significant regulatory action,” under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, as amended by Executive Order 14094 (Modernizing Regulatory Review). Accordingly, the NPRM has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
This regulatory action determination is based on the necessity to protect life, port infrastructure, and the environment during hurricanes, tropical storms, and other storms with high winds. The scope of the regulation is narrow and will only apply when a hurricane, tropical storm, or other storm with high winds impacts the navigable waters of the Delaware Bay COTP Zone. These events are infrequent and of short duration. Regulatory restrictions will be lifted as soon as practicable.
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.
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
The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531-1538) requires Federal agencies to assess the effects of their discretionary regulatory actions. In particular, the Act addresses actions that may result in the expenditure by a State, local, or tribal government, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100,000,000 (adjusted for inflation) or more in any one year. Though this proposed rule would not result in such an expenditure, we do discuss the potential effects of this proposed rule elsewhere in this preamble.
We have analyzed this proposed rule under Department of Homeland Security Directive 023-01, Rev. 1, associated implementing instructions, and Environmental Planning COMDTINST 5090.1 (series), which guide the Coast Guard in complying with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321-4370f), and have made a preliminary determination that this action is one of a category of actions that do not individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment. This proposed rule involves a safety zone that would prohibit entry in certain waters of the Sector Delaware Bay COTP Zone for the duration needed to ensure safe transit of vessels and industry before and after a hurricane, tropical storm, or other storm with high winds. Normally such actions are categorically excluded from further review under paragraph L60(a) of Appendix A, Table 1 of DHS Instruction Manual 023-01-001-01, Rev. 1. A preliminary Record of Environmental Consideration supporting this determination is available in the docket. For instructions on locating the docket, see the
The Coast Guard respects the First Amendment rights of protesters. Protesters are asked to call or email the person listed in the
We view public participation as essential to effective rulemaking and will consider all comments and material received during the comment period. Your comment can help shape the outcome of this rulemaking. If you submit a comment, please include the docket number for this rulemaking, indicate the specific section of this document to which each comment applies, and provide a reason for each suggestion or recommendation.
We review all comments received, but we will only post comments that address the topic of the proposed rule. We may choose not to post off-topic, inappropriate, or duplicate comments that we receive.
Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Coast Guard is proposing to amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows:
46 U.S.C. 70034, 70051, 70124; 33 CFR 1.05-1, 6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160.5; Department of Homeland Security Delegation No. 00170.1, Revision No. 01.3.
(a)
(b)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(c)
(2) Port Condition X-RAY. All vessels must ensure that potential flying debris and hazardous materials are removed, and that loose cargo and cargo equipment is secured . Vessels at facilities must carefully monitor their moorings and cargo operations. Additional anchor(s) must be made ready to let go, and preparations must be made to have a continuous anchor watch during the storm. Engine(s) must be made immediately available for maneuvering. Also, vessels must maintain a continuous listening watch on VHF Channel 16. All oceangoing tank barges and their supporting tugs and all self-propelled oceangoing vessels over 500 GT must prepare to depart the port and anchorages within the affected regulated area. These vessels shall depart immediately upon the setting of Port Condition YANKEE. During this condition, slow-moving vessels may be ordered to depart to ensure safe avoidance of the incoming storm. Vessels that are unable to depart the port must contact the COTP to receive permission to remain in port. Vessels with COTP's permission to remain in port must implement their pre-approved mooring arrangement. The COTP may require additional precautions to ensure the safety of the ports and waterways. The COTP may modify the geographic boundaries of the regulated area and actions to be taken under Port Condition X-RAY based on the trajectory and forecasted storm conditions.
(3) Port Condition YANKEE. Affected ports are closed to all inbound vessel traffic. All oceangoing tank barges and their supporting tugs and all self-propelled oceangoing vessels over 500 GT must depart the regulated area. The COTP may require additional precautions to ensure the safety of the ports and waterways. The COTP may modify the geographic boundaries of the regulated area within the Delaware Bay COTP Zone and actions to be taken under Port Condition YANKEE based on the trajectory and forecasted storm conditions.
(4) Port Condition ZULU. When Port Condition ZULU is declared, cargo operations are suspended, except final preparations that are expressly permitted by the COTP as necessary to ensure the safety of the ports and facilities. Other than vessels designated by the COTP, no vessels may enter, transit, move, or anchor within the regulated area. The COTP may modify the geographic boundaries of the regulated area and actions to be taken under Port Condition ZULU based on the trajectory and forecasted storm conditions.
(5) Port Condition RECOVERY. The COTP Zone, or portions of it designated as regulated areas, as are closed to all vessels. Based on assessments of channel conditions, navigability concerns, and hazards to navigation, the COTP may permit vessel movements with restrictions. Restrictions may include, but are not limited to, preventing, or delaying vessel movements, imposing draft, speed, size, horsepower or daylight restrictions, or directing the use of specific routes. Vessels permitted to transit the regulated area shall comply with the lawful orders or directions given by the COTP or representative.
(6) Regulated Area Notice. The Coast Guard will provide notice, via Broadcast Notice to Mariners, Marine Safety Information Bulletins, or by on-scene representatives, of where, within the COTP Zone, a declared Port Condition is to be in effect.
(7) Exception. This regulation does not apply to authorized law enforcement agencies operating within the regulated area.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice of proposed rulemaking.
The Commission is acknowledging a recent Postal Service filing requesting the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports (Proposal Three). This document 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.
On May 13, 2024, the Postal Service filed a petition pursuant to 39 CFR 3050.11 requesting that the Commission initiate a rulemaking proceeding to consider changes to analytical principles relating to periodic reports.
In accordance with Order No. 7016, the Postal Service filed notice with the Commission to develop procedures to derive separate Zone 10 transportation cost estimates for PM and GA.
The Postal Service states that the mail transportation cost model for PM is updated annually and filed with the Annual Compliance Review (ACR), most recently in Docket No. ACR2023, Library Reference USPS-FY23-NP27, December 29, 2023. Petition, Proposal Three at 2. The current GA transportation cost model was first introduced as an interim model during the FY 2023 ACR and is under concurrent review before the Commission in Docket No. RM2024-7.
The Postal Service states that “the current Priority Mail transportation models (USPS-FY23-NP27, `FY2023ParcelsCostModel.xls' and `FY2023FlatsCostModel.xls') group the costs from Cost Segment 14 into cube- and weight-related, air- and surface-related, distance- and non-distance-related components to calculate an overall cost per pound and a cost per cube by zone.” Petition, Proposal Three at 2. The Postal Service explains that “[t]he distributions to each zone are based on the cube and weight of parcels and flats by zone, parameters derived from USPS-LR-L-39, and USPS-LR-L-37 Table 107 air weight and average haul mileage by zone summaries for aggregated air lanes.”
The Postal Service states “[t]he current USPS Ground Advantage transportation model (USPS-FY23-NP27, `GATransportationByZone_FY23.xls') groups the costs from Cost Segment 14 in to Local/Intermediate costs, Long Distance Surface costs, and Air costs to derive a cost per cubic foot.”
The Postal Service states that it applies the resulting costs by zone to appropriately reflect the costs associated with a specific customer's weight and zone profile when calculating the financial projections of negotiated service agreements (NSA) that include PM or GA.
First, Proposal Three entails a mechanical update to PM transportation models, where the Postal Service plans to consolidate and eliminate redundancy in workbooks detailing the models.
Second, the Postal Service would add Zone 10 to the model structures for PM and GA.
Third, Proposal Three utilizes additional detailed information the Postal Service developed to account for the distance taper effect.
The Postal Service states that “[t]he proposed methodology takes advantage of detailed information that is available for Highway Contract Route (HCR) trips:”
• The total mileage in a quarter for each trip can be determined from its origin and destination together with the number of trips per quarter. The same information is currently used by Transportation Cost System (TRACS) to identify HCR trips and trip lengths.
• The predicted cost per mile is determined from contract information for each route within a contract type and cost segment. This cost per mile can be applied to all trips assigned to that route.
• For each trip, the zone from origin to destination can be determined from the three-digit ZIP Codes of the origin and destination facilities.
The Postal Service states that “[f]or each zone, the average cost per mile can be calculated by aggregating the quarterly miles and predicted quarterly costs for all trips whose origin and destination map to that zone.”
The Postal service summarizes the distance taper adjustment factors for Inter-SCF regular trips for FY 2023 Q4 as follows:
The Postal Service states that it “intends to repeat this analysis each fiscal year and provide updated distance taper factors in USPS-FYxx-NP27 along with other updated parameters that are provided for the transportation cost models utilized for NSAs.”
Fourth, the Postal Service proposes a methodological change for the treatment of transportation cost pools for both PM and GA in order to refine the existing methodologies by using more granular data to develop new distribution keys by zone to distribute the costs more accurately in each Cost Segment 14 cost pool by the applicable cost driver.
First, calculations for PM air weight and average haul by zone have been updated to incorporate Zone 10.
Additionally, air weights for Commercial Air, UPS, and Air Taxi distributions by zone would be kept separate rather than aggregated and Air Taxi air weights would be further split into Intra-Caribbean versus all other lanes.
The Postal Service proposes to remove calculating the average haul mileage per zone for the FedEx, Commercial Air, UPS, Hawaii, and Air Taxi cost pools because these cost pools do not have distance-related cost components.
The Postal Service proposes maintaining the separation of the existing distributions by zone for Alaska, Hawaii, and the Caribbean instead of combining these distributions in the final step.
Second, the Postal Service proposes replacing several parameters in the cost model for costs pertaining to mail in Alaska, reflecting distance and non-distance related costs for that mail.
Third, The Postal Services proposes that air weight and average haul miles by zone be calculated for individual providers, rather than aggregated.
The Priority Mail air weight by zone would be distributed between parcels and flats, as in the current methodology, and the air cube for FedEx Day Turn parcels and flats would be calculated using the density factors and the air weight for FedEx. Next, the Air distribution keys for each air cost pool for parcels and flats would be calculated using the weight and cube by zone from the same cost pool. This refinement would represent an improvement over the current methodology because now, for example, UPS costs would be distributed to each zone according to the UPS weight by zone rather than being distributed based on the total air weight across all modes. Likewise, the FedEx Day costs would be distributed to each zone according to the FedEx cube by zone, rather than being distributed based on the total air cube across all modes.
The Postal Service indicates that:
Two distribution keys would be calculated for the Alaska cost pools: the pound distribution based solely on the Alaska air weight by zone; and the pound-miles distribution, which would be calculated by multiplying the Alaska air weight by zone by the average haul mileage by zone for Alaska. The Alaska Non-Preferential cost pool would employ a weighted average of the pound and pound-mile distributions using the percent distance-related Alaska Non-Preferential parameter.
Fourth, the Postal Service would calculate two distribution keys for surface transportation cost pools. One for distance-related surface transportation, and one for non-distance-related surface transportation.
• Commercial air costs would be distributed by the commercial air weight proportions by zone.
• FedEx Day Turn costs would be distributed by the FedEx cubic feet proportions by zone.
• UPS costs would be distributed by the UPS air weight proportions by zone.
• Peak air costs would be distributed by the total air weight proportions by zone.
• Alaska Non-Preferential costs would be distributed by a weighted average of the Alaska air weight and Alaska pound-miles proportions by zone.
• Alaska Preferential costs would be distributed by the Alaska air weight proportions by zone.
• Hawaii costs would be distributed by the Hawaii air weight proportions by zone.
• Air Taxi costs would be distributed by the air taxi air weight proportions by zone.
• CDS Intra-SCF Highway costs would be excluded from the model.
• Inter-SCF, Intra-NDC, Inter-NDC, Highway Plant Load, Alaskan Highway, Highway Empty Equipment, Freight Rail, Rail Plant Load, Rail Empty Equipment, Inland Water, and Offshore Water costs would be distributed by the distance-related surface cube proportions by zone.
• Intra-SCF Highway costs would be distributed by the non-distance related surface cube proportions by zone.
• Peak Highway and Terminal/Van Damage costs would each be distributed by a weighted average of the distance- and non-distance-related surface cube proportions by zone.
First, the Postal Service proposes the same distance taper factors as proposed in the PM model for GA.
Second, the Postal Service proposes a methodological change to address the
Third, the Postal Service proposes a methodology for Zone 10 long-distance surface transportation, because GA pieces over one pound may travel by ocean to offshore locations rather than flying, but they would also travel by truck to the ocean port.
Fourth, the Postal Service proposes to analyze PTR data to identify Offshore Water Ground Advantage weight percentages by zone.
Fifth, the Postal Service proposes to update customer-specific adjustments for Vehicle Service Driver (VSD) costs for local non-distance-related surface transportation for GA.
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2024-8 for consideration of matters raised by the Petition. More information on the Petition may be accessed via the Commission's website at
1. The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2024-8 for consideration of the matters raised by the Petition of the United States Postal Service for the Initiation of a Proceeding to Consider Proposed Changes in Analytical Principles (Proposal Three), filed May 13, 2024.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than July 8, 2024. Reply comments on the Petition and Proposal Three are due no later than July 22, 2024.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Madison Lichtenstein to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this docket.
4. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Proposed rule.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to correct the erroneous incorporation of cross-references into the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) using the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) error correction provision. EPA has determined that portions of its May 23, 2019, July 17, 2020, and March 1, 2021, final SIP rulemaking actions were in error and that it is appropriate to correct those actions by removing specific cross-references in the permitting rules from the SIP.
Comments must be received on or before June 27, 2024.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0454 at
There are three dockets supporting this action, EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0454, EPA-R04-OAR-2019-0638, and EPA-R04-OAR-2020-0186. Docket No. EPA-R04-OAR-2017-0454 includes a March 24, 2006, SIP submittal from North Carolina and EPA's original approval of the cross-references to North Carolina
Steven Scofield, Multi-Air Pollutant Coordination Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air and Radiation Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW, Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. The telephone number is (404) 562-9034. Mr. Scofield can also be reached via electronic mail at
On May 23, 2019, July 17, 2020, and March 1, 2021,
Section 110(k)(6) of the CAA authorizes EPA to revise a state's SIP when it “determines that [its] action approving, disapproving, or promulgating any plan or plan revision (or part thereof) . . . was in error.” Once EPA has made the determination that it erred, it “may in the same manner as the approval, disapproval, or promulgation revise such action as appropriate without requiring any further submission from the State.”
EPA approved changes to 15A North Carolina Administrative Code (NCAC) 02Q section .0101,
EPA approved changes to 15A NCAC 02Q .0103,
EPA approved changes to 15A NCAC 02Q .0301,
In this document, EPA is proposing to include in a final EPA rule regulatory text that includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, and as discussed in Sections I and III of this preamble, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference 15A NCAC Section 02Q Rule .0101,
Pursuant to the error correction provision of section 110(k)(6) of the CAA, EPA is proposing to remove portions of 15A NCAC section 02Q .0101,
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 14094 (88 FR 21879, April 11, 2023);
• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501
• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
• Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
• Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
• Is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) because it approves a state program;
• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); and
• Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA.
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian Tribe has demonstrated that a Tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rulemaking does not have Tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) directs Federal agencies to identify and address “disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects” of their actions on minority populations and low-income populations to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. EPA defines environmental justice (EJ) as “the fair treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless of race, color, national origin, or income with respect to the development, implementation, and enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.” EPA further defines the term fair treatment to mean that “no group of people should bear a disproportionate burden of environmental harms and risks, including those resulting from the negative environmental consequences of industrial, governmental, and commercial operations or programs and policies.”
EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and did not consider EJ in this proposed action. Consideration of EJ is not required as part of this proposed action, and there is no information in the record inconsistent with the stated goal of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for people of color, low-income populations, and Indigenous peoples.
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
42 U.S.C. 7401
Federal Communications Commission
Proposed rule.
In this document, the Space Bureau of the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) seeks to refresh the record concerning the rules proposed in a 2020
Comments are due June 27, 2024. Reply comments are due July 12, 2024.
You may submit comments, identified by IB Docket No. 22-271 and IB Docket No. 18-313, by any of the following methods:
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
Alexandra Horn, Space Bureau, Satellite Programs and Policy Division, 202-418-1376,
This is a summary of the Commission's document, DA 24-412, released May 2, 2024, by the Space Bureau. The full text of the document is available at
Interested parties may file comments and reply comments on or before the dates indicated in the
•
•
• Commercial overnight mail (other than U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service first-class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
• Effective March 19, 2020, and until further notice, the Commission no longer accepts any hand or messenger delivered filings. This is a temporary measure taken to help protect the health and safety of individuals, and to mitigate the transmission of COVID-19. See FCC Announces Closure of FCC Headquarters Open Window and Change in Hand-Delivery Policy, Public Notice, DA 20-304 (March 19, 2020).
•
The Commission will treat this proceeding as a “permit-but-disclose” proceeding in accordance with the Commission's
This document does not contain proposed new or modified information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), Public Law 104-13, beyond those already proposed in the
The
The Providing Accountability Through Transparency Act, Public Law 118-9, requires each agency, in providing notice of a rulemaking, to post online a brief plain-language summary of the proposed rule. The required summary of the document is available at
In the document, the Space Bureau seeks to refresh the record on rule changes pertaining to orbital debris mitigation previously proposed by the Commission. The Commission continues to seek to improve and clarify its rules taking into account the Commission's experience gained in the satellite licensing process, improvements in mitigation guidelines and practices, and in light of various market developments. The Commission sought comment in a 2020
Since the Commission last sought comment on its orbital debris mitigation rules, NASA and other standards-setting bodies have made a number of technical and policy updates to their orbital debris mitigation standards and guidance documents, and industry has gained substantial experience in this area, potentially leading to the development or refinement of new industry standards and practices in the future. In addition, in order to maintain U.S. leadership in the space economy, the Commission has opened a new docket for Space Innovation, IB Docket 22-271, recognizing that the new space age needs new rules, including for orbital debris mitigation, that reflect the expanding proliferation of satellites and innovations in the space industry. Finally, the Space Bureau's own experience in satellite licensing and addressing associated orbital debris concerns has also advanced and parties have provided additional views in specific licensing proceedings on approaches to debris mitigation, particularly for large constellations.
Based on these considerations, the document provides an opportunity for additional comments in order to ensure an up-to-date record.
In this context, the Commission sought comment on whether it should analyze collision risks based on the entire system (system-wide, or in the aggregate) or on individual satellites (per-satellite) within a multi-satellite non-geostationary orbit (NGSO) system. If the Commission were to opt for a system-wide approach, it sought comment on the process through which such collision risks should be considered and what factors would be relevant in performing such an analysis. The Commission noted that, if it adopted a system-wide safe harbor approach, systems that are able to demonstrate that they meet a system-wide collision probability metric (or another suitable risk indicator) would be considered as adequately addressing this aspect of debris mitigation, but systems that exceed the threshold would be subject to further review. The Commission sought comment on using the U.S. Orbital Debris Mitigation Standard Practices' (ODMSP) 0.001 probability of collision metric as a threshold or safe harbor as a means of identifying systems that may need further review. The Commission sought comment on whether a safe harbor approach like the one described above or a bright-line rule would be preferable in this context and asked for specific metrics or thresholds that would be appropriate for each scenario.
The Commission also identified several factors that could be relevant in establishing a safe harbor or bright-line rule, the maneuvering capabilities and reliability of the satellite(s), orbital lifetime, the number of satellites in the system (possibly including constellation replenishment rate and replacement satellites over some specific time period), and the size of individual satellites. The Commission sought comment on if these factors were relevant for consideration in this regard, how these factors should be evaluated, and whether there were any more factors that should be considered. As it pertains to large constellations, the Commission asked for input on whether it should make a bright-line distinction between large constellations and smaller systems in terms of the applicable metrics for collision risk assessment, or should it attempt to specify a scalable metric for both types of systems.
The Space Bureau seeks to refresh the record on these points. In particular, in several
The Space Bureau recognizes that many factors, including orbital altitude and maneuvering capabilities, may impact collision risk analyses. In the
In the event a safe harbor approach is adopted, the
For NGSO systems that could not meet the safe harbor, if adopted, the
The Space Bureau encourages interested parties to submit new or additional relevant information related to these and other questions laid out in the
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
Notice; request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice announces the Agricultural Marketing Service's (AMS) intent to request approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), for an extension of and revision to the currently approved information collection used in support of the voluntary grading and certification of meat, meat products, shell eggs, poultry products, rabbit products, and Audit Verification and Accreditation Programs (OMB 0581-0128).
Comments on this notice must be received by July 29, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments concerning this notice online using the electronic process available at
Michelle Degenhart, Quality Assessment Division; Telephone (202) 322-9826, or Email
AMS is committed to improving services through collaborative efforts with respondents. In this renewal, AMS is including estimates relating to key enhancements to ensure USDA grading is delivered with consistency, accuracy and improve data sharing. AMS also plans to combine forms LP-109 and LP-109A to eliminate duplicate information from respondents.
AMS also provides other types of voluntary services under these regulations, including contract and specification acceptance services and verification of product, processing, further processing, temperature, and quantity. Because this is a voluntary program, respondents request or apply for the specific service they wish, and in doing so, they provide information. The information collected is used only by authorized representatives of USDA (AMS, Livestock and Poultry Program's national and field staff, which includes state agencies) and is used to conduct services requested by respondents. Information collected includes but is not limited to: total received volume in pounds or cases, volume in pounds of graded, daily total of grades assigned (
The information collection requirements in this request are essential to carry out the intent of the Act, to provide the respondents the type of service they request, and to administer the program.
All responses to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All responses will become a matter of public record, including any personal information provided.
Rural Utilities Service, USDA.
Notice.
The Rural Utilities Service (RUS), an Agency of the Rural Development (RD) mission area within the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), is hosting a virtual public listening session to obtain stakeholder feedback about the Distance Learning and Telemedicine (DLT) program. This competitive program helps rural communities use advanced telecommunications technology to connect to each other—and the world—overcoming the effects of remoteness and low population density. The sessions are open to the public and provide an opportunity for stakeholders and other interested parties to offer their comments and input on the DLT program.
The virtual listening sessions will be held virtually on the following dates and times:
Comments must be submitted by 11:59 p.m. eastern standard time (EST) on June 19th, 2024, on
Registration is required for each virtual public listening session. To register, please visit
Comments may be submitted electronically by the Federal eRulemaking Portal,
Teresa Hunkapiller, Grants Management Specialist, Office of Loan Origination and Approval, RUS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue SW, Mail Stop 1590, Room 4121-S, Washington, DC 20250-1590, or call (202) 720-0800, or email
The DLT program is authorized under 7 U.S.C. 950aaa and implemented by 7 CFR part 1734. Applicants must adhere to the requirements contained in the program regulation, 7 CFR 1734. Important terms related to the program are identified in 7 CFR 1734.3.
The purpose of the DLT grant program is to encourage and improve telemedicine services and distance learning services in rural areas through the use of telecommunications, computer networks, and related advanced technologies by students, teachers, medical professionals, and rural residents. These grants are intended to increase rural access to education, training, and health care resources that are otherwise unavailable or limited in scope. The DLT program is currently a grant only program and the grant funds are awarded through a nationally competitive process.
Response to this notice is voluntary. Each individual or institution is requested to submit only one response as directed in the
Therefore, we request that no business proprietary information, copyrighted information, or personally identifiable information be submitted in response to this notice. In accordance with FAR 52-215-3(b), responses to this notice are not offers and cannot be accepted by the Government to form a binding contract. Additionally, the U.S. Government will not pay for response preparation or for the use of any information contained in the response.
To inform the Federal Government's decision-making, RUS now seeks public input on the following questions.
1. RUS outlines DLT Program eligibility requirements in 7 CFR 1734. What DLT Program requirements limit or improve project eligibility?
2. What integral equipment or software technologies are not currently eligible for funding with the DLT program?
3. The authorizing statue allows for funds to be used to purchase or support audio, video, and interactive video equipment, broadband facilities used for distance learning or telemedicine, computer hardware, network components, and software, instructional programming and limited technical assistance. What emerging technological advances in equipment and software have the potential to change how DLT services are delivered in rural areas?
4. What has been your experience with accessing DLT funding?
In accordance with Federal civil rights laws and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) civil rights regulations and policies, the USDA, its Mission Areas, agencies, staff offices, employees, and institutions participating in or administering USDA programs are prohibited from discriminating based on race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity (including gender expression), sexual orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status, income derived from a public assistance program, political beliefs, or reprisal or retaliation for prior civil rights activity, in any program or activity conducted or funded by USDA (not all bases apply to all programs). Remedies and complaint filing deadlines vary by program or incident.
Program information may be made available in languages other than English. Persons with disabilities who require alternative means of communication to obtain program information (
To file a program discrimination complaint, a complainant should complete a Form AD-3027, USDA Program Discrimination Complaint Form, which can be obtained online at
(1)
(2)
(3)
Commission on Civil Rights.
Announcement of meeting.
Notice is hereby given, pursuant to the provisions of the rules and regulations of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights (Commission), and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) that a meeting of the Tennessee Advisory Committee to the Commission will convene by Zoom on Monday, June 3, 2024, at 11:30 a.m. (CT). The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the final draft of their report on Voting Rights and post-report activities.
The meeting will take place on Monday, June 3, 2024, at 11:30 a.m. (CST).
Victoria Moreno at
This meeting is available to the public through the Zoom link above. If joining only via phone, callers can expect to incur charges for calls they initiate over wireless lines, and the Commission will not refund any incurred charges. Individuals who are deaf, deafblind and hard of hearing may also follow the proceedings by first calling the Federal Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 and providing the Service with the call-in number found through registering at the web link provided above for the meeting.
Members of the public are entitled to make comments during the open period at the end of the meeting. Members of the public may also submit written comments; the comments must be received in the Regional Programs Unit within 30 days following the respective meeting. Written comments may be emailed to Victoria Moreno at
Persons who desire additional information may contact the Regional Programs Unit at (202) 809-9618. Records and documents discussed during the meeting will be available for public viewing as they become available at the
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist regarding certain imports of aluminum extrusions from the United Arab Emirates (UAE).
Applicable May 28, 2024.
Jinny Ahn or John K. Drury at (202) 482-0339 and (202) 482-0195, respectively, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On October 24, 2023, Commerce initiated a less than fair value (LTFV) investigation concerning aluminum
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1) and (c)(2)(ii), when a critical circumstances allegation is filed 30 days or more before the scheduled date of the final determination, but later than 20 days before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination, Commerce will make a preliminary finding whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that critical circumstances exist and will issue a preliminary critical circumstances determination within 30 days after the allegation is filed.
Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that Commerce, upon receipt of a timely allegation of critical circumstances, will determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.
Further, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1) provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” Commerce will normally examine: (i) the volume and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that, “{i}n general, unless the imports during the `relatively short period' . . . have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during an immediately preceding period of comparable duration, the Secretary will not consider the imports massive.” Section 351.206(i) of Commerce's regulations defines “relatively short period” generally as the period starting on the date the proceeding begins (
In their allegation, the petitioners state that based on the dumping margins calculated in the petition (
Finally, as part of their allegation and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2), the petitioners provided monthly import data for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings included in the scope of the investigation for the period between May 2023 and February 2024 as evidence of massive imports of aluminum extrusions from the UAE during a relatively short period.
Generally, when determining whether critical circumstances exist pursuant to the statutory criteria, Commerce examines record evidence, including: (1) the evidence presented in the petitioners' allegation; (2) import statistics released by the ITC; and (3) shipment information submitted to Commerce by the respondents selected for individual examination.
In determining whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, Commerce generally considers current or previous antidumping duty (AD) orders on subject merchandise from the country in question in the United States and current orders in any other country with regard to imports of subject merchandise.
In determining whether importers knew or should have known that exporters were selling subject merchandise at LTFV and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, Commerce must rely on the facts before it at the time the determination is made. Commerce generally bases its decision with respect to knowledge on the margins calculated in the preliminary determination and the ITC's preliminary injury determination.
Commerce normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for EP sales and 15 percent or more for constructed export price sales sufficient to impute importer knowledge of sales at LTFV.
Based on these dumping margins, we preliminarily find no reasonable basis to believe or suspect that importers of subject merchandise from Gulfex, OSE, or producers/importers of subject merchandise from the UAE other than Gulfex, OSE, Al Buraq, Al Hamad, Al Jaber, APC, Arabian Extrusions, Emirates Extrusion, Taweelah, and White Aluminum knew or should have known that the exporters were selling subject merchandise at LTFV. Because this criterion is not met for these companies, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist for these companies.
However, given the preliminary dumping margins for Al Buraq, Al Hamad, Al Jaber, APC, Arabian Extrusions, Emirates Extrusion, Taweelah, and White Aluminum exceed the threshold sufficient to impute knowledge of dumping, we preliminarily find that there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that these producers/exporters of subject merchandise knew, or should have known, that the exporters were selling subject merchandise at LTFV.
In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such imports, Commerce normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC.
In determining whether there have been “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h), Commerce normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (
As discussed above, we preliminarily find that for Gulfex, OSE, and producers/importers of subject merchandise from the UAE other than Gulfex, OSE, Al Buraq, Al Hamad, Al Jaber, APC, Arabian Extrusions, Emirates Extrusion, Taweelah, and White Aluminum, pursuant to section 733(e)(1) of the Act there is not a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; thus, whether there was a massive increase in imports from these companies between the base and comparison periods is moot.
However, as explained in the
Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances exist with respect to imports of aluminum extrusions from the UAE from Al Buraq, Al Hamad, Al Jaber, APC, Arabian Extrusions, Emirates Extrusion, Taweelah, and White Aluminum. Further, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of aluminum extrusions from the UAE produced or exported by Gulfex, OSE, and producers/importers of subject merchandise from the UAE other than Gulfex, OSE, Al Buraq, Al Hamad, Al Jaber, APC, Arabian Extrusions, Emirates Extrusion, Taweelah, or White Aluminum.
We will make a final determination concerning critical circumstances in the final LTFV determination, which is currently scheduled for September 19, 2024.
In the
In accordance with section 703(e)(2)(A) of the Act, for Al Buraq, Al Hamad, Al Jaber, APC, Arabian Extrusions, Emirates Extrusion, Taweelah, and White Aluminum, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of subject merchandise from the UAE entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after February 7, 2024, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of this preliminary determination of critical circumstances.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to section 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).
International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce.
Notice of an open meeting.
The President's Export Council (Council) will hold a meeting to deliberate on recommendations related to promoting the expansion of U.S. exports and to convey a report to the President on the March 2024 fact-finding trip to Thailand by some members of the Council. Meeting topics will include strengthening U.S. commercial engagement in the Indo-Pacific and U.S. trade in services. The final agenda will be posted at least one week in advance of the meeting on the Council's website at
June 11, 2024, at 11:00 a.m. ET
The President's Export Council meeting will be broadcast via live webcast on the internet. Please visit the Council's website at
Tricia Van Orden, Designated Federal Officer, President's Export Council, Room 3424, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20230, telephone: 202-482-5876, email:
Press inquiries should be directed to the International Trade Administration's Office of Public Affairs, telephone: 202-482-3809.
Submit statements electronically to Tricia Van Orden, Designated Federal Officer, President's Export Council via email:
Send paper statements to Tricia Van Orden, Designated Federal Officer, President's Export Council, Room 3424, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC, 20230.
Statements will be posted on the Council's website (
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Applicable May 28, 2024.
Nathan James (the People's Republic of China (China)), Eliza DeLong (India), Thomas Martin (the Republic of Korea (Korea)), and Whitley Herndon (Taiwan), AD/CVD Operations, Offices V, IV, and IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-5305, (202) 482-3878, (202) 482-3936, and (202) 482-6274, respectively.
On April, 23, 2024, the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) initiated countervailing duty (CVD) investigations of imports of certain epoxy resins from China, India, Korea, and Taiwan.
Section 703(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), requires Commerce to issue the preliminary determination in a countervailing duty investigation within 65 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation. However, section 703(c)(1) of the Act permits Commerce to postpone the preliminary determination until no later than 130 days after the date on which Commerce initiated the investigation if: (A) the petitioner makes a timely request for a postponement; or (B) Commerce concludes that the parties concerned are cooperating, that the investigation is extraordinarily complicated, and that additional time is necessary to make a preliminary determination. Under 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner must submit a request for postponement 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determination and must state the reasons for the request. Commerce will grant the request unless it finds compelling reasons to deny the request.
On May 14, 2024, the U.S. Epoxy Resin Producers
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.205(e), the petitioner submitted its requests for postponement of the preliminary determinations in these investigations 25 days or more before the scheduled date of the preliminary determinations and has stated the reasons its requests. Commerce finds no compelling reason to deny the requests. Therefore, in accordance with section 703(c)(1)(A) of the Act, Commerce is postponing the deadline for the preliminary determinations in these investigations to no later than 130 days after the date on which these investigations were initiated,
Pursuant to section 705(a)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(b)(1), the deadline for the final determinations of these investigations will continue to be 75 days after the date of the preliminary determinations.
This notice is issued and published pursuant to section 703(c)(2) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).
Industry and Analysis, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
Notice of renewal of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee and solicitation of nominations for membership.
Pursuant to provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), the Department of Commerce
The Committee's work on renewable energy will focus on technologies, equipment, and services to generate electricity, produce heat, and power vehicles from renewable sources such as solar, wind, biomass, hydropower, geothermal, and hydrogen. The Committee's work on energy efficiency will focus on technologies, services, and platforms that provide system-level energy efficiency to electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. These include smart grid technologies and services, as well as equipment and systems that increase the resiliency of power infrastructure such as energy storage. Climate solutions in the energy sector, such as low-carbon hydrogen production, clean energy transportation, and virtual power plants are also within the scope of the Committee. For the purposes of this Committee, covered goods and services will not include vehicles, feedstock for biofuels, or energy efficiency as it relates to consumer goods or buildings. Non-fossil fuels that reduce carbon consumption (
Applications or nominations for members must be received on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT) on Friday June 14, 2024. This serves as an extension of the initial deadline of May 31, 2024, as previously indicated in the April 17, 2024,
Applications or nominations may be emailed to
Cora Dickson, Designated Federal Officer, Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee, Office of Energy & Environmental Industries, U.S. Department of Commerce; phone 202-482-6083; email
The Committee shall consist of up to 30 members appointed by the Secretary in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidance and based on their ability to carry out the objectives of the Committee. Members shall represent U.S. companies, U.S. trade associations, U.S. private sector organizations, and civil society groups with activities focused on the export competitiveness of U.S. renewable energy and energy efficiency goods and services. The Committee shall also represent the range of company or organizational roles in the development of renewable energy and energy efficiency projects, including, for example, project developers, technology integrators, financial institutions, and manufacturers. Members of the Committee are selected, in accordance with applicable Department of Commerce guidelines, based on their ability to carry out the objectives of the Committee as set forth in the Charter and in a manner that ensures that the Committee is balanced in terms of points of view, industry subsector, geography, and company size. The diverse membership of the Committee assures perspectives reflecting the breadth of the Committee's responsibilities, and, where possible, the Department of Commerce will also consider the ethnic, racial, gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity diversity and various abilities of the United States population.
Members serve at the pleasure of the Secretary from the date of appointment to the Committee to the date on which the Committee's charter terminates. Members serve in a representative capacity presenting the views and interests of a U.S. entity or U.S. organization, as well as their particular subsector; they are, therefore, not Special Government Employees.
Members of the Committee must not be registered as foreign agents under the Foreign Agents Registration Act. No member may represent a company that is majority owned or controlled by a foreign government entity (or foreign government entities). Members of the Committee will not be compensated for their services or reimbursed for their travel expenses.
If you are interested in applying or nominating someone else to become a member of the Committee, please provide the following information:
(1) Sponsor letter on the company's, trade association's, or organization's letterhead containing the name, title, and relevant contact information (including phone, and email address) of the individual who is applying or being nominated;
(2) An affirmative statement that the nominee will be able to meet the expected time commitments of Committee work. Committee work includes (1) a commitment to attend quarterly committee meetings (typically, two in-person meetings lasting one day each and two virtual meetings lasting 2-4 hours each), (2) undertaking additional work outside of full committee meetings including regular participation in virtual subcommittee meetings, and (3) frequently drafting, preparing, or commenting on proposed recommendations to be evaluated at Committee meetings;
(3) Short biography of nominee, including credentials;
(4) Brief description (not brochures or other marketing collateral) of the company, trade association, or organization to be represented and its business activities, company size (number of employees and annual sales), and export markets served;
(5) An affirmative statement that the nominee meets all Committee eligibility requirements.
The attendance record of a nominated individual who has served on the Committee will be taken into consideration for reappointment. In principle, appointed Committee members should be absent from the Committee meetings (virtual or in-person) no more than once a year, for example, due to illness, family emergency, weather delays, etc. In-person meetings will not be held in a hybrid format. ITA will endeavor to announce in-person meetings sufficiently in advance for the members to adjust their travel plans or schedules accordingly.
See the
The collection, maintenance, and disclosure of this information is governed by the Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a). The Department of Commerce is authorized to collect this information in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended (FACA), 5 U.S.C. chapter 10. The principal purpose for which the Department will use the information is to assist in choosing members of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Advisory Committee. Information received will be maintained in a Privacy Act system of records, COMMERCE/DEPT-11, entitled “Candidates for Membership, Members, and Former Members of Department of
A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, nor shall a person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with an information collection subject to the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 unless the information collection has a currently valid OMB Control Number. The approved OMB Control Number for this information collection is 0625-0143. Without this approval, we could not conduct this information collection. Public reporting for this information collection is estimated to be approximately 30-60 minutes per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the information collection. All responses to this information collection are voluntary. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this information collection, including suggestions for reducing this burden to the International Trade Administration Paperwork Reduction Act Program:
A request for applications was posted in a
Nominees selected for appointment to the Committee will be notified by mail.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting a new shipper review (NSR) of Sudarshan Chemical Industries Limited (Sudarshan) regarding the countervailing duty (CVD) order on carbazole violet pigment 23 (CVP-23) from India. We preliminarily determine that countervailable subsidies were provided to Sudarshan with respect to the production and export of CVP-23 from India for the period of review (POR), January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable May 28, 2024.
Gene H. Calvert, AD/CVD Operations, Office VII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3586.
On December 29, 2004, Commerce published in the
The product covered by the
Commerce is conducting this NSR in accordance with section 751(a)(2)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), and 19 CFR 351.214. For a full description of the methodology underlying our conclusions,
As provided in 19 CFR 351.307(b)(iv), Commerce intends to verify information submitted by Sudarshan in advance of the final results of this NSR.
As a result of this NSR, Commerce preliminarily determines the following net subsidy rate exists for the period January 1, 2022, through December 31, 2022:
In accordance with section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act, Commerce intends, upon publication of the final results, to instruct Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to collect cash deposits of estimated countervailing duties in the amounts calculated in the final results of this review for the company listed above, on shipments of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the date of publication of the final results of this new shipper review. If the rate calculated in the final results is zero or
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(b)(2), upon issuance of the final results of this new shipper review, Commerce shall determine, and CBP shall assess, countervailing duties on all appropriate entries covered by this review.
Commerce intends to disclose its calculations and analysis performed to interested parties for these preliminary results within five days of any public announcement or, if there is no public announcement, within five days of the date of publication of this notice in accordance with 19 CFR 351.224(b).
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than seven days after Commerce files its verification report regarding Sudarshan. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in the case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the date for filing case briefs.
As provided under 19 CFR 351.309(c)(2) and (d)(2), in prior proceedings we have encouraged interested parties to provide an executive summary of their briefs that should be limited to five pages total, including footnotes. In this NSR, we instead request that interested parties provide at the beginning of their briefs a public, executive summary for each issue raised in their briefs.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.310(c), interested parties who wish to request a hearing, limited to issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs, must submit a written request to the Assistant Secretary for Enforcement and Compliance, filed electronically via ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by Commerce's electronic records system, ACCESS, by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time within 30 days after the date of publication of this notice.
Unless extended, Commerce intends to issue the final results of this NSR, which will include the results of our analysis of the issues raised in case and rebuttal briefs, within 90 days after the date of publication of these preliminary results, pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214(i)(2).
These preliminary results and notice are issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(2)(B) and 777(i)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.214.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that critical circumstances exist regarding certain imports of aluminum extrusions from the Socialist Republic of Vietnam (Vietnam).
Applicable May 28, 2024.
Rebecca Janz at (202) 482-2972; AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230.
On October 24, 2023, Commerce initiated a less-than-fair value (LTFV) investigation concerning aluminum extrusions from Vietnam.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1) and (c)(2)(ii), when a critical circumstances allegation is filed
Section 733(e)(1) of the Act provides that Commerce, upon receipt of a timely allegation of critical circumstances, will determine whether there is a reasonable basis to believe or suspect that: (A)(i) there is a history of dumping and material injury by reason of dumped imports in the United States or elsewhere of the subject merchandise, or (ii) the person by whom, or for whose account, the merchandise was imported knew or should have known that the exporter was selling the subject merchandise at less than its fair value and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales; and (B) there have been massive imports of the subject merchandise over a relatively short period.
Further, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(1) provides that, in determining whether imports of the subject merchandise have been “massive,” Commerce will normally examine: (i) the volume and value of the imports; (ii) seasonal trends; and (iii) the share of domestic consumption accounted for by the imports. In addition, 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2) provides that, “{i}n general, unless the imports during the `relatively short period' . . . have increased by at least 15 percent over the imports during an immediately preceding period of comparable duration, the Secretary will not consider the imports massive.” Section 351.206(i) of Commerce's regulations defines “relatively short period” generally as the period starting on the date the proceeding begins (
In their allegation, the petitioners state that based on the dumping margins calculated in the petition (
Finally, as part of their allegation and pursuant to 19 CFR 351.206(h)(2), the petitioners provided monthly import data for the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings included in the scope of the investigation for the period between May 2023 and February 2024 as evidence of massive imports of aluminum extrusions from Vietnam during a relatively short period.
On April 29, 2024, GameChange Solar (GameChange), a U.S. importer of bearings that contain aluminum extrusions, responded to the Critical Circumstances Allegation, asserting lack of knowledge of injurious dumping and arguing that Commerce should make a critical circumstances determination specific to GameChange.
Generally, when determining whether critical circumstances exist pursuant to the statutory criteria, Commerce examines record evidence, including: (1) the evidence presented in the petitioners' allegation; (2) import statistics released by the ITC; and (3) shipment information submitted to Commerce by the respondents selected for individual examination.
In determining whether there is a history of dumping pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(A)(i) of the Act, Commerce generally considers current or previous antidumping duty (AD) orders on subject merchandise from the country in question in the United States and current orders in any other country with regard to imports of subject merchandise.
In determining whether importers knew or should have known that exporters were selling subject merchandise at LTFV and that there was likely to be material injury by reason of such sales, Commerce must rely on the facts before it at the time the determination is made. Commerce generally bases its decision with respect to knowledge on the margins calculated in the preliminary determination and the ITC's preliminary injury determination.
Commerce normally considers margins of 25 percent or more for EP sales and 15 percent or more for CEP
Based on the foregoing margins, we preliminarily find no reasonable basis to believe or suspect that importers of subject merchandise from East Asia or the non-individually investigated separate rate companies knew, or should have known, that their exporters were selling subject merchandise at LTFV. Because this criterion is not met for East Asia or the non-examined separate rate companies, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist for these companies.
However, given the preliminary dumping margin for the Vietnam-wide entity (
In determining whether an importer knew or should have known that there was likely to be material injury caused by reason of such imports, Commerce normally will look to the preliminary injury determination of the ITC.
GameChange argues that it did not, and could not, know that its exporters were selling bearings at LTFV because the company did not notice any change in prices or other indicia of unfair trade after the filing of the petition, and, because the ITC's preliminary injury determination focused on aluminum extrusions, GameChange did not, or have reason to, know that imports of subject merchandise might be materially injuring the domestic industry.
In determining whether there have been “massive imports” over a “relatively short period,” pursuant to section 733(e)(1)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(h), Commerce normally compares the import volumes of the subject merchandise for at least three months immediately preceding the filing of the petition (
As discussed above, we preliminarily find critical circumstances do not exist for East Asia or the non-individually investigated separate rate companies; thus, whether there was a massive increase in imports from these companies between the base and comparison periods is moot.
However, as explained in the
Regarding whether imports were massive within a relatively short period of time, GameChange argues that we should analyze the volume of its imports of bearings that contain aluminum extrusions because GameChange did not import its bearings under the HTSUS subheadings for which the petitioners provided import data and, according to GameChange, its imports compete with finished products in the United States, not aluminum extrusions.
GameChange also relies on
Additionally, for the separate rate companies and East Asia, we preliminary determine that critical circumstances do not exist because section 733(e)(1)(A) is not met, as discussed above, and, thus, we do not reach the issue of whether imports were massive for these companies. Regarding the Vietnam-wide entity, as discussed above, we preliminarily find that imports are massive based on total AFA. Lastly, GameChange's argument again relies on its contention that its imported bearings are not subject merchandise. As noted above, if we were to assume
Based on the criteria and findings discussed above, we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do not exist with respect to imports of aluminum extrusions from Vietnam produced or exported by East Asia and the non-individually examined separate rate companies that we preliminarily found qualified for a separate rate, and we preliminarily determine that critical circumstances do exist with respect to imports of aluminum extrusions from Vietnam with respect to the Vietnam-wide entity.
We will make a final determination concerning critical circumstances in the final LTFV determination, which is currently scheduled for September 19, 2024.
In the
In accordance with section 733(e)(2)(A) of the Act, for the Vietnam-wide entity, we will direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to suspend liquidation of any unliquidated entries of subject merchandise from Vietnam entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after February 7, 2024, which is 90 days prior to the date of publication of the
In accordance with section 733(f) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of this preliminary determination of critical circumstances.
This determination is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(f) and 777(i) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(2)(ii).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain stilbenic optical brightening agents (OBAs) from Taiwan were sold in the United States at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) May 1, 2022, through November 26, 2022.
Applicable May 28, 2024.
Joshua Weiner, AD/CVD Operations, Office I, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-3902.
On February 2, 2024, Commerce published in the
The products covered by the
We determine that the following weighted-average dumping margin exists for the POR:
Because Commerce received no comments on the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with the final results of this review. We intend to instruct CBP to apply the importer-specific
For entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by Teh Fong Min International Co., Ltd., for which it did not know that its merchandise was destined for the United States, we will instruct CBP to liquidate unreviewed entries at the all-others rate (
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of these final results in the
This notice serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this review period. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of doubled antidumping duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under the APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
Commerce is issuing and publishing the final results of this review in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 351.221(b)(5).
National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), Commerce.
Notice of Information Collection, request for comment.
The Department of Commerce, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. The purpose of this notice is to allow for 60 days of public comment preceding submission of the collection to OMB.
To ensure consideration, comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before July 29, 2024.
Interested persons are invited to submit written comments by mail to Maureen O'Reilly, Management Analyst, NIST at
Requests for additional information or specific questions related to collection activities should be directed to Maureen O'Reilly, Management Analyst, NIST, 100 Bureau Drive, Gaithersburg, MD 20899, (301) 975-3189 or
In accordance with Executive Order 12862, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a non-regulatory agency of the Department of Commerce, proposes to conduct a number of individual information collections that are both quantitative and qualitative. The information collections will be designed to determine the type and quality of the products, services, and information our key customers want and expect, as well as their satisfaction with and awareness of existing products, services, and information. In addition, NIST proposes other customer service satisfaction data collections that include, but may not be limited to focus groups, reply cards that accompany product distributions, and Web-based surveys and dialog boxes that offer customers the opportunity to express their level of satisfaction with NIST products, services, and information and for ongoing dialogue with NIST. NIST will limit its inquiries to data collections that solicit voluntary options and will not collect information that is required or regulated. No assurances of confidentiality will be given. However, it will be completely optional for survey participants to provide their name or affiliation information if they wish to provide comments for which they elect to receive a response.
NIST will collect this information by electronic means, as well as by mail, fax, telephone, and person-to-person interactions.
We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments that you submit in response to this notice are a matter of public record. We will include or summarize each comment in our request to OMB to approve this ICR. Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you may ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice; issuance of renewal 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 a renewal incidental harassment authorization (IHA) to Chevron Products Company (Chevron) to incidentally harass marine mammals incidental to the Long Wharf Maintenance and Efficiency Project (LWMEP) in San Francisco Bay, California.
This renewal IHA is valid from June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025.
Electronic copies of the original application, Renewal request, and supporting documents (including NMFS
Alyssa Clevenstine, 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 taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to here as “mitigation measures”). NMFS must also prescribe requirements pertaining to monitoring and reporting of such takings. The definition of key terms such as “take,” “harassment,” and “negligible impact” can be found in the MMPA and NMFS's implementing regulations (see 16 U.S.C. 1362; 50 CFR 216.103).
NMFS' regulations implementing the MMPA at 50 CFR 216.107(e) indicate that IHAs may be renewed for additional periods of time not to exceed 1 year for each reauthorization. In the notice of proposed IHA for the initial IHA, NMFS described the circumstances under which we would consider issuing a renewal for this activity, and requested public comment on a potential renewal under those circumstances. Specifically, on a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Detailed Description of Specified Activities section of the initial IHA issuance notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Specified Activities and Anticipated Impacts section of the initial IHA issuance notice would not be completed by the time the initial IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
1. A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
2. The request for renewal must include the following:
• An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
• A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
3. Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
An additional public comment period of 15 days (for a total of 45 days), with direct notice by email, phone, or postal service to commenters on the initial IHA, is provided to allow for any additional comments on the proposed renewal. A description of the renewal process may be found on our website at:
On May 12, 2023, NMFS issued an IHA to Chevron to take marine mammals incidental to the LWMEP in San Francisco Bay, California (88 FR 31703, May 18, 2023), effective from June 1, 2023, through May 31, 2024. On February 23, 2024, NMFS received an application for the renewal of that initial IHA. As described in the application for renewal, the activities for which incidental take is requested consist of activities that are covered by the initial authorization but will not be completed prior to its expiration. As required, the applicant also provided a preliminary monitoring report which confirms that the applicant has implemented the required mitigation and monitoring, and which also shows that no impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized have occurred as a result of the activities conducted. The notice of the proposed renewal IHA was published on April 11, 2024 (89 FR 25573).
The Chevron LWMEP consists of construction activities to upgrade Berth 1 of the Refinery Long Wharf in San Francisco Bay, California, in order to meet current safety and efficiency standards. Chevron's planned construction at Berth 1 included: vibratory extraction of two 18-inch concrete piles associated with an existing gangway and catwalk; impact installation of 42 24-inch square concrete piles to construct a mooring dolphin and hook, breasting dolphin and breasting points with standoff fenders, and to replace the catwalk in a different location; vibratory installation of a temporary construction template composed of up to 12 36-inch steel piles; and vibratory extraction of the same temporary steel piles when in-water construction activities were complete. All in-water work was expected to be completed in a seasonal work window from June 1 through November 30, 2023.
Due to unexpected difficulty with pile installation, Chevron was only able to complete vibratory extraction and impact installation of concrete piles, and vibratory installation of temporary steel piles. The applicant initially determined 12 36-inch steel piles would be needed to support the template; however, only 10 steel piles were needed and installed via vibratory hammer. Chevron plans to complete the remaining construction activities, which includes vibratory extraction of the 10 steel piles, in up to 8 non-consecutive days over 1 month during June 1 through November 30, 2024. This renewal request is to cover the subset of activities in the initial IHA that will not be completed during the effective IHA period.
The initial IHA was intended to cover 1 year of a larger project for which Chevron obtained prior IHAs and intends to request take authorization for subsequent facets of the project. The larger 5-year project involves upgrading Long Wharf to satisfy current Marine Oil Terminal Engineering and Maintenance Standards. The Long Wharf has 6 berths for receiving raw materials and shipping products. The project area encompasses the entirety of Berth 1, an area of approximately 470 square meters (m
Chevron's planned activity includes vibratory pile removal, which may result in the incidental take of marine mammals, by harassment only. Due to mitigation measures, no Level A harassment is anticipated to occur, and none is authorized. The likely or possible impacts of Chevron's planned activity on marine mammals could involve both non-acoustic and acoustic stressors and is unchanged from the impacts described in
A detailed description of the construction activities for which take is authorized here may be found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (88 FR 19247, March 31, 2023; 88 FR 31703, May 18, 2023). The location, timing, and nature of the activities, including the types of equipment planned for use, are identical to those described in the previous notices. This renewal IHA is effective for a period of 1 year from June 1, 2024, through May 30, 2025.
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which take is authorized, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the notice of the proposed IHA for the initial authorization (88 FR 19247, March 31, 2023). NMFS has reviewed the preliminary monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft Stock Assessment Reports (SARs), information on relevant Unusual Mortality Events (UMEs), and other scientific literature, and determined that neither this nor any other new information affects which species or stocks have the potential to be affected or the pertinent information in the description of the marine mammals in the area of specified activities contained in the supporting documents for the initial IHA (88 FR 31703, May 18, 2023).
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is authorized here may be found in the
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the notices of the proposed and final IHAs for the initial authorization (88 FR 19247, March 31, 2023; 88 FR 31703, May 18, 2023). Specifically, the area or space within which harassment is likely to occur and marine mammal occurrence data applicable to this authorization remain unchanged from the initial IHA. Similarly, methods of take, daily take estimates and types of take remain unchanged from the initial IHA, with the exception of California sea lion and gray whale. The number of takes authorized through this renewal are a subset of the initial authorized takes that better represent the amount of activity left to complete. These takes, which reflect the lower number of remaining days of work, are indicated below in table 1. Takes are calculated using the same methodology as the initial IHA, and are just a proportion of the initial takes based on up to 8 days of work remaining.
For California sea lions, a maximum of four individuals have been seen in a single day based on previous monitoring reports. To account for this possibility, Chevron estimated 2 days of four individuals entering the project area and one individual for the remaining 6 days of work. Therefore, Chevron requested, and NMFS has authorized, 14 takes of California sea lions by Level B harassment.
The initial IHA authorized 2 takes by Level B harassment of gray whale. No gray whale takes have occurred, and given the already very low number of takes previously authorized (2 animals), NMFS has authorized 2 takes of gray whale by Level B harassment in this renewal IHA, rather than a proportion of the initial takes.
Based upon prior occurrences in the Bay, Chevron conservatively estimated, and NMFS concurred, that a maximum of 10 northern fur seals could occur in the project area during the 30 day in-water construction activity period for the initial IHA. Since only 8 days of in-water work are planned for this renewal IHA, NMFS has authorized 3 takes of northern fur seals by Level B harassment.
The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the
• Employ at least two protected species observers (PSOs) to monitor the full shutdown zones, the Level B harassment zones to the extent practicable, and implement pre- and post-clearance monitoring;
• Implement a minimum shutdown zone of 10 meters for in-water construction activities;
• Shut down if marine mammals come within the designated hearing group-specific shutdown zones;
• Shut down if any species for which take has not been authorized enters the Level B harassment zone;
• Submit a draft monitoring report to NMFS within 90 days of completion of marine mammal monitoring or 60 days prior to issuance of any subsequent IHA for this project, whichever comes first;
• Prepare and submit a final report within thirty days following resolution of comments on the draft report from NMFS;
• Submit all PSO datasheets and/or raw sighting data (in a separate file from the Final Report referenced immediately above); and
• Report injured or dead marine mammals.
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue a renewal IHA to Chevron was published in the
The renewal request consists of a subset of activities analyzed through the initial authorization described above. In analyzing the effects of the activities for the initial IHA, NMFS determined that Chevron's activities would have a negligible impact on the affected species or stock and that authorized take
NMFS has concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) Chevron's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action; and (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.
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 (incidental take authorizations 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 would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS determined that the issuance of the initial IHA qualified to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review. NMFS has determined that the application of this categorical exclusion remains appropriate for this renewal IHA.
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 authorized or expected to result from this activity. Therefore, NMFS has determined that formal consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required for this action.
NMFS has issued a renewal IHA to Chevron for the take of marine mammals incidental to conducting pile extraction activities in San Francisco Bay from June 1, 2024, through May 31, 2025.
National Weather Service (NWS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
Notice; request for information.
The Space Weather Prediction Center (SWPC) within NOAA NWS seeks information from interested parties regarding a possible revision to the Space Weather Scales (SWS), which are issued to communicate to the public current and future space weather conditions and possible effects on people and systems.
Submit written comments on or before July 31, 2024.
The public may submit written comments on issues addressed in this notification by either of the following methods:
Amy Macpherson, NOAA, 7220 NW 101st Terrace, Kansas City, MO 64153,
NOAA introduced the SWS in 1999 to communicate to the public current and future space weather conditions and possible effects on people and systems. However, space weather capabilities, user base, and user needs have grown and changed dramatically over the last two decades, and the SWS are challenged in supporting the growing stakeholder needs. In December 2023, the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy's National Science and Technology Council published the Implementation Plan for the National Space Weather Strategy and Action Plan. One of the actions directed the agencies to “Update and expand, as appropriate, the NOAA space weather scales. NOAA scales should be updated and expanded with a focus on forecasting impacts and specifying how space weather will differentially affect systems, industries, sectors, or regions.”
NOAA is undertaking a revision to the SWS and through this request for information (RFI) is soliciting public input to gather feedback from a wide range of stakeholders, including representatives from industry, academia, other relevant organizations and institutions, and the general public. The public input provided in response to this RFI will inform NOAA in the scales revision process. Current NOAA Space Weather Scale descriptions can be found at:
NOAA seeks input into revising the space weather scales with discussion on
1. Articulate what NOAA's space weather scales are used and describe how are they used in missions and inform sector operations. If there are other uses of the scales, please describe.
2. Please discuss the benefits of using the NOAA's space weather scales and how they are useful. Include scenarios and situations of how the space weather scales are useful for operators or how they are useful in decision-making.
3. Describe challenges or difficulties in using the space weather scales. Please include information regarding the content, context, and information provided by the scales.
4. Provide suggested changes to the space weather scales including articulating what aspects could be improved. Consider how the space weather scales are communicated and provide suggestions for how scales communication could be improved. In addition, discuss the impact to your mission if the scales were to change.
5. Offer ideas for developing a new space weather scale(s). Include what phenomenon should be captured by a potential new scale(s), discuss how thresholds for a potential new scale(s) would be determined, and provide some scenarios on how a new scale(s) would be used by the community.
Please note that this is an RFI only. In accordance with the implementing regulations of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), specifically 5 CFR 1320.3(h)(4), this general solicitation is exempt from the PRA. Facts or opinions submitted in response to general solicitations of comments from the public, published in the
The Department of Commerce will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, on or after the date of publication of this notice. We invite the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on proposed, and continuing information collections, which helps us assess the impact of our information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. Public comments were previously requested via the
The data collection is sponsored by DOC/NOAA/National Weather Service (NWS)/Analyze, Forecast, and Support Office (AFS), National Fire Weather Program. Under the Disaster Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2022, Congress charged NOAA/NWS to improve (a) Hurricane intensity and track forecasting, including through deployment of unmanned ocean observing platforms and enhanced data assimilation; (B) precipitation and flood prediction, forecasting, and mitigation capabilities; and (C) wildfire research, prediction, detection, forecasting, monitoring, data management, and communication and engagement. Based on this directive, the NWS is conducting this project to improve decision support services for fire weather products and services. By using social science methods and risk communication expertise, the NWS seeks to identify how probabilistic weather information can most effectively influence fire-related decision-making to protect lives and property and enhance the economy. This data collection will include an on-line survey and virtual focus groups. The survey sample will be a non-representative panel that will draw primarily from the Western, Southern Plains, and Southeastern portions of the United States. The focus groups will be conducted with Public Information Officers and Fire Weather Practitioners at the national, regional, state, and local levels based on contacts known to the NWS. The insights and findings derived from this data collection will be used to develop Impact Decision Support Services' products and messages.
This is a new data collection and currently there are no changes to the collection.
This information collection request may be viewed at
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be submitted within 30 days of the publication of this notice on the following website
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Notice; proposed incidental harassment authorization; request for comments on proposed authorization and possible renewal.
NMFS has received a request from Orsted Wind Power North America, LLC (Orsted), for an incidental harassment authorization (IHA) that is identical to an IHA previously issued to Orsted authorizing the take of marine mammals, by Level B harassment only, incidental to marine site characterization surveys conducted off the coast of Delaware in the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Lease Area OCS-A 0482 and 0519 (Lease Areas), and the associated export cable route (ECR) area. The only changes from the previously issued IHAs involve the updated marine mammal population estimates, marine mammal density data, and take estimates, as well as the new effective dates for the IHA. Accordingly, pursuant to the Marine Mammal Protection Act (MMPA), NMFS is requesting comments on its proposal to issue an IHA to incidentally take marine mammals during specified activities. NMFS is also requesting comments on a possible 1-year renewal IHA that could be issued under certain circumstances and if all requirements are met, as described in
Comments and information must be received no later than June 27, 2024.
Comments should be addressed to Jolie Harrison, Chief, Permits and Conservation Division, Office of Protected Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service. Written comments should be submitted via email to
Alyssa Clevenstine, 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 taking will have a negligible impact on the species or stock(s) and will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on the availability of the species or stock(s) for taking for subsistence uses (where relevant). Further, NMFS must prescribe the permissible methods of taking and other “means of effecting the least practicable adverse impact” on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance, and on the availability of such species or stocks for taking for certain subsistence uses (referred to in shorthand as “mitigation”); and requirements pertaining to the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting of such takings are set forth. Relevant definitions of MMPA statutory terms cited above are included in the relevant sections below.
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 (incidental take authorizations 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 would preclude this categorical exclusion. Accordingly, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the issuance of the proposed IHA to Orsted qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
We will review all comments submitted in response to this notice prior to concluding our NEPA process or making a final decision on the IHA request.
On October 1, 2021, Orsted, a limited liability company registered in the State of Delaware, submitted a request on behalf of Garden State Offshore Energy, LLC (Garden State) and Skipjack Offshore Energy, LLC (Skipjack), both subsidiaries of Orsted and both registered in the State of Delaware, for an IHA to take marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys off the coast of Delaware in OCS-A 0482 and 0519, and along potential ECRS to landfall locations in Delaware and New Jersey. NMFS published a notice of the proposed IHA in the
On February 23, 2023, Orsted submitted a request that NMFS re-issue the previously issued IHA with the only change being new effective dates. NMFS published a notice of re-issuance of that IHA, announcing effective dates of May 10, 2023, through May 9, 2024 (88 FR 30278, May 11, 2023) (2023 IHA). The specified activity, specific geographical region, the type of equipment or survey activities, amount of take requested by Orsted and later authorized by NMFS, as well as the proposed mitigation, monitoring, and requirements remained substantially unchanged from the 2022 IHA. Orsted completed a portion of the survey work that was covered by the 2023 IHA and submitted a preliminary monitoring report demonstrating that the required mitigation and monitoring requirements were satisfied, no impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized occurred as a result of the activities conducted, and the IHA holder did not exceed the authorized levels of take under that IHA (88 FR 30278, May 11, 2023).
On March 6, 2024, NMFS received a letter from Orsted requesting renewal of the re-issued 2023 IHA (2024 request) to conduct the same site characterization surveys within the same survey areas using the same type of survey equipment that was previously analyzed under the 2022 IHA and re-issued 2023 IHA. While Orsted's planned activity would ordinarily qualify for a renewal of the IHA, NMFS determined that a renewal of the 2023 IHA is not appropriate because Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory Habitat-based Marine Mammal Density Models for the U.S. Atlantic was updated (
Orsted proposes to conduct marine site characterization surveys, including high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys and geotechnical surveys, in BOEM Lease Areas OCS-A 0482 and 0519, and the associated ECRs. The purpose of the marine site characterization surveys is to collect data concerning seabed (geophysical, geotechnical, and geohazard), ecological, and archeological conditions within the footprint of offshore wind facility development. Surveys are also conducted to support engineering design and to map unexploded ordnance (UXO). Underwater sound resulting from Orsted's proposed activities, specifically HRG surveys, has the potential to result in incidental take of 15 species (16 stocks) of marine mammals, in the form of Level B harassment only. The proposed IHA would cover the same specified activities previously described in its application for the 2022 IHA and subsequent documents. NMFS refers the public to the documents and supplemental materials related to the
While the exact dates have not yet been established, the proposed activities are planned to begin as soon as possible upon issuance of an IHA. The duration of the proposed activity remains unchanged from the 2022 IHA and the re-issued 2023 IHA. The proposed activity is expected to require up to 350 survey days across a maximum of three vessels operating concurrently over the course of a single year (“survey day” defined as a 24-hr activity period in which the assumed number of line km are surveyed). The number of anticipated survey days was calculated as the number of days needed to reach the overall level of effort required to meet survey objectives assuming any single vessel travels 4 knots (kn) (7.4 kilometers per hour (km/hr) and surveys cover, on average, 70 line km per 24-hr period.
The specific geographic region remains unchanged from the previously issued 2022 IHA and re-issued 2023 IHA. The proposed activities would occur within the Project Area, which includes the Lease Areas and potential ECRs to landfall locations in Delaware (figure 1). The combined Lease Areas OCS-A 0482 and 0519 are comprised of approximately 568 square kilometers (km
A detailed description of the proposed specified activities can be found in the previous
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the specified activities can
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's 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's U.S. Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico SARs (
Additionally, on August 1, 2022, NMFS announced proposed changes to the existing North Atlantic right whale (NARW) vessel speed regulations (87 FR 46921, August 1, 2022) to further reduce the likelihood of mortalities and serious injuries to endangered NARWs from vessel collisions, which are a leading cause of the species' decline and a primary factor in an ongoing UME. Should a final vessel speed rule be issued and become effective during the effective period of this authorization (or any other MMPA incidental take authorization), the authorization holder will be required to comply with any and all applicable requirements contained within the final vessel speed rule. Specifically, where measures in any final vessel speed rule are more protective or restrictive than those in this or any other MMPA authorization, authorization holders will be required to comply with the requirements of the vessel speed rule. Alternatively, where measures in this or any other MMPA authorization are more restrictive or protective than those in any final vessel speed rule, the measures in the MMPA authorization will remain in place. The responsibility to comply with the applicable requirements of any vessel speed rule will become effective immediately upon the effective date of any final vessel speed rule.
A description of the potential effects of the specified activities on marine mammals and their habitat may be found in the documents supporting the 2022 IHA (87 FR 15922, March 21, 2022; 87 FR 30182, May 18, 2022). At present, there is no new information on potential effects that would change our analysis.
A detailed description of the methods used to estimate take anticipated to occur incidental to the project is found in the previous
Due to limited data availability and difficulties identifying individuals to species level during visual surveys, individual densities are not able to be provided for all species and they are instead grouped into “guilds” (Roberts
The take NMFS proposes for authorization can be found in table 2, below. Table 2 presents the results of Orsted's updated density-based calculations for the Project Area. For comparative purposes, we have provided the 2022 IHA authorized take (87 FR 30182, May 18, 2022). No take by Level A harassment is anticipated. Therefore, NMFS has not proposed to authorized any take by Level A harassment. Mortality or serious injury (M/SI) is neither anticipated nor proposed to be authorized.
The proposed mitigation measures, and proposed monitoring and reporting requirements are identical to those included in the
The following mitigation measures will be implemented during Orsted's marine site characterization surveys. Pursuant to section 7 of the ESA, Orsted will also be required to adhere to relevant Project Design Criteria (PDC) of the NMFS Greater Atlantic Regional Office (GARFO) programmatic consultation (specifically PDCs 4, 5, and 7) regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast (see NOAA GARFO, 2021;
Marine mammal exclusion zones (EZs) will be established around the HRG survey equipment and monitored by NMFS-approved PSOs:
• 500 m EZ for NARWs during operation of specified acoustic sources (
• 100 m EZ for all other marine mammals, with certain exceptions (see
If a marine mammal is detected approaching or entering the EZs during the HRG survey, the vessel operator will adhere to the shutdown procedures described below to minimize noise impacts on the animals. These stated requirements will be included in the site-specific training to be provided to the survey team. The Level B harassment zones for each sound source are listed in table 3 and remain the same as the initial IHA (see table 4 of the
Marine mammal clearance zones will be established around the HRG survey equipment and monitored by PSOs:
• 500 m for all ESA-listed marine mammals; and
• 100 m for all other marine mammals.
Orsted will implement a 30-minute pre-start clearance period prior to the initiation of ramp-up of specified HRG equipment. During this period, clearance zones will be monitored by PSOs, using the appropriate visual technology. Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal(s) is within its respective clearance zone. If a marine mammal is observed within a clearance zone during the pre-start clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting its respective EZ or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sighting (
A ramp-up procedure, involving a gradual increase in source level output, is required at all times as part of the activation of the acoustic source when technically feasible. The ramp-up procedure will be used at the beginning of HRG survey activities in order to provide additional protection to marine mammals near the survey area by allowing them to vacate the area prior to the commencement of survey equipment operation at full power. Operators should ramp-up sources to half power for 5 minutes and then proceed to full power.
Ramp-up activities will be delayed if a marine mammal(s) enters its respective EZ. Ramp-up will resume if the animal has been observed exiting its respective EZ or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sighting (
Ramp-up may occur at times of poor visibility, including nighttime, if appropriate visual monitoring has occurred with no detections of marine mammals in the 30 minutes prior to beginning ramp-up. Acoustic source activation may only occur at night where operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances.
An immediate shutdown of the impulsive HRG survey equipment (
If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or, a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorization number of takes have been met, approaches or is observed within the Level B harassment zone, shutdown must occur.
If the acoustic source is shut down for reasons other than mitigation (
The shutdown requirement will be waived for pinnipeds and for small delphinids of the following genera:
Shutdown, pre-start clearance, and ramp-up procedures are not required during HRG survey operations using only non-impulsive sources (
Orsted must adhere to the following measures except in the case where compliance will create an imminent and serious threat to a person or vessel or to the extent that a vessel is restricted in its ability to maneuver and, because of the restriction, cannot comply:
• Vessel operators and crews must maintain a vigilant watch for all marine mammals and slow down, stop their vessel, or alter course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any marine mammal. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone based on the appropriate separation distance around the vessel. Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone may be third-party observers (
• All survey vessels, regardless of size, must observe a 10 kn (18.5 km/hr) speed restriction in specified areas designated by NMFS for the protection of NARWs from vessel strikes. These specified areas include all seasonal management areas (SMA) established under 50 CFR 224.105 (when in effect), any dynamic management areas (DMA) (when in effect), and Slow Zones. See:
• All vessels must reduce speed to 10 kn (18.5 km/hr) or less when mother/calf pairs, pods, or large assemblages of cetaceans are observed near a vessel.
• All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 500 m from right whales and other ESA-listed large whales;
○ If an ESA-listed species is sighted within the relevant separation distance, the vessel must steer a course away at 10-kn (18.5 km/hr) or less until the 500-m separation distance has been established. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as a species that is not ESA-listed, the vessel operator must assume that it is an ESA-listed species and take appropriate action.
• All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from non-ESA-listed baleen whales;
• All vessels must, to the maximum extent practicable, attempt to maintain a minimum separation distance of 50 m from all other marine mammals, with an understanding that at times this may not be possible (
• When marine mammals are sighted while a vessel is underway, the vessel
○ If marine mammals are sighted within the relevant separation distance, the vessel must reduce speed and shift the engine to neutral, not engaging the engines until animals are clear of the area. This does not apply to any vessel towing gear or any vessel that is navigationally constrained.
Project-specific training will be conducted for all vessel crew prior to the start of a survey and during any changes in crew such that all survey personnel are fully aware and understand the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
Based on our evaluation of the applicant's proposed measures, as well as other measures considered to by NMFS, NMFS has preliminarily determined that the mitigation measures provide the means of effective the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
Visual monitoring will be performed by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs, the resumes of whom will be provided to NMFS for review and approval prior to the start of survey activities. Orsted will employ independent, dedicated, trained PSOs, meaning that the PSOs must (1) be employed by a third-party observer provider, (2) have no tasks other than to conduct observational effort, collect data, and communicate with and instruct relevant vessel crew with regard to the presence of marine mammals and mitigation requirements (including brief alerts regarding maritime hazards), and (3) have successfully completed an approved PSO training course appropriate for their designated task. On a case-by-case basis, trained crew members may be approved by NMFS for limited, specified duties in support of approved, independent PSOs on smaller vessels with limited crew operating in nearshore waters.
The PSOs will be responsible for monitoring the waters surrounding each survey vessel to the farthest extent permitted by sighting conditions, including EZs, during all HRG survey operations. PSOs will visually monitor and identify marine mammals, including those approaching or entering the established EZs during survey activities. It will be the responsibility of the Lead PSO on duty to communicate the presence of marine mammals as well as to communicate the action(s) that are necessary to ensure mitigation and monitoring requirements are implemented as appropriate.
During all HRG survey operations (
PSOs must be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to estimate distance and bearing to detect marine mammals, particularly in proximity to EZs. Reticulated binoculars must also be available to PSOs for use as appropriate based on conditions and visibility to support the sighting and monitoring of marine mammals. During nighttime operations, night-vision goggles with thermal clip-ons and infrared technology will be used. Position data will be recorded using hand-held or vessel GPS units for each sighting.
During good conditions (
Orsted must consult NMFS NARW reporting system and Whale Alert, daily and as able, for the presence of NARWs throughout survey operations, and for the establishment of a DMA. If NMFS should establish a DMA in the Lease Areas during the survey, the vessels will abide by speed restrictions in the DMA.
Within 90 days after completion of survey activities or expiration of this IHA, whichever comes sooner, a draft comprehensive report will be provided to NMFS that fully documents the methods and monitoring protocols, summarizes the data recorded during monitoring, summarizes the number of marine mammals observed during survey activities (by species, when known), summarizes the mitigation actions taken during surveys including what type of mitigation and the species and number of animals that prompted the mitigation action, when known), and provides an interpretation of the results and effectiveness of all mitigation and monitoring. Any recommendations made by NMFS must be addressed in the final report prior to acceptance by NMFS. A final report must be submitted within 30 days following any comments on the draft report. All draft and final marine mammal and acoustic monitoring reports must be submitted to
• PSO names and affiliations;
• Dates of departures and returns to port with port names;
• Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time (GMT)) of survey effort and times corresponding with PSO effort;
• Vessel location (latitude/longitude) when survey effort begins and ends; vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts;
• Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon any line change;
• Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including wind speed and direction, BSS, Beaufort wind force, swell height, weather conditions, cloud cover, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon;
• Factors that may be contributing to impaired observations during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions change (
• Survey activity information, such as type of survey equipment in operation, acoustic source power output while in operation, and any other notes of significance (
If a marine mammal is sighted, the following information should be recorded:
• Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
• PSO who sighted the animal;
• Time of sighting;
• Vessel location at time of sighting;
• Water depth;
• Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
• Direction of animal's travel relative to the vessel;
• Pace of the animal;
• Estimated distance to the animal and its heading relative to vessel at initial sighting;
• Identification of the animal (
• Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
• Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, calves, group composition, e
• Description (as many distinguishing features as possible of each individual seen, including length, shape, color, pattern, scars or markings, shape and size of dorsal fin, shape of head, and blow characteristics);
• Detailed behavior observations (
• Animal's closest point of approach and/or closest distance from the center point of the acoustic source;
• Platform activity at time of sighting (
• Description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting (
If a NARW is observed at any time by PSOs or personnel on any project vessels, during surveys or during vessel transit, Orsted must report the sighting information to the NMFS NARW Sighting Advisory System (866-755-6622) within 2 hours of occurrence, when practicable, or no later than 24 hours after occurrence. NARW sightings in any location may also be reported to the U.S. Coast Guard via channel 16 and through the WhaleAlert app (
In the event that Orsted personnel discover an injured or dead marine mammal, Orsted will report the incident to the NMFS Office of Protected Resources (OPR) and the NMFS New England/Mid-Atlantic Stranding Coordinator as soon as feasible. The report will include the following information:
• 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.
In the unanticipated event of a vessel strike of a marine mammal by any vessel involved in these activities covered by the IHA, Orsted will report the incident to NMFS by phone (866-755-6622) and by email (
• Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
• Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
• Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
• Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being conducted (if applicable);
• Status of all sound sources in use;
• Description of avoidance measures/requirements that were in place at the time of the strike and what additional measures were taken, if any, to avoid strike;
• Environmental conditions (
• Estimated size and length of animal that was struck;
• Description of the behavior of the marine mammal immediately preceding and following the strike;
• If available, description of the presence and behavior of any other marine mammals immediately preceding the strike;
• Estimated fate of the animal (
• To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
Orsted's HRG survey activities are unchanged from those analyzed in support of the 2022 IHA. When issuing the 2022 IHA (87 FR 30182, May 18, 2022) and 2023 reissuance of that IHA, NMFS found Orsted's proposed HRG surveys would have a negligible impact to species or stocks' annual rates of recruitment and survival, and the amount of taking would be small relative to the population size of such species or stocks. Additionally, the potential effects of the activities, taking into consideration the proposed mitigation and related monitoring measures, are identical to those calculated in support of the 2022 IHA. NMFS expects that all potential takes would be short-term Level B behavioral harassment, predominantly in the form of avoidance of the sound sources that may cause a temporary abandonment of the location during active use of acoustic sources that may result in a temporary interruption of foraging activities for some species (if such activity was occurring), reactions that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological consequences (
Feeding behavior is not likely to be significantly impacted as prey species are mobile and are broadly distributed throughout the survey area; therefore, marine mammals that may be temporarily displaced during survey activities are expected to be able to resume foraging once they have moved away from areas with disturbing levels of underwater noise. Because of the temporary nature of the disturbance and the availability of similar habitat and resources in the surrounding area, the impacts to marine mammals and the food sources that they utilize are not expected to cause significant or long-term consequences for individual marine mammals or their populations. Even considering the increased estimated take for some species, the impacts of these lower severity exposures are not expected to accrue to a degree that the fitness of any individuals would be impacted and, therefore, no impacts on the annual rates of recruitment or survival would result.
In addition to being temporary, the maximum expected harassment zone around a survey vessel is 141 m from use of sparkers. Although this distance is assumed for all survey activity evaluated here and in estimating take numbers proposed for authorization, in reality, much of the survey activity would involve use of acoustic sources with reduced acoustic harassment zones (see tables 1 and 4 in the previous
As previously discussed in the 2022 IHA (87 FR 15922, March 21, 2022; 87 FR 30182, May 18, 2022), impacts from the survey are expected to be localized to the specific area of activity and only during periods when Orsted's acoustic sources are active. There are no rookeries, mating or calving grounds known to be biologically important to marine mammals within the proposed survey area. The survey area lies significantly south (over 250 miles (402 km)) of where Biologically Important Areas are defined for fin and humpback whales. There is no designated critical habitat for any marine mammals listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in the survey area.
There is a slight increase in estimated take for 5 species (humpback whale, minke whale, Atlantic spotted dolphin, gray seal, harbor seal) relative to those authorized under the 2022 IHA but the total amount of takes proposed for authorization are small (less than 1 percent) relative to estimated population size of each species or stock. Additionally, due to updated information in the draft 2023 SAR on the stock abundance of the WNA stock of common dolphins, there is a minor increase in the estimated take as a percentage of that stock, however, that also results in estimated take of less than 1 percent of the population. Even considering the increased estimated take for 5 species, the impacts of these lower severity exposures are not expected to accrue to a degree that the fitness of any individuals would be impacted, and therefore, no impacts on the annual rates of recruitment or survival are expected to result. Overall, the total amount of takes proposed for authorization are small (less than 1 percent) relative to estimated population size of each species or stock (less than 1 percent for 13 species; less than 2 percent for NARW; less than 7 percent for the WNA Offshore stock of bottlenose dolphin) except for the WNA Migratory Coastal stock of bottlenose dolphin (62 percent). The values presented in table 2 are likely conservative estimates as they assume all takes are of different individual animals which is likely not to be 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. This is the particularly the case for bottlenose dolphins. Given the uncertainty regarding the number of days Orsted's survey may be within the 20 m isobath, the authorization of 4,118 instances of take by Level B harassment is not allocated to a specific stock but rather could be of either stock. However, based on the expansive ranges of both bottlenose dolphin stocks and the stocks' respective occurrence in the area, it is unlikely that large segments of either stock would consistently remain in the survey area. Considering this and various factors as described in the previous
Orsted's proposed activities would occur in a small fraction of the migratory corridor for NARW and impacts are expected to be limited to low levels of behavioral harassment, resulting in temporary and minor behavioral changes during any brief period of exposure. The size of the Project Area (approximately 4,510 km
Given the transitory nature of NARW in this area and due to the lack of year-round “core” NARW foraging habitat (Oleson
We also note that our findings for other species with active UMEs or species where biologically important areas or haul-outs have been previously described in the
Based on the information contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has preliminarily determined the following: (1) the required mitigation measures will effect the least practicable impact on marine mammal species or stocks and their habitat; (2) the proposed authorized takes will have a negligible impact on the affected marine mammal species or stocks; (3) the proposed authorized takes represent small numbers of marine mammals relative to the affected stock abundances; (4) Orsted's activities will not have an unmitigable adverse impact on taking for subsistence purposes as no relevant subsistence uses of marine mammals are implicated by this action, and (5) appropriate monitoring and reporting requirements are included.
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS is proposing to authorize the incidental take of four species of marine mammals which are listed under the ESA, the North Atlantic right, fin, sei,
As a result of these preliminary determinations, NMFS proposes to issue an IHA to Orsted for conducting marine site characterization surveys off the coast of Delaware for a period of 1 year, provided the previously mentioned mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements are incorporated. A draft of the proposed IHA can be found at
We request comment on our analyses (included in both this document and the referenced documents supporting the 2022 IHA), the proposed authorization, and any other aspect of this notice of proposed IHA for the proposed marine site characterization surveys. We also request comment on the potential for renewal of this proposed IHA as described in the paragraph below. Please include with your comments any supporting data or literature citations to help inform our final decision on the request for MMPA authorization.
On a case-by-case basis, NMFS may issue a one-time, 1-year renewal IHA following notice to the public providing an additional 15 days for public comments when (1) up to another year of identical or nearly identical, or nearly identical, activities as described in the Description of the Proposed Activity and Anticipated Impacts section of this notice is planned or (2) the activities as described in the Description of the Proposed Activity and Anticipated Impacts section of this notice would not be completed by the time the IHA expires and a renewal would allow for completion of the activities beyond that described in the
• A request for renewal is received no later than 60 days prior to the needed renewal IHA effective date (recognizing that the renewal IHA expiration date cannot extend beyond 1 year from expiration of the initial IHA).
• The request for renewal must include the following:
(1) An explanation that the activities to be conducted under the requested renewal IHA are identical to the activities analyzed under the initial IHA, are a subset of the activities, or include changes so minor (
(2) A preliminary monitoring report showing the results of the required monitoring to date and an explanation showing that the monitoring results do not indicate impacts of a scale or nature not previously analyzed or authorized.
• Upon review of the request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, and any other pertinent information, NMFS determines that there are no more than minor changes in the activities, the mitigation and monitoring measures will remain the same and appropriate, and the findings in the initial IHA remain valid.
Department of the Air Force, Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 29, 2024.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to AF Information Collections Office, 1800 Air Force Pentagon, Suite 4C146, Washington, DC 20330, ATTN: Ms. Mia Day, or call 703-697-4593.
Defense Acquisition Regulations System, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice.
The Defense Acquisition Regulations System has submitted to OMB for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 27, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by the following method: Federal eRulemaking Portal:
Tucker Lucas, 571-372-7574, or
This requirement supports implementation of section 1648 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2020 (Pub. L. 116-92). Section 1648(c)(2) directs the Secretary of Defense to develop a risk-based cybersecurity framework for the defense industrial base sector as the basis for a mandatory DoD standard.
This requirement is implemented in the Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) through the solicitation provision at 252.204-7019, Notice of NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirement, and the contract clause at 252.204-7020, NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements.
This clearance covers the following requirements:
• DFARS 252.204-7019, Notice of NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirement, is prescribed for use in all solicitations, including solicitations using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, except for solicitations solely for the acquisition of commercially available off-the-shelf (COTS) items. Per the provision, if an offeror is required to have implemented NIST SP 800-171 per DFARS clause 252.204-7012, then the offeror shall have a current assessment for each covered contractor information system that is relevant to the offer, contract, task order, or delivery order in order to be considered for award.
• DFARS 252.204-7020, NIST SP 800-171 DoD Assessment Requirements, is prescribed for use in in all solicitations and contracts, including solicitations and contracts using FAR part 12 procedures for the acquisition of commercial products and commercial services, except for solicitations and contracts solely for the acquisition of COTS items. The clause requires the contractor to provide the Government access to its facilities, systems, and personnel in order to conduct a Medium Assessment or High Assessment, if necessary. Medium Assessments are assumed to be conducted by DoD Components, primarily by program management office cybersecurity personnel, in coordination with the Defense Contract Management Agency's DCMA's Defense Industrial Base Cybersecurity Assessment Center (DIBCAC), as part of a separately scheduled visit (
DoD Clearance Officer: Mr. Tucker Lucas. Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at
Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Department of Defense (DoD).
Notice of Federal advisory committee meeting.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce the following Federal Advisory Committee meeting of the Reserve Forces Policy Board (RFPB) will occur.
The RFPB will hold an open to the public meeting on Wednesday, June 5, 2024 from 12:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The in-person meeting will be held at the RFPB office located at
Eric Flowers, Designated Federal Officer (DFO) at
Due to circumstances beyond the control of the Department of Defense, the Reserve Forces Policy Board was unable to provide public notification required by 41 CFR 102-3.150(a) concerning its June 5, 2024 meeting. Accordingly, the Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.150(b), waives the 15-calendar day notification requirement.
This meeting is being held under the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”), 5 U.S.C. 552b (commonly known as the “Government in the Sunshine Act”), and title 41, Code of Federal Regulations, section 102-3.140 and section 102-3.155. Purpose of the Meeting: The purpose of the meeting is to obtain, review, and evaluate relevant information related to strategies, policies, and practices designed to improve and enhance the capabilities, efficiency, effectiveness, and accessibility of the Reserve Component (RC).
The Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness, (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 29, 2024.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy 1500 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1500, CDR James Golliday, (703) 693-9075.
Responses per Respondent: 1.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Renewal of Federal advisory committee.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group (SAG).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
The SAG's charter is being renewed pursuant to title 10, United States Code (U.S.C.) section 1781a and in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C., Appendix) and title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) chapter 102-3.50(a). The charter and contact information for the SAG's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) are found at
The SAG provides the Secretary of Defense independent advice and recommendations on matters concerning defense policy. Specifically, the SAG will focus on: (a) technical, intelligence, and policy-related matters of interest to the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the U.S. Strategic Command (USSTRATCOM) concerning the development and implementation of the Nation's strategic war plans; (b) enhancements in USSTRATCOM's mission area responsibilities; and (c) other matters related to the Nation's strategic forces, as requested by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Commander, USSTRATCOM.
The SAG is composed of no more than 20 members who have distinguished backgrounds in the fields of strategic policy formulation; nuclear weapon design; national command, control, communications, intelligence, and information operations; or other important aspects of the Nation's strategic forces. These members will come from varied backgrounds including prior government or military service, multinational corporations, academia, or other non-government organizations. Individual members will be appointed according to DoD policy and procedures, and serve a term of service of one-to-four years with annual renewals. One member will be appointed as Chair of the SAG. No member, unless approved according to DoD policy and procedures, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the SAG, or serve on more than two DoD Federal advisory committees at one time.
Members of the SAG who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active-duty members of the Uniformed Services, will be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee
All members of the SAG are appointed to provide advice based on their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official SAG-related travel and per diem, members serve without compensation.
The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the SAG membership about the SAG's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the SAG. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the SAG, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering (OUSD(R&E)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 29, 2024.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the Defense Standardization Program Office, 8725 John J Kingman Rd, Stop 5100, Fort Belvoir, VA 22060-6220, ATTN: Mr. Timothy Koczanski, or call 571-767-6870.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Federal advisory committee renewal.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the charter of the Board of Regents, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (BoR USUHS).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for the Department of Defense, 703-692-5952.
The BoR USUHS charter is being renewed in accordance with chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”) and title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 102-3.50(a). The charter and contact information for the BoR USUHS' Designated Federal Officer (DFO) and be found at
The BoR USUHS provides independent advice and recommendations on academic and administrative matters critical to the full accreditation and successful operation of the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (“the University”) and carrying out the Secretary's responsibility to conduct the business of the University.
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2113a(b), the BoR USUHS shall consist of 16 members appointed by the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense (“the DoD Appointing Authority”), as follows: (a) nine persons outstanding in the fields of health care, higher education administration, or public policy, who shall be appointed
BoR USUHS members who are not ex officio members shall be appointed by the DoD Appointing Authority pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2113a(b)(1) and (c) for a six-year term of service except that: (a) any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring before the expiration of the term for which his or her predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the remainder of such term; and (b) any member whose term of office has expired shall continue to serve until his or her successor is appointed.
Appointments for BoR USUHS members who are not ex officio members shall be renewed on an annual basis in accordance with DoD policy and procedures. No member, unless approved by the DoD Appointing Authority, may serve on more than two DoD Federal advisory committees at one time.
BoR USUHS members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active-duty members of the Uniformed Services, shall be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee members. BoR USUHS members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active-duty members of the Uniformed Services, shall be designated pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a) to serve as regular government employee (RGE) members.
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2113a(d), the DoD Appointing Authority shall appoint the BoR USUHS Chair for a term of service of one-to-two years, with annual renewal which shall not exceed the member's approved BoR USUHS appointment, in accordance with DoD policy and procedures.
All members of the BoR USUHS are appointed to exercise their own best judgment, without representing any particular point of view, and to discuss and deliberate and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest.
Pursuant to 10 U.S.C. 2113a(e), BoR USUHS members (other than ex officio members) shall be entitled to receive compensation at a rate determined by the DoD Appointing Authority, for each day of attendance at the BoR USUHS meetings, in addition to travel and other necessary expenses connected with their official duties on the BoR USUHS, in accordance with the provision of 5 U.S.C. 5703(b), (d) and 5707. RGE members shall only be reimbursed for official BoR USUHS-related travel and per diem.
The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the BoR USUHS membership about the BoR USUHS' mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the BoR USUHS. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the BoR USUHS, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Federal advisory committee renewal.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the U.S Army Science Board (ASB).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for DoD, 703-692-5952.
The ASB is being renewed in accordance with chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”) and title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 102-3.50(d). The charter and contact information for the ASB's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) are found at
The ASB provides the Secretary of Defense and the Deputy Secretary of Defense (“the DoD Appointing Authority”), through the Secretary of the Army, independent advice and recommendations related to the Department of the Army's scientific, technical, manufacturing, acquisition, logistics, and business management functions. The ASB shall be composed of no more than 20 members who are eminent authorities in one or more of the following disciplines and fields: science; technology; manufacturing; acquisition; logistics; business management functions natural (
Individual members are appointed according to DoD policy and procedures, and serve a term of service of one-to-four years with annual renewals. One member will be appointed as Chair of the ASB. No member, unless approved according to DoD policy and procedures, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the ASB, or serve on more than two DoD Federal advisory committees at one time.
ASB members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active-duty members of the Uniformed Services, are appointed as experts or consultants, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, to serve as special government employee members. ASB members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active-duty members of the Uniformed Services are appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a), to serve as regular government employee members.
All ASB members are appointed to provide advice based on their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official ASB-related travel and per diem, members serve without compensation.
The public or interested organizations may submit written statements about the ASB's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the ASB. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the ASB, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Renewal of Federal advisory committee.
DoD is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the National Security Education Board (NSEB).
Jim Freeman, DoD Advisory Committee Management Officer, 703-692-5952.
The NSEB is being renewed in accordance with the provisions of chapter 10 of title 5, United States Code (U.S.C.) (commonly known as “the Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”) and title 41 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) chapter 102-3.50(a). The charter and contact information for the NSEB's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) are found at
Pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1902(a)(3), the NSEB shall consult on the National Security Scholarship, Fellowships, and Grants Program as described in more detail in 50 U.S.C. ch. 37.
Pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1903(b), the NSEB shall be composed of the following individuals or the representatives of such individuals:
1. The Secretary of Defense, who shall serve as the Chair of the NSEB.
2. The Secretary of Education.
3. The Secretary of State.
4. The Secretary of Commerce.
5. The Secretary of Homeland Security.
6. The Secretary of Energy.
7. The Director of National Intelligence.
8. The Chair of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
9. Six individuals appointed by the President, who shall be experts in the fields of international, language, area, and counterproliferation studies education and who may not be officers or employees of the Federal Government.
Members of the NSEB appointed by the President shall be appointed for a period specified by the President at the time of their appointment, but not to exceed four years.
NSEB members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active-duty members of the Armed Forces, shall be appointed as experts or consultants pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109 to serve as special government employee members. NSEB members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active-duty members of the Armed Forces, shall be appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a) to serve as regular government employee members. Pursuant to 50 U.S.C. 1903(c), individuals appointed by the President shall receive no compensation for service on the NSEB. All members shall receive reimbursement of official NSEB-related travel and per diem.
The public or interested organizations may submit written statements to the NSEB about the NSEB's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the NSEB. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the NSEB, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 29, 2024.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to the DoD Information Operations, ATTN: Timothy Noll, 2001 Mission Drive, Suite 2, New Cumberland, PA 17070, or call (717) 982-9599.
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (OUSD(P&R)), Department of Defense, (DoD).
30-Day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 27, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, 571-372-7574, or
• 10 U.S.C. 481
• Ronald W. Reagan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005
• Public Law 111-383, Section 1631
• NDAA for FY 2013, Section 570
• 10 U.S.C. 2358
Sexual assault, sexual harassment, and gender discrimination remain a major concern across the DoD and for members of Congress. In February 2004, the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness (USD(P&R)) testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee on the prevalence of sexual assault in the DoD and the programs and policies planned to address the issues. In accordance with legislative requirements, the USD(P&R) issued memoranda to the Services that provides DoD policy guidance on sexual assault that included a new standard definition, response capability, training requirements, response actions, and reporting guidance throughout the Department. The Sexual Assault and Prevention Response Office supported implementation of the new policy and requires data to assess the prevalence of sexual assault in the Department and the effectiveness of the programs they have implemented.
The WGR surveys will assess the attitudes and opinions of military members on issues relating to sexual harassment, gender discrimination, and sexual assault, as well as the culture and climate of the units/organizations in which individuals serve. It will provide the policy offices of the USD(P&R) with current data on (1) the positive and negative trends for professional and personal relationships between Service members; (2) the specific types of assault that have occurred and the number of times in the preceding year; (3) the effectiveness of DoD policies designed to improve professional relationships between male and female Service members; (4) the effectiveness of current processes for complaints, reports, and investigations; and, (5) specific issues related to sexual harassment, sexual assault, and gender discrimination that may inform the Department's prevention and response efforts.
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at
Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and Sustainment (OUSD(A&S)), Department of Defense (DoD).
60-Day information collection notice.
In compliance with the
Consideration will be given to all comments received by July 29, 2024.
You may submit comments, identified by docket number and title, by any of the following methods:
To request more information on this proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and associated collection instruments, please write to OUSD (A&S), 1400 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301, ATTN: Dr. Maureen Raley, or call 571-372-6278.
Department of Defense (DoD).
Renewal of Federal advisory committee.
The DoD is publishing this notice to announce that it is renewing the Department of the Air Force Scientific Advisory Board (DAF SAB).
Jim Freeman, Advisory Committee Management Officer for DoD, 703-692-5952.
The DAF SAB is being renewed in accordance with chapter 10 of title 5, U.S.C. (commonly known as the “Federal Advisory Committee Act” or “FACA”) and 41 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) section 102-3.50(a). The charter and contact information for the DAF SAB's Designated Federal Officer (DFO) are found at
The DAF SAB provides the Secretary of Defense and Deputy Secretary of Defense with independent advice and recommendations on matters supporting the DAF's scientific and technical enterprise and specifically on matters pertaining to (a) conducting studies on topics deemed critical by the Secretary of the Air Force; (b) recommending applications of technology to improve DAF capabilities; and (c) providing independent reviews of the quality and relevance of the DAF science and technology (S&T) programs. The DAF SAB is composed of no more than 20 members who are eminent authorities in the fields of defense and/or S&T. These members come from varied backgrounds such as science, technology, manufacturing, acquisition, logistics, public or private sector business management, Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, National Laboratories, and academia (universities and colleges).
Individual members are appointed according to DoD policy and procedures and serve a term of service of one-to-four years with annual renewals. One member will be appointed as Chair of the DAF SAB. No member, unless approved according to DoD policy and procedures, may serve more than two consecutive terms of service on the DAF SAB, or serve on more than two DoD Federal advisory committees at one time.
DAF SAB members who are not full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active-duty members of the Uniformed Services, are appointed as experts or consultants, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 3109, to serve as special government employee members. DAF SAB members who are full-time or permanent part-time Federal civilian officers or employees, or active-duty members of the Uniformed Services are appointed pursuant to 41 CFR 102-3.130(a), to serve as regular government employee members.
All DAF SAB members are appointed to provide advice based on their best judgment without representing any particular point of view and in a manner that is free from conflict of interest. Except for reimbursement of official DAF SAB-related travel and per diem, members serve without compensation.
The public or interested organizations may submit written statements about the DAF SAB's mission and functions. Written statements may be submitted at any time or in response to the stated agenda of planned meeting of the DAF SAB. All written statements shall be submitted to the DFO for the DAF SAB, and this individual will ensure that the written statements are provided to the membership for their consideration.
Department of the Navy, Department of Defense (DoD).
30-day information collection notice.
The DoD has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of information
Consideration will be given to all comments received by June 27, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Reginald Lucas, 571-372-7574, or
You may also submit comments and recommendations, identified by Docket ID number and title, by the following method:
•
Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name, Docket ID number, and title for this
Requests for copies of the information collection proposal should be sent to Mr. Lucas at
Institute of Education Sciences, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2025 for the Education Research and Special Education Research Grant Programs, Assistance Listing Numbers (ALNs) 84.305A, 84.305D, 84.324A, and 84.324B. This notice relates to the approved information collection under OMB control number 4040-0001.
The dates when applications are available and the deadlines for transmittal of applications invited under this notice are indicated in the chart at the end of this notice and in the Requests for Applications (RFAs) that are posted at the following website:
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
The contact person associated with a particular research competition is listed in the chart at the end of this notice, as well as in the relevant RFA and application package.
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 IES National Center for Education Research (NCER) is announcing two competitions in the following areas: education research, and statistical and research methodology in education.
The IES National Center for Special Education Research (NCSER) is announcing two competitions—one competition in each of the following areas: special education research, and special education research training.
• Career and Technical Education.
• Civics Education and Social Studies.
• Cognition and Student Learning.
• Early Learning Programs and Policies.
• English Learner Policies, Programs, and Practices.
• Improving Education Systems: Policies, Finance, Organization, Management, and Leadership.
• Literacy.
• Postsecondary and Adult Education.
• Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education.
• Social, Emotional, and Behavioral Context for Teaching and Learning.
• Teaching, Teachers, and the Education Workforce.
• Core Grants (which supports the development of new and improved statistical and research methods and their dissemination to education researchers).
• Toolkits, Guidelines, Compendia, Review Papers, and Curated Data Resources.
• Education Systems.
• Early Career Development and Mentoring.
In addition, if you submit the same or similar application to IES and to another funding entity within or external to the Department of Education and receive funding for the non-IES application prior to IES scientific peer review of applications, you must withdraw the same or similar application submitted to IES, or IES may otherwise determine you are ineligible to receive an award. If reviews are happening concurrently, IES staff will consult with the other potential funder to determine the degree of overlap and which entity will provide funding if both applications are being considered for funding.
• Education Research Grants Program (ALN 84.305A): 40-70 grants.
• Statistical and Research Methodology in the Education Sciences Program (ALN 84.305D): 10-20 grants.
• Special Education Research Grants Program (ALN 84.324A): 10-15 grants.
• Early Career Development and Mentoring topic in the Research Training Programs in Special Education (ALN 84.324B): 3-7 grants.
For the Special Education Research (ALN 84.324A) competition, contingent on the availability of funds and the quality of applications, we may make additional awards in FY 2025 from the list of highly rated unfunded applications submitted in response to the FY 2024 competition announcement.
1.
For all other competitions in this notice, applicants that have the ability and capacity to conduct scientifically valid research are eligible to apply. Eligible applicants include, but are not limited to, nonprofit and for-profit organizations and public and private agencies and institutions of higher education.
2. a.
b.
3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
We do not consider an application that does not comply with the deadline requirements.
5.
6.
1.
For the 84.305A, 84.324A, and 84.305D competitions, peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research plan, the qualifications and experience of the personnel, the resources of the applicant to support the proposed activities, and the quality of the engagement and dissemination plan. These criteria will be described in greater detail in the RFAs.
For the 84.324B competition, peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the significance of the application, the quality of the research plan, the quality of the career development plan, the qualifications and experience of the personnel, the resources of the applicant to support the proposed activities, and the quality of the engagement and dissemination plan. These criteria are described in greater detail in the RFA.
For all IES competitions, applications must include budgets no higher than the relevant maximum award as set out in the relevant RFA. IES will not make an award exceeding the maximum award amount as set out in the relevant RFA.
2.
In addition, in making a competitive grant award, IES also 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 IES. 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 IES under 34 CFR 75.118. IES may also require more frequent performance reports under 34 CFR 75.720(c). For specific requirements on reporting, please go to
5.
6.
In making a continuation award, IES also considers whether the grantee is operating in compliance with the assurances in its approved application, including those applicable to Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance from the Department (34 CFR 100.4, 104.5, 106.4, 108.8, and 110.23).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Office of Postsecondary Education (OPE), Department of Education (ED).
Notice.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, the Department is proposing a revision of a currently approved information collection request (ICR).
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before JULY 29, 2024.
To access and review all the documents related to the information collection listed in this notice, please use
For specific questions related to collection activities, please contact Shedita Alston, (202) 453-7090.
The Department, in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)), provides the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed, revised, and continuing collections of information. This helps the Department assess the impact of its information collection requirements and minimize the public's reporting burden. It also helps the public understand the Department's information collection requirements and provide the requested data in the desired format. The Department is soliciting comments on the proposed information collection request (ICR) that is described below. The Department is especially interested in public comment addressing the following issues: (1) is this collection necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (5) how
The Department is requesting a revision of the survey for the following reasons: to add non-degree-granting institutions of higher education to the respondent universe; to change the timeframe for and revise one question; to revise the possible responses to one question; and to add three new questions regarding faculty/instructor disability training.
Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.
Notice.
The Department of Education (Department) is issuing a notice inviting applications for new awards for fiscal year (FY) 2024 for the Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success (CEVSS) Program, Assistance Listing Number 84.116G. 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
Kelly Harris, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW, 5th floor, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 453-7346. 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.
According to a 2019 research report, student veterans are significantly underrepresented at colleges and universities with the highest graduation rates, despite receiving significant Federal financial assistance for postsecondary education through the GI Bill, indicating barriers in college degree attainment. The report found that only 10 percent of GI Bill recipients attended institutions with six-year graduation rates above 70 percent, compared to 21 percent of the overall student population, and 65 percent of GI Bill recipients enrolled in institutions with six-year graduation rates below 50 percent.
Student veterans often face unique challenges that can affect their academic success, including transitioning back to civilian life after a deployment, addressing service- connected disabilities, and returning to school at an older age. Veterans may also be juggling school and off-campus employment or experiencing financial
Postsecondary education completion is critical for veterans' long-term success. Veterans with a college degree have a lower unemployment rate compared to those without one.
Veteran-specific resource centers are beneficial for veterans because they can serve as a first-stop shop, support students with orienting on campus and with career transitions, and provide a safe place for students with similar backgrounds to connect with each other.
To this end, this competition includes an absolute priority for institutions to establish Centers of Excellence for Veteran Student Success on their campuses to coordinate services to address the academic, financial, physical, and social needs of veteran students. It also includes three competitive preference priorities to improve students' social, emotional, academic, and career development; support the establishment of a Center on a community college, Historically Black college and university (HBCU), Minority-serving institution (MSI), or Tribal College or University (TCU) campus; and support the development of career pathways for students through the development and implementation of student success programs that integrate multiple comprehensive and evidence-based services or initiatives.
This priority is:
Projects that include the following required activities:
(a) Establishing a Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success on the campus of the institution to provide a single point of contact to coordinate comprehensive support services for veteran students;
(b) Establishing a veteran student support team, including representatives from the offices of the institution responsible for admissions, registration, financial aid, veterans' benefits, academic advising, student health, personal or mental health counseling, career advising, disabilities services, and any other office of the institution that provides support to veteran students on campus;
(c) Providing a coordinator whose primary responsibility is to coordinate the model program;
(d) Monitoring the rates of veteran student enrollment, persistence, and completion; and
(e) Developing a plan to sustain the Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success after the grant period.
These priorities are:
Projects that are designed to improve students' social, emotional, academic, and career development, with a focus on underserved students, through developing and supporting educator and school capacity to support social and emotional learning and development that is trauma-informed, such as addressing exposure to community-based violence and trauma specific to military- or veteran-connected students (as defined in this notice).
Under this priority, an applicant must demonstrate that the project will be implemented by one of the following entities:
(1) Community colleges (as defined in this notice);
(2) Historically Black colleges and universities (as defined in this notice);
(3) Tribal Colleges and Universities (as defined in this notice); or
(4) Minority-serving institutions (as defined in this notice).
Projects that are designed to increase postsecondary access, affordability, completion, and success for underserved students by supporting the development and implementation of student success programs that integrate multiple comprehensive and evidence-based services or initiatives, such as academic advising, structured/guided pathways, career services, credit-bearing academic undergraduate courses focused on career, and programs to meet basic needs, such as housing, childcare and transportation, student financial aid, and access to technological devices.
(i) A randomized controlled trial employs random assignment of, for example, students, teachers, classrooms, or schools to receive the project component being evaluated (the treatment group) or not to receive the project component (the control group).
(ii) A regression discontinuity design study assigns the project component being evaluated using a measured variable (
(iii) A single-case design study uses observations of a single case (
In developing logic models, applicants may want to use resources such as the Regional Educational Laboratory Program's (REL Pacific) Education Logic Model Application, available at
(1) A practice guide prepared by What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) reporting a “strong evidence base” or “moderate evidence base” for the corresponding practice guide recommendation;
(2) An intervention report prepared by the WWC reporting a “positive effect” or “potentially positive effect” on a relevant outcome with no reporting of a “negative effect” or “potentially negative effect” on a relevant outcome; or
(3) A single study assessed by the Department, as appropriate, that—
(i) Is an experimental study, a quasi-experimental design study, or a well-designed and well-implemented correlational study with statistical controls for selection bias (
(ii) Includes at least one statistically significant and positive (
The WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 4.1), as well as the more recent WWC Handbook released inAugust 2022 (Version 5.0), are available at
Projects will be awarded and must be operated in a manner consistent with the nondiscrimination requirements contained in Federal civil rights laws.
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.
The Department is not bound by any estimates in this notice.
1.
2. a.
b.
c.
3.
4.
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, references, and captions as well as all text in charts, tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or larger, and no smaller than 10 pitch (characters per inch).
• 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 one-page abstract and the bibliography. However, the recommended page limit does apply to all of the application narrative.
The Budget Information-Non-Construction Programs Form (ED 524) Sections A-C are not the same as the narrative response to the Budget section of the selection criteria.
1.
(a)
(1) The magnitude of the need for the services to be provided or the activities to be carried out by the proposed project. (up to 3 points)
(2) The extent to which the proposed project will provide services or otherwise address the needs of students at risk of educational failure. (up to 4 points)
(3) The extent to which specific gaps or weaknesses in services, infrastructure, or opportunities have been identified and will be addressed by the proposed project, including the nature and magnitude of those gaps or weaknesses. (up to 3 points)
(b)
(1) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to build local capacity to provide, improve, or expand services that address the needs of the target population. (up to 5 points)
(2) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely to be attained by the proposed project. (up to 5 points)
(c)
(1) The extent to which the proposed project demonstrates a rationale (as defined in this notice). (up to 7 points)
(2) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and measurable. (up to 7 points)
(3) The extent to which the design of the proposed project is appropriate to, and will successfully address, the needs of the target population or other identified needs. (up to 8 points)
(4) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of Federal financial assistance. (up to 8 points)
(d)
(1) In determining the quality of project personnel, the Secretary considers the extent to which the applicant encourages applications for employment from persons who are members of groups that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability. (up to 5 points)
(2) In addition, the Secretary considers:
(i) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of the project director or principal investigator. (up to 5 points)
(ii) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, of key project personnel. (up to 5 points)
(e)
(1) The adequacy of support, including facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources, from the applicant organization or the lead applicant organization. (up to 6 points)
(2) The extent to which the costs are reasonable in relation to the number of persons to be served and to the anticipated results and benefits. (up to 7 points)
(3) The potential for continued support of the project after Federal funding ends, including, as appropriate, the demonstrated commitment of appropriate entities to such support. (up to 7 points)
(f)
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed project. (up to 4 points)
(2) The extent to which the methods of evaluation provide for examining the effectiveness of the project implementation strategies. (up to 4 points)
(3) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will provide timely guidance for quality assurance. (up to 3 points)
(4) The extent to which the methods of evaluation will, if well implemented, produce promising evidence (as defined in this notice) about the project's effectiveness. (up to 4 points)
For selection criterion (d), Quality of project personnel, as stated in the absolute priority for this competition, a proposed Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success must have a coordinator whose primary responsibility is to coordinate the model program. In response to this selection criterion, the application should describe the qualifications of this individual, the members of the veteran student support team described in the absolute priority, and any other individuals who will help carry out the proposed project. The grant project director may or may not be the coordinator of the Center of Excellence for Veteran Student Success. Applicants should consider emphasizing how the training and experience of veteran employees staffing the project, if applicable, will support the goals of the project.
For selection criterion (d), Quality of project personnel, applicants are encouraged to include in their application that they are committed to paying their staff a living wage for the local area and providing benefits.
For selection criterion (e), Adequacy of resources, a budget summary and budget narrative attached to your proposal should itemize the support you are requesting through the CEVSS Program.
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).
A panel of three non-Federal reviewers will review and score each application in accordance with the selection criteria. A rank order funding slate will be made from this review. Awards will be made in rank order according to the average score received from the peer review and from the competitive preference priorities addressed by the applicant.
If there are insufficient funds to award multiple applications with the same score, consistent with section 873(d)(2)(A) and (B) of the HEA, in making a selection, the Secretary will consider the number of veteran students enrolled at each IHE and award funding to the applicant(s) with the highest number of enrolled veteran students. If a tie still exists after applying the first tiebreaker, the Secretary will consider the need for model programs to address the needs of veteran students at a wide range of IHEs, including the need to provide (i) an equitable distribution of such grants to IHEs of various types and sizes; (ii) an equitable geographic distribution of such grants; and (iii) an equitable distribution of such grants among rural and urban areas.
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
5.
These measures constitute the Department's indicators of success for this program. Consequently, we advise an applicant for a grant under this program to give careful consideration to these measures in conceptualizing the approach and evaluation for its proposed project.
If funded, you will be required to collect and report data in your project's annual performance report (34 CFR 75.590).
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
U.S. Department of Energy.
Notice of request for comments.
The Department of Energy (DOE), pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, intends to extend for three years, an information collection request with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Comments regarding this proposed information collection must be received on or before July 29, 2024. If you anticipate any difficulty in submitting comments within that period, contact the person listed in the
Written comments may be sent to Vanessa Grisko by email at
Requests for additional information or copies of the information collection instrument and instructions should be directed to Vanessa Grisko by email at
Under the PRA of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13; 44 U.S.C. 3501-3521), Federal agencies must obtain approval from OMB for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. This request for comment is being made pursuant to section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA. With respect to the following collection of information, DOE invites comments on: (a) Whether the extended collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical utility; (b) 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; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 22, 2024, by Vanessa Grisko, Chief of Staff in the Office of Energy Jobs, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE
U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).
Notice and request for OMB review and comment.
EIA invites public comment on the reinstatement with changes to the Residential Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) Forms EIA 457-A, D, E, F, and G under OMB Control Number 1905-0092, as required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. RECS collects data on energy characteristics, consumption, and expenditures for the residential sector of the United States and is comprised of five forms including: Form EIA 457-A Household Survey, Form EIA 457-D Energy Supplier Survey: Household Propane Usage, Form EIA 457-E Energy Supplier Survey: Household Electricity Usage, Form EIA 457-F, Energy Supplier Survey: Household Natural Gas Usage, Form EIA 457-G Energy Supplier Survey: Household Fuel Oil or Kerosene Usage. These forms will be used to collect information in calendar years 2024 and 2025 and will be used to produce household energy usage estimates for the reference year 2024.
EIA must receive all comments on this proposed information collection no later than June 27, 2024. If you anticipate that you will be submitting comments but find it difficult to do so within the period allowed by this notice, please advise the OMB Desk Officer of your intention to make a submission as soon as possible. The Desk Officer may be telephoned at (202) 881-8585.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Chip Berry, U.S. Energy Information Administration, by telephone at (202) 586-5543, or by email at
This information collection request contains:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Form EIA 457-A: Household Survey collects information on the presence and characteristics of a wide range of energy-consuming devices in homes, including space heating and cooling equipment, appliances, and electronics. The Household Survey also asks respondents about key structural features and demographic characteristics that impact energy usage. Forms EIA 457-D, E, F, and G: Energy Supplier Surveys collect monthly electricity and natural gas billing data from energy suppliers (
RECS is integral to EIA's mandate to collect and publish energy end-use consumption data. RECS estimates represent the most comprehensive national and state-level results available on energy consumption in homes. RECS is a key, benchmark data series that allows policy makers and program implementers in both public and private organizations to analyze trends in energy consumption for the residential sector. RECS fulfills planning, analyses, and decision-making needs of DOE, other Federal agencies, state governments, utilities, researchers, and energy analysts in the private sector.
In addition to the annualized RECS estimates that EIA has produced for all prior RECS studies, EIA intends to release sub-annual (
(4a)
EIA proposes to update the Household Survey to improve response quality and update questions to reflect current energy trends. EIA is proposing the following questionnaire updates based on data quality analysis of the prior RECS, changes in the residential housing market, and stakeholder feedback. Proposed new questions reflect EIA's effort to collect the most relevant information necessary to estimate household energy use and to inform energy end-use estimation. Proposed question revisions should improve response quality, minimize reporting burden, and reflect changes in technology. EIA proposes deleting questions with poor response quality from the last collection or where data are now available from alternative sources.
Question additions and reinstatements (sections in parentheses):
• (Your Home) Added a question asking how many months a respondent's pool is heated. Pool heating can account for considerable energy use for a home and this question will improve EIA's ability to model pool energy end-use consumption and expenditures.
• (Appliances) Added a question asking about the presence of air fryers to the small kitchen appliances section.
• (Electronics) Added a question asking about the presence of external computer monitors.
• (Space Heating) Added a set of questions asking about third heating sources used in the home.
• (Space Heating) Added a question asking respondents if they use their heat pump for cooling as well as heating. This should improve our estimates of heat pumps used for both heating and cooling.
• (Space Heating and Air Conditioning) Added a question to each section about how people use their heating and cooling equipment. RECS asked this question in the 2009 survey about air conditioning only, but it would be useful to reinstate this for heating, as well, to understand how often respondents use their equipment. This is useful for modeling energy consumption for space heating and space cooling, which are the largest end uses in the household.
• (Water Heating) Added a question about the presence of heat pump/hybrid water heaters. Heat pump/hybrid water heaters are an emerging technology and can result in significant energy savings for a household if installed.
• (Water Heating) Added a question about the fuel for solar water heater backups. RECS asks about the presence of solar water heaters, but no information is currently collected about the fuel used to supplement or backup the solar water heaters. This will improve EIA's modeling of water heating end-use consumption.
• (Energy Bills) Reinstated a series of questions for bulk fuels asking respondents to estimate the amount that had been delivered in the past year. These questions are used for validating and imputing bulk fuel consumption.
• (Other Energy Uses) Added a question about the number of solar panels if a respondent indicates that they have solar panels.
• (Other Energy Uses) Added a question about battery storage for solar.
• (Other Energy Uses) Added a question asking about the number of electric vehicles owned or leased. This replaces the question from the 2020 RECS that asked only if a respondent had an electric vehicle.
• (Energy Assistance) Added a question related to inability to pay an energy bill in part or in full. While the RECS gathers information about people forgoing expenses to help pay for energy bills and information about the receipt of disconnection notices, there is a gap in knowledge about people who still face difficulties with energy bills but pay enough to not receive a notice.
• (Final Questions) Added a question asking respondents for their inverter company if they have solar generation. To improve our electricity consumption estimates for homes with solar, EIA will pilot a data collection from those companies concurrent with the Energy Supplier Survey data collection.
• (Your Home) Changed questions asking how many months your pool and hot tub were “in use” to how many months the pool pump/hot tub were “turned on.” This change should better capture when pool equipment is running.
• (Appliances) Changed the phrasing of a question option for the location of the second refrigerator. “Main living area” was confusing and unclear. The option will be reworded as “anywhere/somewhere else in the house.”
• (Appliances) Provided an option for dual-fuel ranges to have fuels other than natural gas. Propane dual-fuel ranges are common enough to warrant this change.
• (Appliances) Removed the word “rare” from the induction cooktop question.
• (Appliances) Revised wording on the question asking about the number of microwaves from “have” to “use.” This change will better capture microwaves that are actively drawing power.
• (Electronics) Collapsed TV type categories into fewer options to reflect current technologies.
• (Space Heating) Added fireplace as a response option for main heating equipment. Similarly, added more response options to secondary heating equipment so that it is consistent with main heating equipment options.
• (Space Heating) Allow respondents to indicate using both wood cords and wood pellets.
• (Energy Bills) Adjusted the question focused on energy use for “non-household purposes.”
• (Other Energy Uses) Revised the generator question to separately capture presence of whole-home or portable generators.
• (Household Characteristics) Revised the gender question as per guidance in OMB Executive Order 14075 (June 2022).
• (Household Characteristics) Adjusted the response categories for the household income question to reflect current income levels.
• (Your Home) Removed a question asking respondents if they have natural gas available in their neighborhood. Our evaluation of missing rates and overall response quality indicates that many respondents who do not use natural gas are not aware if they have natural gas available to them.
• (Appliances) Removed a question about the number of months a respondent used a secondary refrigerator. Responses have been inconsistent, and 2020 RECS data indicate that nearly all households with a second refrigerator use them all year.
• (Electronics) Removed a series of questions about the purpose of TV usage. This series was added to the 2020 RECS, but EIA determined there is little analytical value of this information with regard to energy usage in homes.
• (Electronics) Removed a question asking about VCRs. Few respondents have them and they do not consume a lot of energy.
• (Electronics) Removed a series of questions about the use of equipment for teleworking. These questions were added at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic to assess a potential change in household behavior due to the pandemic.
• (Thermostats and Temperatures) Removed a series of questions asking how respondents control their thermostats. This information was not used in modeling end-use energy consumption. RECS plans to replace this question with the above addition about how people use their heating and cooling equipment.
• (Water Heating) Removed a question about whether respondents use a blanket for their water heater.
• (Other Energy Uses) Removed a series of questions about non-solar renewable energy. On-site residential wind energy generation and combined heat and power systems are rare. We have retained a question about presence of on-site solar.
• (Household Characteristics) Removed a question asking about the total number of household members. RECS already asks questions about how many adults and how many children live in the household and gives those questions primacy.
• (Final Questions) Removed a series of questions asking respondents in large apartment buildings about their landlord information. This was used in the 2020 RECS to conduct a Multifamily Buildings Study, which has been discontinued.
EIA proposes to reduce the number of months of bills or fuel deliveries collected on the Energy Supplier Survey forms from 24 months to 20 months. Collecting 24 months of bills for the 2020 RECS was necessary to evaluate impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on energy use for households. The additional four months of bills are no longer needed, and 20 months of billing and fuel delivery data is sufficient for 2024 RECS estimation.
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
Comments are invited on whether or not: (a) The proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of agency functions, including whether the information will have a practical utility; (b) EIA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used, is accurate; (c) EIA can improve the quality, utility, and clarity of the information it will collect; and (d) EIA can minimize the burden of the collection of information on respondents, such as automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Notice; Request for nominations for Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee (MSTRS).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) invites nominations from a diverse range of qualified candidates to be considered for appointment to its Mobile Sources Technical Review Subcommittee (MSTRS). Vacancies are anticipated to be filled by November 15, 2024. Sources in addition to this
Nominations must be postmarked or emailed by July 31, 2024.
Submit nominations in writing to: Sarah Roberts, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 2000 Traverwood Drive, Ann Arbor, MI 48105.
You may also email nominations with subject line MSTRS2024 to
Sarah Roberts, Alternate Designated Federal Officer, U.S. EPA; telephone: (734) 214-4615; email:
The MSTRS is a federal advisory committee chartered under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), Public Law 92-463. The MSTRS provides the Clean Air Act Advisory Committee (CAAAC) with independent advice, counsel and recommendations on the scientific and technical aspects of programs related to mobile source air pollution and its control.
Through its expert members from diverse stakeholder groups and from its various workgroups, the Subcommittee reviews and addresses a wide range of developments, issues and research areas such as emissions modeling, emission standards and standard setting, air toxics, innovative and incentive-based transportation policies, heavy-duty engines, diesel retrofit, and fuel quality. The Subcommittee's website is at:
Members are appointed by the EPA Administrator for three-year terms with the possibility of reappointment to a second term. The MSTRS usually meets two times annually and the average workload for the members is approximately 5 to 10 hours per month. EPA provides reimbursement for travel and other incidental expenses associated with official government business for members who qualify.
EPA is seeking nominations from representatives of nonfederal interests such as:
• Future and emerging transportation technology and options, including shared mobility interests
• Community and/or environmental and/or mobility justice interests
• State, tribal, and local government interests
• Mobile source emission modeling interests
• Transportation and supply chain shippers
• Marine and inland port interests
• Environmental advocacy groups
• Mobile source consumer advocacy groups
EPA values and welcomes opportunities to increase diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility on its Federal Advisory Committees. In an effort to obtain nominations of diverse candidates, EPA encourages nominations of people from all racial and ethnic groups.
In selecting members, we will consider technical expertise, coverage of broad stakeholder perspectives, diversity, and the needs of the subcommittee.
The following criteria will be used to evaluate nominees:
• The background and experiences that would help members contribute to the diversity of perspectives on the committee (
• Experience in policy engagement across a range of mobility source transportation topics
• Experience working with future and emerging transportation options and technology, and shared mobility
• Experience working with the modeling of mobile source emissions
• Experience working with producers of passenger cars, engines and trucks, engine and equipment manufacturing
• Experience working with fuel or renewable fuel producers
• Experience working with oil refiners, distributors and retailers of mobile source fuels
• Experience working with clean energy producers and electric vehicle charging infrastructure
• Experience working with agricultural producers (corn and other crop products), distillers, processors and shippers of biofuels
• Experience working with emission control manufacturers, catalyst and filter manufacturers
• Experience working for state, tribal, or local environmental agencies or air pollution control agencies
• Experience working for environmental advocacy groups
• Experience working for environmental and/or community groups
• Experience working with supply chain logistics and goods movement
• Experience working with marine port interests
• Experience in working at the national level on local governments issues
• Experience in providing mobile source consumer-focused information
• Experience in working on local issues at the national level
• Demonstrated experience with environmental, public health, and sustainability issues
• Executive management level experience with membership in broad-based networks
• Excellent interpersonal, oral and written communication and consensus-building skills
• Ability to volunteer time to attend meetings two times a year, participate in teleconference and webinar meetings, attend listening sessions with the Administrator or other senior-level officials, develop policy recommendations to the Administrator, and prepare reports and advice letters.
Nominations must include a resume and a short biography describing the professional and educational qualifications of the nominee, as well as the nominee's current business address, email address, and daytime telephone number. Interested candidates may self-nominate.
To help the Agency in evaluating the effectiveness of its outreach efforts, please tell us how you learned of this opportunity.
Please be aware that EPA's policy is that, unless otherwise prescribed by statute, members generally are appointed to three-year terms.
Export-Import Bank of the United States.
Notice of information collection; request for comment
The Export-Import Bank of the United States (EXIM), pursuant to the Export-Import Bank Act of 1945, as amended, facilitates the finance of the export of U.S. goods and services. As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, EXIM invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on the proposed information collection, as required by the paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
Comments must be received on or before July 29, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Comments may be submitted electronically on
To request additional information please contact Donna Schneider,
This form will enable EXIM to identify the specific
The application tool can be reviewed at
Federal Communications Commission.
Notice of public meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice advises interested persons that the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) Technological Advisory Council will hold a meeting on Friday June 21, 2024 in the Commission Meeting Room and available to the public via the internet at
Friday June 21, 2024.
Federal Communications Commission, 45 L Street NE, Washington, DC 20554.
Martin Doczkat, Chief, Electromagnetic Compatibility Division 202-418-2099;
At the June 21st meeting, the TAC will continue to consider and advise the Commission on topics such as continued efforts at looking beyond 5G advanced as 6G begins to develop so as to facilitate U.S. leadership; studying advanced spectrum sharing techniques, including the implementation of artificial intelligence and machine learning to improve the utilization and administration of spectrum; and other emerging technologies. This agenda may be modified at the discretion of the TAC Chair and the Designated Federal Officer (DFO).
Meetings are broadcast live with open captioning over the internet from the FCC Live web page at
Tuesday, June 4, 2024 at 10 a.m. and its continuation at the conclusion of the open meeting on June 6, 2024.
1050 First Street NE, Washington, D.C. and virtual (this meeting will be a hybrid meeting.).
This meeting will be closed to the public.
Compliance matters pursuant to 52 U.S.C. 30109. Matters relating to internal personnel decisions, or internal rules and practices. Matters concerning participation in civil actions or proceedings or arbitration.
Judith Ingram, Press Officer, Telephone: (202) 694-1220.
Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service
Notice of a modified system of records.
The Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) uses this system to process requests for arbitration panels, including payment for requests, to process annual fees for each arbitrator, to maintain a roster of qualified, private labor arbitrators to hear disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements, and provide fact finding and interest arbitration. The notice amendment includes administrative updates to refine details published under
This system of records will be effective without further notice on June 27, 2024 unless otherwise revised pursuant to comments received. Comments must be received on or before June 27, 2024.
You may send comments, identified by FMCS-0008, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Kevin Buffington, Client Services Manager, at
The notice amendment includes administrative updates to refine details published under summary, for further information contact, supplementary information, system manager, routine uses, and the history section. These sections are amended to refine previously published information about the system of records. The dates, addresses, system name, security classification, system location, authority for maintenance of the system, purpose of the system, categories of individuals covered by the system, categories of records in the system, record source categories, policies and practices for storage of records, policies and practices for retrieval of records, policies and procedures for retention and disposal of records, administrative safeguards, record access procedures, contesting records procedures, notification procedures, and exemptions promulgated remain unchanged.
The enabling legislation for FMCS provides that “the settlement of issues between employers and employees through collective bargaining may advance by making available full and adequate governmental facilities for conciliation, mediation, and voluntary arbitration . . .” 29 U.S.C. 171(b). Pursuant to the statute and 29 CFR part 1404, FMCS has long maintained a roster of qualified, private labor arbitrators to hear disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements and provide fact finding and interest arbitration. The existing regulation establishes the policy and administrative responsibility for the FMCS roster, criteria, procedures for listing and removing arbitrators, and procedures for using arbitration services.
FMCS-0008 Arbitration Records.
Unclassified.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, Office of General Counsel (OGC), 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20427.
Kevin Buffington, Client Services Manager, Office of Client Services, email
29 U.S.C. 172, et. seq. and 29 CFR part 1404.
The records in this system are used to collect, process, and maintain arbitrator panel reports, payment requests, annual fees, and arbitrator rosters. The system maintains a roster of qualified, private labor arbitrators to hear disputes arising under collective bargaining agreements and provide fact findings and interest arbitration.
The categories of individuals covered in the system are the public, FMCS clients, parties requesting an arbitration roster or services, arbitrators, applicants to be on the arbitration roster, and FMCS employees.
The categories of records maintained in the system include the:
(1) Records concerning requests for arbitrators including, but not limited to, the Request for Arbitration Panel (FMCS Form R-43). This form can be found at
(2) Records pertaining to arbitrator registration, including but not limited to, Arbitrators' Personal Data Questionnaire (FMCS Form R-22), and records used to collect information from applicants submitted for consideration to the FMCS Arbitrator Review Board. This form can be found at
(3) Records concerning case processing updates including, but not limited to, The Arbitrator's Report and Fee Statement (FMCS Form R-19). This form can be found at
Information in this system of records is provided by:
(1) Parties seeking to request an arbitration panel which may include the public, Federal, state, and local employees, Unions, and employers; and
(2) Arbitrators provide information for registration and case processing updates.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, all or a portion of these records or information contained in this system may be disclosed to authorized entities, as is determined to be relevant and necessary, outside the FMCS as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(a) To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule regulation or order where the record, either alone or in conjunction with other information creates an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal laws or regulations.
(b) To disclose information to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) for use in its records management inspections; to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for oversight purposes; to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to obtain that department's advice regarding disclosure obligations under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA); or to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to obtain that office's advice regarding obligations under the Privacy Act.
(c) To disclose information to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) in records management inspections.
(d) To disclose information to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, detailers, and other non-Government employees performing or working on a contract, service, or other assignment for the Federal Government when necessary to accompany an
(e) To officials of labor organizations recognized under 5 U.S.C. Chapter 71 upon receipt of a formal request and in accordance with the conditions of 5 U.S.C. 7114 when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation concerning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions.
(f) To disclose information to a Member of Congress or a congressional office in response to an inquiry made on behalf of, and at the request of, an individual who is the subject of the record.
(g) To disclose information when FMCS determines that the records are relevant to a proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
(h) To disclose information to another Federal agency, to a court, or to a party in litigation before a court or in an administrative proceeding being conducted by a federal agency when the Government is a party to the judicial or administrative proceeding. Such disclosure is permitted only when it is relevant and necessary to the litigation or proceeding.
(i) To any agency, organization, or person for the purposes of performing audit or oversight operations related to the operation of this system of records as authorized by law, but only information necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
(j) To disclose information to appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when: (1) FMCS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records; (2) FMCS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, FMCS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with FMCS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(k) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when FMCS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in: (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(l) To disclose information to arbitrators or parties to an arbitration concerning case processing, or to investigate allegations of arbitrator misconduct.
(m) To disclose to professional organizations including, but not limited to, the American Arbitration Association, JAMS, or the National Academy of Arbitrators concerning application or suitability of an arbitrator.
(n) To disclose aggregate data to other federal agencies, educational institutions, professional organizations, or FMCS clients who collaborate with FMCS to publish reports on aggregate data, to provide research or statistical information, services, or training concerning arbitration. This data may also be included in various public reports FMCS issues.
These records are maintained in hard copy and electronic form in locations only accessible to authorized personnel. Electronic records are stored on the agency's internal servers with restricted access to authorized Human Resources staff and designated deciding officials as determined by agency policy. Hard copy records are stored in a locked cabinet accessible to authorized Human Resources staff and designated deciding officials as determined by agency policy.
These records are retrieved by the name or other programmatic identifier assigned to an individual in the electronic database and paper filing system.
All records are retained and disposed of in accordance with General Records Schedule 6.5, issued by the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), and the Agency's Comprehensive Records Schedule approved by NARA.
Records are located in a locked file storage area or stored electronically in locations only accessible to authorize personnel requiring agency security credentials. Access is restricted and accessible to limited Human Resources officials, and/or individuals in a need-to-know capacity. FMCS buildings are guarded and monitored by security personnel, cameras, ID checks, and other physical security measures.
Individuals wishing to request access to their records should contact the Office of General Counsel (OGC). Individuals must provide the following information for their records to be located and identified: (1) Full name, (2) Address, and (3) A specific description of the record content requested. See 29 CFR 1410.3, Individual access requests.
See 29 CFR 1410.6, Requests for correction or amendment of records, on how to contest the content of any records. Privacy Act requests to amend or correct records may be submitted to the Chief Privacy Officer at
See 29 CFR 1410.3(a), Individual access requests.
None.
This amended SORN deletes and supersedes the SORN published in the
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service.
Notice of a modified system of records.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service (FMCS) uses photographs, biographies, and agency contact information of employees to provide background information to the public, for use by stakeholders in preparation for services, and for trainings and conferences. FMCS may also use these documents for internal agency events and communications. Photographs of FMCS clients engaging
This system of records will be effective without further notice on June 27, 2024 unless otherwise revised pursuant to comments received. Comments must be received on or before June 27, 2024.
You may send comments, identified by FMCS-0003, by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Greg Raelson, Director of Congressional and Public Affairs, at
The notice amendment includes administrative updates to refine details published under summary, dates, addresses, supplementary information, purpose of the system, categories of records in the system, record source categories, routine uses, record access procedures, contesting records procedures, and the history section. These sections are amended to refine previously published information about the system of records. The further information contact, system name, security classification, system location, system manager, authority for maintenance of the system, categories of individuals covered by the system, policies and practices for storage of records, policies and practices for retrieval of records, policies and procedures for retention and disposal of records, administrative safeguards, notification procedures, and exemptions promulgated sections remain unchanged.
This system is needed for collecting, storing, and maintaining FMCS employee biographical information and event photographs to include photographs of FMCS clients.
FMCS-0003
Unclassified.
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 250 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20427.
Greg Raelson, Director of Congressional and Public Affairs, email
Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service, 29 U.S.C. 172,
The purposes of the system are as follows:
(a) The records are used for internal and external communications, and to provide the public with contact information and biographies of the employees who carry out FMCS's mission and activities.
(b) To digitize FMCS photographic files in support of preserving the materials.
(c) To be used for reproduction by FMCS employees organizing such events as awards, ceremonies, farewell ceremonies and receptions, FMCS anniversary ceremonies and receptions, conferences, workshops, speaking engagements, and FMCS training and education programs.
(d) To provide a representation of the training and other services FMCS provides.
All current and former FMCS employees, clients, visitors from other agencies, and members of the public.
These records consist of digital photographs, digitized images of photographic prints, negatives, and slides, and indexing data including name, geographical district, biographies, business title, business email, business cell phone and office number, business office address, business address of events, client information, and name and dates of events.
Photographs, FMCS employee biographical information, and client information are provided by FMCS employees on an ongoing basis. Donors include FMCS employees, FMCS clients, and visitors from the public or other agencies. Other records such as contact information are obtained from FMCS records.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b) of the Privacy Act, these records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside the Agency as a routine use pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) as follows:
(a) As communication material at conferences, trainings, and speaking engagements where FMCS employees participate in their official capacity to demonstrate the experience and background of FMCS employees.
(b) To current and prospective FMCS clients including other federal agencies to provide background information on individuals for public knowledge and awareness.
(c) For distribution and presentation for news, public relations, official agency social media, community affairs, and client services purposes.
(d) In support of research activities conducted by FMCS employees and other agencies.
(e) To disclose information to a Member of Congress or a congressional office in response to an inquiry made on behalf of, and at the request of, an individual who is the subject of the record.
(f) In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body or official, when FMCS or other Agency representing FMCS determines the records are relevant and necessary to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before an administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant to the proceeding.
(g) To the Department of Justice, including Offices of the U.S. Attorneys, or another Federal agency representing FMCS in pending or potential litigation
(1) FMCS, or any component thereof;
(2) Any employee or former employee of FMCS in their official capacity;
(3) Any employee or former employee of FMCS in their capacity where the Department of Justice or FMCS has agreed to represent the employee;
(4) The United States, a Federal agency, or another party in litigation before a court, adjudicative, or administrative body, upon the FMCS General Counsel's approval, pursuant to 5 CFR part 295 or otherwise.
(h) To any agency, organization, or person for the purposes of performing audit or oversight operations related to the operation of this system of records or for federal ethics compliance purposes as authorized by law, but only information necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function.
(i) To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when (1) FMCS suspects or has confirmed that there has been a breach of the system of records, (2) FMCS has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed breach there is a risk of harm to individuals, FMCS (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security; and (3) the disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with FMCS's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed breach or to prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
(j) To another Federal agency or Federal entity, when FMCS determines that information from this system of records is reasonably necessary to assist the recipient agency or entity in (1) responding to a suspected or confirmed breach or (2) preventing, minimizing, or remedying the risk of harm to individuals, the recipient agency or entity (including its information systems, programs, and operations), the Federal Government, or national security, resulting from a suspected or confirmed breach.
(k) To disclose pertinent information to the appropriate Federal, State, or local agency responsible for investigating, prosecuting, enforcing, or implementing a statute, rule regulation or order where the record, either alone or in conjunction with other information creates an indication of a violation or potential violation of civil or criminal laws or regulations.
(l) To disclose information to contractors, grantees, experts, consultants, detailees, and other non-Government employees performing or working on a contract, service, or other assignment for the agency when necessary to accompany an agency function related to this system of records.
(m) To officials of labor organizations and employers receiving services pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 172,
(n) To officials of labor organizations and federal agencies recognized under 5 U.S.C. chapter 71 upon receipt of a formal request and in accordance with the conditions of 5 U.S.C. 7114 when relevant and necessary to their duties of exclusive representation concerning personnel policies, practices, and matters affecting working conditions.
Records are stored electronically on the public facing website located here. Also, records are stored on FMCS's shared and internal hard drives and on the FMCS's Microsoft Office 365 SharePoint site both accessible only to FMCS employees. Hard copies of photographs are also displayed in FMCS's offices.
Records on the public facing website can be searched by name, geographic district, and zip code. Records on the FMCS's shared and internal drives can be searched by name, and date and name of the event. On SharePoint, records can be searched by the date and name of the event.
Records are updated as needed and retained until no longer needed for business use. All records are retained and disposed of in accordance with General Records Schedule 6.4, issued by the National Archives and Records Administration.
Electronic records on FMCS's shared and internal drives, and on SharePoint are safeguarded in a secured environment and are maintained in a secure, password-protected electronic system that will utilize commensurate safeguards that may include firewalls, intrusion detection and prevention systems, and role-based access controls. Hard copy records are accessed in FMCS facilities that are limited to authorized personnel with official duties requiring access. FMCS facilities are equipped with security cameras and 24-hour security guard service. These records are kept in limited access areas in locked offices. All records are protected from unauthorized access through appropriate administrative, operational, and technical safeguards. These safeguards include restricting access to authorized personnel who have a “need to know”, using locks, and password protection identification features.
Individuals must provide the following information for their records to be located and identified: (1) Full name, (2) Address, and (3) A reasonably identifying description of the record content requested. Requests can be submitted via
Requests for correction or amendment of records, on how to contest the content of any records. Privacy Act requests to amend or correct records may be submitted to the Privacy Office at
See 29 CFR 1410.3(a), Individual access requests.
None.
This amended SORN deletes and supersedes the SORN published in the
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC) is issuing a notice of new Privacy Act system of records, FMSHRC-08.
This new system of record is effective upon publication; however, comments on the Routine Uses will be accepted on or before June 27, 2024. The Routine Uses are effective at the close of the comment period.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Stacey George, Acting Senior Agency Official for Privacy, via telephone (202) 434-9939 or via email at
The Privacy Act of 1974, and 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4) requires federal agencies such as FMSHRC to publish in the
The notice for FMSHRC-08, provided below in its entirety, is as follows.
Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”) Requests and Administrative Appeals Records retrieved by name of requester or individual appealing, FMSHRC-08.
Unclassified.
Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710.
Chief FOIA Officer, Office of the General Counsel, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710,
30 U.S.C. 823; 44 U.S.C. 3101
The information in this system is being collected to enable FMSHRC to carry out its responsibilities under the FOIA. These responsibilities include enabling FMSHRC staff to receive, track, process, and respond to access requests and administrative appeals; to assist and participate in litigation regarding agency action on such requests and appeals; to prepare reports to the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Attorney General, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) and any other Federal government entity with oversight over the Commission's FOIA activities; for the purpose of responding to inquiries submitted to DOJ's Office of Information Policy regarding federal agency compliance with the FOIA; and for the purpose of assisting the Commission in carrying out any other responsibilities under the FOIA and applicable executive orders or regulations.
The system covers individuals and/or their representatives who request records or information from the Commission pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”), 5 U.S.C. 552; individuals who are the subject of or who fall within the scope of a FOIA request or appeal; attorneys or other persons representing individuals submitting such requests and appeals; individuals whose requests and/or records have been referred to FMSHRC or whose requests or and/or records have been the subject of a consultation with FMSHRC; individuals who submit requests for information on other individuals; individuals filing an administrative appeal of a denial, in whole or in part, of any such request; and the FMSHRC personnel assigned to handle such requests and appeals.
The system covers records received, created, and compiled in response to a FOIA request or administrative appeal, including: the original request; the original appeal; responses to the request or appeal; related internal memoranda; correspondence with other Federal agencies; request and appeal determinations; and related electronic tracking data. These records may contain personal information retrieved in response to a request, including a requester's and/or their representative's contact information, such as their names, telephone numbers, and email and mailing addresses; FOIA tracking numbers; unique case identifier or other identifier assigned to the request or appeal; and office contact information of Commission employees and contractors.
Persons requesting information from the Commission or filing administrative appeals pursuant to the FOIA; agency employees assigned to handle processing the requests; agency records searched and identified as responsive in the process of responding to such requests; other agencies or entities that have referred to Commission requests concerning Commission records, or that have consulted with the Commission regarding handling of particular requests; and submitters or subjects of records or information that have provided assistance to the Commission in making access determinations.
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), the records or information contained therein may specifically be disclosed outside of the Commission as a routine use, as defined by 5 U.S.C.552a(a)(7), pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3) in the following circumstances:
1. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when the Commission: (a) suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Commission or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) has determined that disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
2. To a federal, state, or local agency or entity for the purpose of: (a) consulting with that agency or entity to
3. To a federal agency or entity that furnished the record or information for the purpose of: (a) permitting that agency or entity to make a decision as to access to the record or information; or (b) providing guidance or advice regarding the handling of particular requests.
4. To a Congressional office requesting the information on behalf of and at the request of the individual who is the subject of the record.
5. To appropriate officials and employees of a federal agency or entity when the information is relevant to a decision concerning the hiring, appointment, or retention of an employee; the assignment, detail, or deployment of an employee; the issuance, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract; or the issuance of a license, permit, grant, or other benefit.
6. To the DOJ in order to obtain advice on FOIA matters or regarding the agency's FOIA disclosure obligations.
7. To any Congressional Committee, subcommittee or joint committee, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, the Government Accountability Office, or others charged with monitoring the work of the Commission or conducting records management inspections.
8. To members of advisory committees that are created by the Commission or by Congress to render advice and recommendations to the Commission or to Congress, to be used solely in connection with their official designated functions.
9. To the National Archives and Records Administration, Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), to the extent necessary to fulfill its responsibilities in 5 U.S.C. 552(h), to review administrative agency policies, procedures, and compliance with the FOIA, and to facilitate OGIS' offering of mediation services to resolve disputes between persons making FOIA requests and administrative agencies.
10. To the National Archives and Records Administration for purposes of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
11. To members of the public who visit FMSHRC's website and gain access to information pertaining to a case, including decisions and orders, in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(2) and 29 CFR 2702.7(b), recordings of oral arguments, and notices of meetings in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(e)(1), and published on the website, unless it is determined that release of the information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
12. To interns, consultants, experts, contractors, and others who have been engaged by the Commission to assist in the performance of a service related to this system of records and who need access to the records for the purpose of assisting the Commission in the efficient administration of its programs, including by performing clerical, stenographic, or data analysis functions, or by reproduction of records by electronic or other means. Recipients of these records shall be required to comply with the requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, as amended, 5 U.S.C. 552a.
13. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body, when the Commission determines that the records may be relevant and necessary to the proceeding; or in an appropriate proceeding before another administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant and necessary to the proceeding and the use of such records is compatible with the purpose for which the Commission collected the records.
14. In connection with any pending or potential litigation challenging or seeking to enjoin actions by the Commission under the FOIA, as amended, and the Commission determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is compatible with the purpose for which the Commission collected the records.
15. To respond to subpoenas, specifically approved by a court, in any pending or potential litigation or other proceeding, and the Commission determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is compatible with the purpose for which the Commission collected the records.
16. To an agency, organization, or individual for audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to the system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to FMSHRC officers and employees.
17. To a third party authorized, in writing, to receive such information by the individual who is the subject of the record.
18. To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by federal statute.
Records in this system are stored in electronic and/or paper format. Electronic records are stored in computerized databases on the Commission's server as well as in secured FedRAMP certified cloud environment. Paper records are stored in locked file rooms and/or file cabinets located in the Office of the General Counsel.
Records are indexed and retrieved by a unique tracking number assigned to the request or appeal. Records are also retrieved by the requester's or appellant's name, the date, and the subject of the request.
Records in this system are retained and disposed in accordance with the General Records Schedules issued by the National Archives and Records Administration.
Records are safeguarded in a secured environment. The building where the records are stored has security cameras and security guard service. Access to the Commission's office in Washington, DC may be gained only by using an electronic key, which is provided only to Commission personnel. Paper records are kept in limited access areas during duty hours and in locked file cabinets and/or locked offices at all other times. Access is limited to those personnel whose official duties require access. Computerized records are safeguarded through use of information technology security controls, as dictated by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and access is limited to those personnel whose official duties require access. Contractors and other recipients providing services to the Commission shall be required to maintain the same or equivalent safeguards.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves or seeking access to records about themselves in this system of records should address written inquiries to: Executive Director, FMSHRC, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710. For an explanation on how such requests should be drafted, refer to FMSHRC's regulations contained in 29 CFR part 2705.
Individuals contesting the content of records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to: Executive Director, FMSHRC, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710. For an explanation on the specific procedures for contesting the contents of a record, refer to FMSHRC's regulations contained in 29 CFR part 2705.
Individuals seeking notification of any records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to: Executive Director, FMSHRC, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710. For an explanation on the specific procedures for sending a notification request, refer to FMSHRC's regulations contained in 29 CFR part 2705.
None.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission.
Notice of a new system of records.
In accordance with the Privacy Act of 1974, the Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission (FMSHRC) is creating a new notice of Privacy Act system of records FMSHRC-07. DATES: This new system of record is effective upon publication; however, comments on the Routine Uses will be accepted on or before June 27, 2024. The Routine Uses are effective at the close of the comment period.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
Stacey George, Acting Senior Agency Official for Privacy, via telephone at (202) 434-9939 or via email at
The Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(4), requires federal agencies such as FMSHRC to publish in the
The notice for FMSHRC-07, provided below in its entirety, is as follows.
Privacy Act Requests and Administrative Appeals Records, FMSHRC-07.
Unclassified.
Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710.
Senior Agency Official for Privacy, Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710.
30 U.S.C. 823, 44 U.S.C. 3101
The information in this system is being collected to enable FMSHRC to carry out its responsibilities under the Privacy Act. These responsibilities include enabling FMSHRC staff to receive, track, process, and respond to Privacy Act requests and appeals; to assist in and support litigation that may arise from a Privacy Act access request, amendment request, or administrative appeal; and to carry out other responsibilities under the Privacy Act and other applicable federal laws.
The system covers individuals and/or their representatives who request information from FMSHRC or request amendment or correction of information contained about the subject of the record pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a; individuals who submit requests for information on other individuals; individuals filing an administrative appeal of a denial, in whole or in part, of any such request; and FMSHRC personnel assigned to handle such requests and appeals.
The system covers records received, created, and compiled in response to a Privacy Act request or administrative appeal, including: the original request; the original appeal; responses to the request or appeal; related internal memoranda; correspondence with other Federal agencies; request and appeal determinations; requests for amendment of records under the Privacy Act; and related electronic tracking data. These records may contain personal information retrieved in response to a request, including a requester's and/or their representative's contact information, such as their names, telephone numbers, and email and mailing addresses; Privacy Act case or tracking numbers; unique case identifier or other identifier assigned to the request or appeal; and office contact information of Commission employees and contractors.
Persons requesting information from FMSHRC or filing administrative appeals pursuant to the Privacy Act; agency employees assigned to handle processing the requests and appeals; agency records searched and identified as responsive in the process of responding to such requests; other agencies or entities that have referred to FMSHRC requests concerning FMSHRC records, or that have consulted with the Commission regarding handling of
In addition to those disclosures generally permitted under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b), all or a portion of the records or information contained in this system of records may be disclosed as a routine use, as defined by 5 U.S.C. 552a(a)(7), pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(3), under the circumstances described below:
1. To a federal, state, or local agency or entity for the purpose of: (a) consulting with that agency or entity to enable the Commission to make a determination as to the propriety of access to or correction of information; (b) verifying the identity of an individual or the accuracy of information submitted by an individual who has requested access to or amendment of information; or (c) processing payment of fees associated with Privacy Act requests.
2. To a federal agency or entity that furnished the record or information for the purpose of: (a) permitting that agency or entity to make a decision as to access to or correction of the record or information; or (b) providing guidance or advice regarding the handling of particular requests.
3. To a third party authorized, in writing, to receive such information by the individual who is the subject of the record in order to obtain assistance for the Commission in making a determination as to access or amendment.
4. To the public pursuant to the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. 552, and 29 CFR part 2702, unless it is determined that release of the information in the context of a particular case would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
5. To a Member of Congress or staff on behalf of and at the request of the individual who is the subject of the record.
6. To appropriate officials and employees of a federal agency or entity when the information is relevant to a decision concerning the hiring, appointment, or retention of an employee; the assignment, detail, or deployment of an employee; the issuance, renewal, suspension, or revocation of a security clearance; the execution of a security or suitability investigation; the letting of a contract; or the issuance of a license, permit, grant, or other benefit.
7. To the Office of Management and Budget or the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs for the purpose of obtaining its advice on Privacy Act matters.
8. To an agency, organization, or individual for audit or oversight operations as authorized by law, but only such information as is necessary and relevant to such audit or oversight function when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to the system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations on disclosure as are applicable to FMSHRC officers and employees.
9. To contractors, experts, consultants, the agents thereof, and others performing or working on a contract, service, cooperative agreement, or other assignment for FMSHRC, when necessary to accomplish an agency function related to the system of records. Individuals provided information under this routine use are subject to the same Privacy Act requirements and limitations of disclosure as are applicable to FMSHRC officers and employees.
10. To an appropriate federal, state, tribal, local, or foreign agency or other appropriate authority charged with investigating or prosecuting a violation or enforcing or implementing a law, rule, regulation, or order, where a record, either on its face or in conjunction with other information, indicates a violation or potential violation of law, which includes criminal, civil, or regulatory violations and such disclosure is proper and consistent with the official duties making the disclosure.
11. To the Department of Justice, FMSHRC's outside counsel, other federal agencies conducting litigation, or in proceedings before any court, adjudicative or administrative body, when (a) FMSHRC, or (b) any employee of FMSHRC in his or her official capacity, or (c) any employee of FMSHRC in his or her individual capacity where the Department of Justice or FMSHRC has agreed to represent the employee, or (d) the United States or any agency thereof, is a party to the litigation or has an interest in such litigation, and FMSHRC determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation.
12. In an appropriate proceeding before a court, grand jury, or administrative or adjudicative body, when FMSHRC determines that the records may be relevant and necessary to the proceeding or in an appropriate proceeding before another administrative or adjudicative body when the adjudicator determines the records to be relevant and necessary to the proceeding.
13. To respond to subpoenas, specifically approved by a court, in any litigation or other proceeding, and FMSHRC determines that the records are both relevant and necessary to the litigation and the use of such records is compatible with the purpose for which FMSHRC collected the records.
14. To a federal, state, tribal, local, or foreign government agency or entity for the purpose of consulting with that agency or entity: (a) to assist in making a determination regarding redress for an individual in connection with the operations of a FMSHRC program; (b) for the purpose of verifying the identity of an individual seeking redress in connection with the operations of a FMSHRC program; or (c) for the information submitted by an individual who has requested such redress on behalf of another individual.
15. To appropriate agencies, entities, and persons when the Commission: (a) suspects or has confirmed that the security or confidentiality of information in the system of records has been compromised; (b) has determined that as a result of the suspected or confirmed compromise there is a risk of harm to economic or property interests, identity theft or fraud, or harm to the security or integrity of this system or other systems or programs (whether maintained by the Commission or another agency or entity) that rely upon the compromised information; and (c) has determined that disclosure made to such agencies, entities, and persons is reasonably necessary to assist in connection with the Commission's efforts to respond to the suspected or confirmed compromise and prevent, minimize, or remedy such harm.
16.To any Congressional Committee, subcommittee or joint committee, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, the Government Accountability Office, or others charged with monitoring the work of the Commission or conducting records management inspections.
17.To members of advisory committees that are created by the Commission or by Congress to render advice and recommendations to the Commission or to Congress, to be used solely in connection with their official designated functions.
18.To the National Archives and Records Administration for purposes of records management inspections conducted under the authority of 44 U.S.C. 2904 and 2906.
19.To such recipients and under such circumstances and procedures as are mandated by federal statute.
Records in this system are stored in electronic and/or paper format. Electronic records are stored in computerized databases on the Commission's servers as well as in secured FedRAMP-certified cloud environments. Paper records are stored in locked file rooms and/or file cabinets located in the Office of the General Counsel.
Records are indexed and retrieved by a unique tracking number assigned to the request or appeal. Records are also retrieved by the requestor's or appellant's name, date, and the subject of the request.
Records in this system are retained and disposed of in accordance with the General Records Schedules issued by the National Archives and Records Administration.
Records are safeguarded in a secured environment. The building where the records are stored has security cameras and security guard service. Access to the Commission's office in Washington, DC may be gained only by using an electronic key, which is provided only to Commission personnel. Paper records are kept in limited access areas during duty hours and in locked file cabinets and/or locked offices at all other times. Access is limited to those personnel whose official duties require access. Computerized records are safeguarded through use of information technology security controls, as dictated by the Federal Information Security Modernization Act (FISMA) and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), and access is limited to those personnel whose official duties require access. Contractors and other recipients providing services to the Commission shall be required to maintain the same or equivalent safeguards.
Individuals seeking to determine whether this system of records contains information about themselves or seeking access to records about themselves in this system of records should address written inquiries to: Executive Director, FMSHRC, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710. For an explanation on how such requests should be drafted, refer to FMSHRC's regulations contained in 29 CFR part 2705.
Individuals contesting the content of records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to: Executive Director, FMSHRC, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710. For an explanation on the specific procedures for contesting the contents of a record, refer to FMSHRC's regulations contained in 29 CFR part 2705.
Individuals seeking notification of any records about themselves contained in this system of records should address written inquiries to: Executive Director, FMSHRC, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 520N, Washington, DC 20004-1710. For an explanation on the specific procedures for sending a notification request, refer to FMSHRC's regulations contained in 29 CFR part 2705.
None.
None.
This notice corrects a notice (FR Doc. 2024-11345) published on page 44980 in the third column of the issue for Wednesday, May 22, 2024.
Under A. Federal Reserve Bank of New York, entry 1 is corrected to read as follows:
1.
Comments on this application must be received by June 27, 2024.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Blood Lead Surveillance System (BLSS)” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on November 27, 2023 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC received one comment related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy
Blood Lead Surveillance System (BLSS) (OMB Control No. 0920-0931, Exp. 07/31/2024)—Extension—National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
This is a request for a three-year Extension for an existing Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) clearance titled “Blood Lead Surveillance System (BLSS)” (OMB Control No.0920-0931, Exp. 07/31/2024). The National Center for Environmental Health (NCEH) is leading this data collection conducted by for two Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) programs; one for childhood blood lead surveillance by NCEH and another for adult blood lead surveillance by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH).
The goal of the NCEH Childhood Blood Lead Surveillance (CBLS) Program is to support blood lead screening and to promote primary prevention of exposure to lead. The CBLS Program also supports secondary prevention of adverse health effects when lead exposures occur in children, through improved program management and oversight in respondent jurisdictions.
The goal of the NIOSH Adult Blood Lead Epidemiology and Surveillance (ABLES) Program is to build state capacity for adult blood lead surveillance programs to measure trends in adult blood lead levels and to prevent lead over-exposures.
NCEH has a five-year cooperative agreement, titled “Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention and Surveillance of Blood Lead Levels in Children” (Funding Opportunity Announcement [FOA] No. CDC-RFA-EH21-2102). The first two years of this ICR will extend from FY24 through FY26, and thus will be covered for two-thirds of the ICR three-year period, while funding for the third year of this ICR will be determined in the future. Data submission to the ABLES Program is voluntary and completed through data sharing agreements with state agencies or their bona fide agents.
Blood lead surveillance over the human lifespan is covered under this single ICR, specifically for children younger than 16 years through CBLS at NCEH, and for adults 16 years and older, through ABLES at NIOSH. Over the past several decades there have been substantial efforts in environmental lead abatement, improved protection from occupational lead exposure, and a reduction in the prevalence of population blood lead levels (BLLs) over time. The U.S. population BLLs have substantially decreased over the last four decades. For example, the CDC has reported the 1976-1980 U.S. mean BLL in children six months to five years was 16.0 micrograms per deciliter (mcg/dL), and 14.1 mcg/dL among adults 18 to 74 years. More recently, the CDC reported the 2009-2010 U.S. BLL geometric means among children one to five years and among adults 20 years and older as 1.2 mcg/dL for both age groups. In 2012, the National Toxicology Program (NTP) concluded that there is sufficient evidence that even BLLs less than 5 mcg/dL are associated with adverse health effects in both children and adults. Despite the reduction in the overall population BLL over four decades, lead exposures continue to occur at unacceptable levels for individuals in communities and workplaces across the nation. Surveillance will continue through CBLS and ABLES to identify individuals with BLLs greater than most children who may need follow-up. Surveillance can also help prioritize communities for primary prevention of lead exposure and expanding blood lead testing. As of October 2021, NCEH defines its Blood Lead Reference Value (BLRV) for children at 3.5 mcg/dL. NIOSH defines an elevated BLLs as greater than or equal to 5 mcg/dL for adults.
Respondents are defined as state, local, and territorial health departments with lead poisoning prevention programs. The estimated annual time burden for NCEH CBLS is 1,058 hours. The estimated annual time burden for NIOSH ABLES is 280 hours. In total, CDC is requesting approval for a total annual time burden of 1,338 hours.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comments on a proposed information collection titled Needle Exchange Utilization Survey (NEXUS). This data collection is being created to develop a surveillance system to monitor drug use, prevention behaviors, and the infectious disease consequences of drug use in select urban and non-urban areas of the U.S.
CDC must receive written comments on or before July 29, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by Docket No. CDC-2024-0038 by either of the following methods:
•
•
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7118; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of collecting information on those to respond, including using appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Needle Exchange Utilization Survey (NEXUS)—New—National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The purpose of the Needle Exchange Utilization Survey (NEXUS) is to develop a surveillance system to monitor drug use, prevention behaviors, and the infectious disease consequences of drug use in 6-15 select urban and non-urban areas of the U.S. that the opioid crisis has impacted. Such a surveillance system is needed to inform prevention efforts and policy. The specific objectives of the project are to assess the following among persons who inject drugs who are recruited in syringe services programs (SSPs) and their peers who use drugs through peer-driven recruitment: (1) drug use and sexual behaviors, injection risk networks, receipt of prevention services, and barriers to prevention and care; and (2) the prevalence of HIV and hepatitis C (HCV) infections.
The project will involve a two-stage sampling approach. First, up to 15 SSPs will be selected to ensure geographic diversity and representation of key program characteristics, such as the syringe distribution model (needs-based vs. all others) and length in operation (<5 years, ≥5 years). Second, SSP clients, the majority who are persons who inject drugs (PWID), and their peers who use drugs will be recruited through a combination of direct recruitment at each SSP and peer-driven recruitment to partake in a survey and HCV and HIV testing.
Clients of SSPs and their peers who meet eligibility criteria will complete a survey using an Electronic Data Capture system, a secure web-based application for administering online surveys. The survey will include questions on drug use and sexual behaviors, injection risk networks, drug treatment history, history of drug use-related adverse health outcomes, experiences with law enforcement, HIV and HCV testing experience, and use of prevention and health care services. Lastly, participants will be offered anonymous HIV and HCV testing in conjunction with the survey, which they may refuse with no effect on participation in the survey.
Data from NEXUS will be used to inform the planning and evaluation of prevention programs at the local and national levels that aim to reduce adverse health outcomes due to injection and non-injection drug use and to contribute to the overall opioid crisis response efforts. Data from NEXUS will also be used for an ongoing surveillance system in the U.S. to monitor trends in drug use and the infectious disease consequences of drug use.
Approximately 6,000 individuals will complete the eligibility screener. Our target population is 300 participants per site or 4,500 for up to 15 sites. We anticipate that, on average, 25% or 1,499 persons (for up to 15 SSPs) will not be interested in completing a questionnaire, yielding a maximum of
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice with comment period.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), as part of its continuing effort to reduce public burden and maximize the utility of government information, invites the general public and other Federal agencies the opportunity to comment on a proposed information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This notice invites comment on a proposed information collection project titled Assessing Capacity to Expand Hepatitis C Testing and Treatment in United States Carceral Systems. This data collection proposes to estimate point prevalence of hepatitis C virus in carceral settings, outline patient characteristics, clinical management, and understand key operational and programmatic successes and challenges to testing and treatment of hepatitis C virus, as well as to support timely analysis and utilize findings to advance the elimination of viral hepatitis in the United States.
CDC must receive written comments on or before July 29, 2024.
You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. CDC-2024-0039 by either of the following methods:
•
•
Please note: Submit all comments through the Federal eRulemaking portal (
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, contact Jeffrey M. Zirger, Information Collection Review Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road, NE, MS H21-8, Atlanta, Georgia 30329; Telephone: 404-639-7570; Email:
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), Federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. In addition, the PRA also requires Federal agencies to provide a 60-day notice in the
The OMB is particularly interested in comments that will help:
1. Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
2. Evaluate the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
3. Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
5. Assess information collection costs.
Assessing Capacity to Expand Hepatitis C Testing and Treatment in United States Carceral Systems—New—National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention (NCHHSTP), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Carceral settings pose a unique challenge to hepatitis C elimination in that data, as it relates to hepatitis C virus testing and treatment, is not readily available for analysis to understand the burden of disease within this environment. To our knowledge, CDC does not have a repository of data specifically directed towards hepatitis C within State Department of Corrections (DOC) or large jails. This survey
The overarching goals for this data collection are: (1) to reduce new viral hepatitis infections; (2) to reduce viral hepatitis-related morbidity and mortality; and (3) to reduce viral hepatitis-related disparities. The information collected will allow CDC to be good stewards of resources by guiding programmatic initiatives and allocation of funding sources. Data from this project will be used to inform program planning and evaluation of prevention programs that aim to reduce new viral hepatitis infections, reduce viral hepatitis-related morbidity and mortality and reduce viral hepatitis-related disparities. The data collected will establish a system for ongoing program evaluation and improvement and allows for data-driven resource allocation to areas of greatest need. Invitations will be sent to 101 State and Local DOCs, to include the District of Columbia. The request to complete this anonymous electronic survey will include enough time for record searches. This survey has branching logic to reduce the number of questions asked to each respondent if the question does not apply. Participating institutions will have a set-time period, to complete the survey. This survey will be self-administered which may take up to 30 minutes to complete using an electronic platform. If preferred, there will be an option to complete an interviewer-administered survey via telephone or videoconferencing.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 60 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has submitted the information collection request titled “Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery” to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. CDC previously published a “Proposed Data Collection Submitted for Public Comment and Recommendations” notice on March 14, 2024 to obtain comments from the public and affected agencies. CDC did not receive comments related to the previous notice. This notice serves to allow an additional 30 days for public and affected agency comments.
CDC will accept all comments for this proposed information collection project. The Office of Management and Budget is particularly interested in comments that:
(a) Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(b) Evaluate the accuracy of the agencies estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(c) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including, through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology,
(e) Assess information collection costs.
To request additional information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the information collection plan and instruments, call (404) 639-7570. Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Generic Clearance for the Collection of Qualitative Feedback on Agency Service Delivery (OMB Control No. 0920-0953, Exp. 10/31/2024)—Extension—National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The information collection activities associated with this project provide a means to garner qualitative customer and stakeholder feedback in an efficient, timely manner, in accordance with the Federal Government's commitment to improving service delivery. By qualitative feedback we mean information that provides useful insights on perceptions and opinions but are not statistical surveys that yield quantitative results that can be generalized to the population of study. The feedback will provide insights into customer or stakeholder perceptions,
CDC will only submit a collection for approval under this Generic Clearance if they meet the following conditions:
• The collections are voluntary;
• The collections are low-burden for respondents (based) on considerations of total burden hours, total number of respondents (or burden-hours per respondent), and are low-cost for both the respondents and the Federal Government;
• The collections are noncontroversial and do not raise issues of concern to other Federal agencies;
• Any collection is targeted to the solicitation of opinions from respondents who have experience with the program or may have experience with the program in the near future;
• Personally identifiable information (PII) is collected only to the extent necessary and is not retained;
• Information gathered is intended to be used only internally for general service improvement and program management purposes and is not intended for release outside of the agency (if released, the agency must indicate the qualitative nature of the information);
• Information gathered will not be used for the purpose of substantially informing influential policy decisions; and
• Information gathered will yield qualitative information (the collections will not be designed or expected to yield statistically reliable results or used as though the results are generalizable to the population of study).
Feedback collected under CDC Generic Clearances provides useful information, but it does not yield data that can be generalized to the overall population. This type of Generic Clearance for qualitative information will not be used for quantitative information collections that are designed to yield reliably actionable results, such as monitoring trends over time or documenting program performance. Such data uses require more rigorous designs that address: the target population to which generalizations will be made, the sampling frame, the sample design (including stratification and clustering), the precision requirements or power calculations that justify the proposed sample size, the expected response rate, methods for assessing potential nonresponse bias, the protocols for data collection, and any testing procedures that were or will be undertaken prior to fielding the study. Depending on the degree of influence the results are likely to have, such collections may still be eligible for submission for other Generic Clearance mechanisms that are designed to yield quantitative results.
As a general matter, information collections will not result in any new System of Records containing Privacy information and will not ask questions of a sensitive nature, such as sexual behavior and attitudes, religious beliefs, and other matters that are commonly considered private.
CDC requests OMB approval for an estimated 13,075 annual burden hours. There is no cost to respondents other than their time to participate.
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice.
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) is announcing an opportunity for the public to comment on CMS' intention to collect information from the public. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), federal agencies are required to publish notice in the
Comments on the collection(s) of information must be received by the OMB desk officer by June 27, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To obtain copies of a supporting statement and any related forms for the proposed collection(s) summarized in this notice, please access the CMS PRA website by copying and pasting the following web address into your web browser:
William Parham at (410) 786-4669.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), federal agencies must obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for each collection of information they conduct or sponsor. The term “collection of information” is defined in 44 U.S.C. 3502(3) and 5 CFR 1320.3(c) and includes agency requests or requirements that members of the public submit reports, keep records, or provide information to a third party. Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)) requires federal agencies to publish a 30-day notice in the
CMS has developed the six materials in the attached package as model notices in order to provide standardized and consistent language for potential and active program participants, regardless of which Part D plan they may be enrolled in. CMS will require Part D plans to disseminate these notices, as appropriate, to Part D enrollees to fulfill the requirements of the Sections 1860D-2(b)(2)(E)(v)(II)-(IV) of the Act.
Administration for Community Living, HHS.
Notice.
The Administration for Community Living (ACL) 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 a new information collection for the ACL Generic Information Collection (Gen IC) for the Administration on Aging Formula Grant Programs.
Comments on the collection of information must be submitted electronically by 11:59 p.m. (ET) or postmarked by June 27, 2024.
Submit written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Adam Mosey (202) 795-7631 or
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, the Administration for Community Living (ACL) has submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance. As a unit of the Administration for Community Living, the Administration on Aging (AoA) provides expertise on program development, advocacy, and initiatives for older Americans and their caregivers and families. Working with State agencies, local agencies, grantees, and community providers, AoA directs programs authorized by the Older Americans Act (OAA), Elder Justice Act (EJA), and other legislation that supports older adults. Through these programs multi-year State Plans and assurances, and other financial forms are needed to provide approval and oversight of grant recipients. ACL is seeking OMB approval to add a new Gen IC to ACL's Paperwork inventory. This Gen IC will cover ACL/AoA formula grant programs for State Plans on Aging and assurances, State Plans on Adult Protective Services and assurances, and other financial forms associated with aging and APS formula grant management. Adding a Gen IC will allow for the collection of data across programmatic and financial management of the aging and APS formula grants.
In 1965, Congress originally passed the Older Americans Act (OAA) in response to concerns by policymakers
The original legislation established authority for grants to states for community planning and social services, research and development projects, and personnel training in the field of aging. Changes to the OAA were made through the Supporting Older Americans Act of 2020.
This legislation reauthorized the OAA and its programs from Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2020 through 2024. The OAA provides the foundation for the national aging network, which includes the Administration on Aging (AoA), State Units on Aging (SUA), area agencies on aging (AAA), Tribal organizations, service providers, and volunteers. SUAs are an integral part of the network responsible for developing and administering a multi-year state plan that advocates for and aids older residents, their families, their caregivers, and, in many States, for adults with disabilities.
The Elder Justice Act, passed in 2010, is the first comprehensive legislation to address the abuse, neglect, and exploitation of older adults at the Federal level. The law authorized a variety of programs and initiatives to better coordinate Federal responses to elder abuse, promote elder justice research and innovation, support Adult Protective Services systems, and provide additional protections for residents of long-term care facilities. The importance of these services at the State-level and local-level is demonstrated by the fact that states significantly leverage Older Americans Act (OAA) funds to obtain other funding for these activities.
The Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act of 2021 and the American Rescue Plan Act provided two years of Federal funding ($188 million in each year) to support, for the first time, the nationwide APS formula grant program authorized by the Elder Justice Act of 2010. That funding was used by States to expand or develop a variety of capabilities that were necessary to meet increased needs due to the public health pandemic, and ongoing funding is necessary to maintain the improved reach and effectiveness of APS systems beyond the pandemic.
The FY 2023 Omnibus Appropriations Bill provided, for the first time, an annual appropriation of $15 million to continue providing Federal formula grants to State APS programs. This will be the first time State entities are required to develop and submit State plans under Section 2042 of the Elder Justice Act, 42 U.S.C. 1397m-1(b). However, States have developed spending plans for the formula funding received to date, consistent with 45 CFR 75.206(d), and to update those every three to five years.
This new Gen IC is for programmatic and financial management of the Aging and APS formula grants. The purpose of the State Plans is to document and provide the opportunity for public comment on achievements and planned activities for the multi-year plan period.
A wide range of constituents use or will use the State Plans to coordinate, monitor, evaluate, and improve Aging Network and APS support services by using the State Plans as a blueprint for service planning and delivery. Additionally, ACL leverages State Plans to understand the numerous services older adults use, and to utilize the information for advocating for the needs of older adults and those who use APS and for requesting additional funding. The purpose of the other financial forms that are a part of this Gen IC is to facilitate OAA formula grant management.
Financial forms provide statutorily required information regarding each State's contribution to programs to ensure compliance with legislative requirements, pertinent Federal regulations, and other applicable instructions and guidelines issued by ACL. This information will be used for Federal oversight of the Aging Programs.
Based on ACL's extensive experience working with APS systems and OAA grantees on their State plans, ACL does not anticipate a significantly greater level of detail for the development of State plans for APS.
OAA and APS grantees are required to comply with all terms and conditions contained in Notices of Award (NoA) issued by ACL. When it is determined that a grantee is not in compliance with one or more of these requirements, ACL may require a grantee to submit to ACL a plan to come into compliance under a Corrective Action Plan (CAP), and any such CAP may require ACL's prior written approval, as determined by ACL. The CAP process is intended to be collaborative. Under a CAP, a grantee and ACL will jointly identify progress milestones and a feasible timeline for the grantee to come into compliance with the applicable requirement. Grantees must make a good faith effort at achieving full compliance to continue to have permission from ACL to operate under a CAP.
A 60-day notice published in the
Estimated Program Burden: ACL estimates the burden of this collection of information as follows:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is denying a request for a hearing submitted by Andrew S. Feldman, on behalf of Jessica Palacio (Palacio), and is issuing an order under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) permanently debarring Palacio from providing services in any capacity to a person that has an approved or pending drug product application. FDA bases this order on a finding that Palacio was convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of any drug product under the FD&C Act. FDA provided notice to Palacio of the proposed debarment and an opportunity to request a hearing within the timeframe prescribed by regulation. Palacio submitted a request for hearing but failed to file with the Agency information and analyses sufficient to create a basis for a hearing.
The order is applicable May 28, 2024.
Any application for termination of debarment by Palacio under section 306(d) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335a(d)) (application) may be submitted as follows:
•
• If you want to submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the application as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For a written/paper application submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your application, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit an application with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your application 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 your application. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
Karen Fikes, Office of Scientific Integrity, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 1, Rm. 4232, Silver Spring, MD 20993, 301-796-9603.
Section 306(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act mandates permanent debarment if FDA finds that the individual has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of any drug product. On January 12, 2023, following a jury trial, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida entered
A grand jury returned a two-count indictment on May 12, 2021, against Palacio, the study coordinator, for clinical trials from about 2013 to 2015 at Unlimited Medical Research, LLC (Unlimited). The indictment charged Palacio with conspiring to commit wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1349 and making a false statement to FDA, in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). On September 13, 2022, the jury found Palacio guilty of both charges. However, on September 15, 2022, the court granted Palacio's motion for acquittal with respect to the conspiracy. On January 12, 2023, the court entered a criminal judgment against Palacio for false statements in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2) and sentenced Palacio to 36 months imprisonment.
By letter dated August 18, 2023, FDA's Office of Regulatory Affairs (ORA) notified Palacio of a proposal to issue an order of permanent debarment (Notice). As explained in the Notice, Palacio's conviction stemmed, in part, from a statement made in a signed affidavit to FDA investigators during the Agency's investigation into allegations of irregularities in data submitted by Unlimited. Unlimited previously contracted with Parexel International, a contract research organization that the sponsor company, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), a global biopharma company, hired to conduct a clinical trial, known as the Vestri Study, to study certain asthma drugs in pediatric subjects aged 4 to 11 years. GSK reported allegations of irregular data to FDA related to certain records created by Unlimited that documented the participation of certain pediatric subjects. As study coordinator at Unlimited, Palacio would have, among other responsibilities, helped to ensure the study protocol was followed. Therefore, as part of the investigation, FDA questioned Palacio regarding the irregularities. Specifically, inspectors inquired about the screening visit of a specific subject called D.H., including records indicating Palacio performed a screening visit and records indicating the subject had been in school at the time of the purported screening. Palacio then signed an affidavit, on April 25, 2017, stating, “I can confirm that the Screening/Visit 1 was performed by myself and Dr. Villaman-Bencosme.” As explained in the Notice, this statement was false in that Palacio knew at that time that D.H. had not participated in the clinical trial; therefore, she had not screened D.H. for the Vestri study. The signed affidavit was part of the evidence offered at trial leading to Palacio's conviction for making false statements to FDA in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2).
The Notice explained that the proposed permanent debarment of Palacio is based on her Federal felony conviction for making false statements to FDA and that the conduct serving as the basis for that conviction relates to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of any drug product. The Notice also informed Palacio of an opportunity for her to request a hearing under section 306(i) of the FD&C Act and part 12 (21 CFR part 12).
In response to the Notice, Palacio submitted a timely request for a hearing, which included a notice of appearance and request for an extension to submit materials in support of the hearing request. Following two extensions to submit supporting materials, which were both granted, on December 4, 2023, Palacio submitted a response entitled “Memorandum in Support of a Request for a Hearing (Memorandum).” Palacio's Memorandum included several claims and multiple documents challenging whether she is subject to permanent debarment. Specifically, Palacio challenges whether her conviction relates to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of any drug product.
Under the authority delegated to him by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, the Director, Office of Scientific Integrity (OSI Director) has considered Palacio's request for a hearing. Hearings are granted only if there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact. A request for a hearing may not rest upon mere allegations or denials but must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact that justifies a hearing. Hearings will not be granted on issues of policy or law, on mere allegations, denials or general descriptions of positions and contentions, or on data and information insufficient to justify the factual determination urged (see § 12.24(b) (21 CFR 12.24(b))).
Under section 306(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act, an individual convicted of a Federal felony for conduct relating to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of any drug product is subject to permanent debarment. The relevant factual issues are whether Palacio was, in fact, convicted of a Federal felony and whether the basis of that conviction relates to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of any drug product.
Palacio does not dispute that a court convicted her of a Federal felony under 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2). In fact, in her Memorandum, Palacio concedes that her conviction is a fact not in dispute. However, Palacio challenges whether the conduct underlying her conviction relates to the development and approval, including the process for development and approval, of a drug. In her Memorandum, Palacio offers two central claims to support her argument: (1) material facts exist, which would determine whether she qualifies for permanent debarment under section 306(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act; and (2) nine prior permanent debarments are factually distinguishable from her proposed debarment, as they relate to false statements made “while a clinical trial or similar study was ongoing.”
Section 306(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act specifically provides for permanent and mandatory debarment of individuals convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct related to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of any drug product. If the language of the statute is clear, there is no need to look outside the statute to its legislative history in order to ascertain the statute's meaning (
In a previous action requiring mandatory debarment under section 306(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act for conduct relating to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of any drug product, FDA stated that “the statutory language `relating to the development or approval' . . . by definition, encompasses all things that are logically connected with the development or approval of a drug product.” (Atul Shah; Denial of Hearing; Final Debarment Order, (59 FR 62399, December 5, 1994), (citing Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster Inc., Springfield, MA, 1990, “relate”);
Palacio's felony conviction is related to the development and approval, including the process for development and approval, of a drug. The trial established that Palacio held the role of clinical trial coordinator at the clinical trial site, Unlimited, which contracted to conduct a clinical trial to study certain asthma drugs in pediatric subjects between the ages of 4 and 11 years. As ORA explained in the Notice, drug sponsors, like GSK, submit clinical trial data in support of drug product applications for review and approval by FDA, and the Agency relies upon the integrity of the data and information in the applications to determine whether a drug meets required safety and effectiveness standards. The basis for Palacio's Federal felony conviction for false statements in a signed affidavit is regarding conduct in her role as clinical trial coordinator. Specifically, in her signed affidavit Palacio “represented . . . that she had performed a screening visit for D.H. in the Study, when in truth and in fact, and as [Palacio] then and there well knew, she had not performed a screening for D.H. . .” Palacio's false statements about her role in the conduct of a clinical trial related to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of any drug product. Palacio's role and statements regarding her role pertaining to the Vestri Study, a clinical study meant to inform GSK's submission to FDA, are logically connected to the development or approval of a drug product. Palacio's Memorandum does not provide any material facts capable of overcoming the clear language in section 306(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act and the logical connection of her conduct to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of any drug product. Therefore, Palacio has failed to raise a genuine and substantial issue of fact warranting a hearing to determine whether she is subject to permanent debarment. Accordingly, the OSI Director need not address Palacio's other arguments, including her efforts to distinguish her own conduct from that of other debarred individuals.
Therefore, the OSI Director, under section 306(a)(2)(A) of the FD&C Act and authority delegated to him by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, finds that Palacio has been convicted of a felony under Federal law for conduct relating to the development or approval, including the process for development or approval, of any drug product.
As a result of the foregoing findings, Palacio is permanently debarred from providing services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application under sections 505, 512, or 802 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 355, 360b, or 382), or under section 351 of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 262), effective May 28, 2024 (see 21 U.S.C. 335a(c)(1)(B) and (c)(2)(A)(ii) and 21 U.S.C. 321(dd)). Any person with an approved or pending drug product application, who knowingly uses the services of Palacio, in any capacity during her period of debarment, will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(6) of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 335b(a)(6))). If Palacio, during her period of debarment, provides services in any capacity to a person with an approved or pending drug product application, she will be subject to civil money penalties (section 307(a)(7) of the FD&C Act). In addition, FDA will not accept or review any abbreviated new drug applications submitted by or with the assistance of Palacio during her period of debarment (section 306(c)(1)(B) of the FD&C Act).
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) (the Authorization) under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) for use during the COVID-19 pandemic. FDA has issued an Authorization for the drug product PEMGARDA (pemivibart) as requested by Invivyd, Inc. (Invivyd). The Authorization contains, among other things, conditions on the emergency use of the authorized product. The Authorization follows the February 4, 2020, determination by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), as amended on March 15, 2023, that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad and that involves a novel (new) coronavirus. The virus, named SARS-CoV-2, causes the illness COVID-19. On the basis of such determination, the Secretary of HHS declared on March 27, 2020, that circumstances exist justifying the authorization of emergency use of drugs and biological products during the COVID-19 pandemic, pursuant to the FD&C Act, subject to the terms of any authorization issued under that section. The Authorization, which includes an explanation of the reasons for issuance, is reprinted in this document.
The Authorization is effective as of March 22, 2024.
Submit written requests for a single copy of the EUA to the Office of Executive Programs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, 6th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to
Johanna McLatchy, Office of Executive Programs, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, 6th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3200 (this is not a toll-free number).
Section 564 of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-3) allows FDA to strengthen public health protections against biological, chemical, nuclear, and radiological agents. Among other things, section 564 of the FD&C Act allows FDA to authorize the use of an unapproved medical product or an unapproved use of an approved medical product in certain situations. With this EUA authority, FDA can help ensure that medical countermeasures may be used in emergencies to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents when there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives (among other criteria).
Section 564(b)(1) of the FD&C Act provides that, before an EUA may be issued, the Secretary of HHS must declare that circumstances exist justifying the authorization based on one of the following grounds: (1) a determination by the Secretary of Homeland Security that there is a domestic emergency, or a significant potential for a domestic emergency, involving a heightened risk of attack with a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; (2) a determination by the Secretary of Defense that there is a military emergency, or a significant potential for a military emergency, involving a heightened risk to U.S. military forces, including personnel operating under the authority of title 10 or title 50, U.S. Code, of attack with (A) a biological, chemical, radiological, or nuclear agent or agents; or (B) an agent or agents that may cause, or are otherwise associated with, an imminently life-threatening and specific risk to U.S. military forces;
Once the Secretary of HHS has declared that circumstances exist justifying an authorization under section 564 of the FD&C Act, FDA may authorize the emergency use of a drug, device, or biological product if the Agency concludes that the statutory criteria are satisfied. Under section 564(h)(1) of the FD&C Act, FDA is required to publish in the
No other criteria for issuance have been prescribed by regulation under section 564(c)(4) of the FD&C Act.
The Authorization follows the February 4, 2020, determination by the Secretary of HHS, as amended on March 15, 2023, that there is a public health emergency, or a significant potential for a public health emergency, that affects, or has a significant potential to affect national security or the health and security of U.S. citizens living abroad and that involves a novel (new) coronavirus. The virus, named SARS-CoV-2, causes the illness COVID-19. Notice of the Secretary's determination was provided in the
An electronic version of this document and the full text of the Authorization is available on the internet at:
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing the issuance of a priority review voucher to the sponsor of a material threat medical countermeasure (MCM) product application. The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) authorizes FDA to award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved material threat MCM product applications that meet certain criteria. FDA is required to publish notice of the award of the priority review voucher. FDA has determined that PAXLOVID (nirmatrelvir co-packaged with ritonavir) tablets, approved on May 25, 2023, manufactured by Pfizer, Inc., meets the criteria for a material threat MCM priority review voucher.
Cathryn Lee, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-1394, email:
FDA is announcing the issuance of a material threat MCM priority review voucher to the sponsor of an approved material threat MCM product application. Under section 565A of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb-4a) FDA will award priority review vouchers to sponsors of approved material threat MCM product applications that meet certain criteria upon approval of those applications. FDA has determined that PAXLOVID (nirmatrelvir co-packaged with ritonavir) tablets, manufactured by Pfizer, Inc., meets the criteria for a material threat MCM priority review voucher. PAXLOVID was approved on May 25, 2023, for the treatment of mild-to-moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adults who are at high risk for progression to severe COVID-19, including hospitalization or death.
For further information about the material threat MCM Priority Review Voucher Program and for a link to the full text of section 565A of the FD&C Act, go to
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice.
The Food and Drug Administration's (FDA or Agency) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) is proposing to withdraw approval of four new drug applications (NDAs) and is announcing an opportunity for the NDA holders to request a hearing on this proposal. The basis for the proposal is that the NDA holders have repeatedly failed to file required annual reports for those NDAs.
The NDA holders may submit a request for a hearing by June 27, 2024. Submit all data, information, and analyses upon which the request for a hearing relies July 29, 2024. Submit electronic or written comments by July 29, 2024.
The request for a hearing may be submitted by the NDA holders by either of the following methods:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• Because your request for a hearing will be made public, you are solely responsible for ensuring that your request does not include any confidential information that you or a third party may not wish to be posted, such as medical information, your or anyone else's Social Security number, or confidential business information, such as a manufacturing process. The request for a hearing must include the Docket No. FDA-2024-N-2219 for “Progynon Associates, et al.; Proposal To Withdraw Approval of Four New Drug Applications; Opportunity for a Hearing.” The request for a hearing will be placed in the docket and publicly viewable at
• Confidential Submissions—To submit any data analyses with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your data and analyses only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total of all data and analyses. 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 any decisions on this matter. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
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
Kimberly Lehrfeld, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 51, Rm. 6226, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3137,
The holder of an approved NDA to market a new drug for human use is required to submit annual reports to FDA concerning its approved NDA under §§ 314.81 and 314.98 (21 CFR 314.81 and 21 CFR 314.98). The holders of the approved NDAs listed in table 1 have repeatedly failed to submit the required annual reports and have not responded to the Agency's request for submission of the reports.
Therefore, notice is given to the holders of the approved NDAs listed in table 1 and to all other interested persons that the Director of CDER proposes to issue an order, under section 505(e) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 355(e)), withdrawing approval of the NDAs and all amendments and supplements thereto on the grounds that the NDA holders have failed to submit reports required under § 314.81.
In accordance with section 505 of the FD&C Act and part 314 (21 CFR part 314), the NDA holders are hereby provided an opportunity for a hearing to show why the approval of the NDAs listed previously should not be withdrawn and an opportunity to raise, for administrative determination, all issues relating to the legal status of the drug products covered by these NDAs.
An NDA holder who decides to seek a hearing must file the following: (1) A written notice of participation and request for a hearing (see
The failure of an NDA holder to file a timely written notice of participation and request for a hearing, as required by § 314.200, constitutes an election by that NDA holder not to avail itself of the opportunity for a hearing concerning CDER's proposal to withdraw approval of the NDAs and constitutes a waiver of any contentions concerning the legal status of the drug products. FDA will then withdraw approval of the NDAs, and the drug products may not thereafter be lawfully introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce. Any new drug product introduced or delivered for introduction into interstate commerce without an approved NDA is subject to regulatory action at any time.
A request for a hearing may not rest upon mere allegations or denials but must present specific facts showing that there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact that requires a hearing. If a request for a hearing is not complete or is not supported, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs will enter summary judgment against the person who requests the hearing, making findings and conclusions, and denying a hearing.
All submissions under this notice of opportunity for a hearing must be filed in two copies. Except for data and information prohibited from public disclosure under 21 U.S.C. 331(j) or 18 U.S.C. 1905, the submissions may be seen at the Dockets Management Staff (see
This notice is issued under section 505(e) of the FD&C Act and under authority delegated to the Director of CDER by the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA submitted an Information Collection Request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval. Comments submitted during the first public review of this ICR will be provided to OMB. OMB will accept further comments from the public during the review and approval period. OMB may act on HRSA's ICR only after the 30-day comment period for this notice has closed.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than June 27, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request a copy of the clearance requests submitted to OMB for review, email Joella Roland, the HRSA Information Collection Clearance Officer, at
OMB No. 0915-xxxx—[NEW]
Through this ICR, HRSA aims to survey state, jurisdiction, and tribal MIECHV funding recipients to obtain feedback regarding potential ways to reduce administrative burden, as described above.
A 60-day notice was published in the
Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Department of Health and Human Services.
Notice.
In compliance with the requirement for opportunity for public comment on proposed data collection projects of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, HRSA announces plans to submit an Information Collection Request (ICR), described below, to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Prior to submitting the ICR to OMB, HRSA seeks comments from the public regarding the burden estimate, below, or any other aspect of the ICR.
Comments on this ICR should be received no later than July 29, 2024.
Submit your comments to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and draft instruments, email
When submitting comments or requesting information, please include the ICR title for reference.
The information will be collected from PMHCA and MMHSUD award recipient programs funded in 2021, 2022, or 2023 and from participants in and stakeholders of those programs:
• The 2021 and 2022 PMHCA programs are authorized by 42 U.S.C 254c-19 (sec. 330M of the Public Health Service Act), using funding provided by section 2712 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-2).
• The 2023 PMHCA programs are authorized by 42 U.S.C 254c-19 (sec. 330M of the Public Health Service Act), as amended by section 11005 of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act (Pub. L. 117-159).
• The 2023 MMHSUD programs are authorized by 42 U.S.C. 247b-13a; (sec. 317L-1 of the Public Health Service Act).
To evaluate progress made toward the programs' goals, this data collection will use the following eight instruments: (1) HP Survey, (2) Practice-Level Survey, (3) Program Implementation Survey, (4) Behavioral Health Consultation Provider Semi-Structured Interview (SSI), (5) Care Coordinator SSI, (6) Champion SSI, (7) Community-Based and Other Resources SSI, and (8) Program Implementation SSI.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
This notice is being published less than 15 days from the meeting date due to exceptional circumstances. The technical and scientific peer review of applications assigned to this committee must take place urgently so that awards in support of the Climate Change and Health Research Centers program, which is supported by a dozen NIH Institutes and Centers, can be made by the end of the fiscal year. If the meeting is not held on June 3-4, 2024, committee members with the requisite scientific expertise will be unable to attend due to scheduling conflicts.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
National Institutes of Health, HHS.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
Comments regarding this information collection are best assured of having their full effect if received within 30-days of the date of this publication.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
To request more information on the proposed project or to obtain a copy of the data collection plans and instruments, contact: Celia Katz, Project Clearance Liaison, FIC, NIH, 16 Center Drive, Bethesda, MD 20892 or call non-toll-free number (301)-594-7857 or Email your request, including your address to:
This proposed information collection was previously published in the
The Fogarty International Center (FIC), National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS), National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) and National Institute of Minority Health Disparities (NIMHD), National Cancer Institute Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities (NCI/CRCHD), National Institutes of Health (NIH), may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection that has been extended, revised, or implemented on or after October 1, 1995, unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
In compliance with Section 3507(a)(1)(D) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) a request for review and approval of the information collection listed below.
OMB approval is requested for 3 years. There are no costs to respondents other than their time. The total estimated annualized burden hours are 13,539.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Advisory Committee to the Director, National Institutes of Health.
This will be a hybrid meeting held in-person and virtually and will be open to the public as indicated below. Given the capacity constraints of the venue, the public is strongly encouraged to attend virtually via NIH videocast. Individuals who plan to attend in-person or view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the Institute's/Center's home page:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the Novel and Exceptional Technology and Research Advisory Committee.
The meeting will be held as a virtual meeting and will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations to view the meeting should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting will be videocast and can be accessed from the NIH Videocasting and Podcasting website (
This meeting is a virtual meeting and can be accessed at:
Any interested person may file written comments by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person listed on this notice at least two business days prior to the meeting date. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person. Other than name and contact information, please do not include any personally identifiable information or any information that you do not wish to make public. Proprietary, classified, confidential, or sensitive information should not be included in your comments. Please note that any comments NIH receives may be posted unredacted to the Office of Science Policy website.
Information is also available on the NIH Office of Science Policy website:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of a meeting of the NIH Clinical Center Research Hospital Board.
This will be a hybrid meeting held in-person and virtually and will be open to the public as indicated below. Individuals who plan to attend in-person or view the virtual meeting and need special assistance or other reasonable accommodations, should notify the Contact Person listed below in advance of the meeting. The meeting can be accessed from the NIH Videocast at the following link:
Any interested person may file written comments with the committee by forwarding the statement to the Contact Person(s) listed on this notice. The statement should include the name, address, telephone number and, when applicable, the business or professional affiliation of the interested person.
In the interest of security, NIH has procedures at
Information is also available on the CCRHB website:
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Name of Committee: National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health Special Emphasis Panel; Resource Center for Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research (U24 Clinical Trial Not Allowed).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Ken Carlson (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act. The applicant requests the ITP to take the federally listed Morro shoulderband snail (
We must receive your written comments on or before June 27, 2024.
•
•
Joseph Brandt, Fish and Wildlife Biologist, by email at
We, the Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from Ken Carlson (applicant) for an incidental take permit (ITP) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
On December 15, 1994 (59 FR 64613), the Service listed the
Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B)), we may issue permits to authorize take of listed fish and wildlife species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered and threatened species are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. Issuance of an ITP also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species. The permittee would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)).
The applicant has applied for a permit for incidental take of the Morro shoulderband snail. The take would occur in association with activities necessary for the construction of a single-family home, installation of a driveway, and installation of a septic system and utilities on 0.41 acres of low-quality Morro shoulderband snail habitat. A Fire Hazard Reduction Plan has been approved by the Service for the parcel. As a result, fire hazard reduction activities on the remaining 1.59 acres will be exempt from section 9 take prohibitions under the 4d Rule exemption.
The HCP includes avoidance and minimization measures for the Morro shoulderband snail, and mitigation for unavoidable loss of occupied habitat. The applicant will commensurately
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 view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Service has made a preliminary determination that the applicant's proposed project would individually and cumulatively have a minor effect on the Morro shoulderband snail and the human environment. Therefore, we have preliminarily determined that the proposed ESA section 10(a)(1)(B) permit would be a “low-effect” ITP that individually or cumulatively would have a minor effect on the species and may qualify for application of a categorical exclusion pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality's NEPA regulations, DOI's NEPA regulations, and the DOI Departmental Manual. A “low-effect” ITP is one that would result in (1) minor or nonsignificant effects on species covered in the HCP; (2) nonsignificant effects on the human environment; and (3) impacts that, when added together with the impacts of other past, present, and reasonable foreseeable actions, would not result in significant cumulative effects to the human environment.
The Service will evaluate the application and the comments received to determine whether to issue the requested ITP. We will also conduct an intra-Service consultation pursuant to section 7 of the ESA to evaluate the effects of the proposed take. After considering the preceding and other matters, we will determine whether the permit issuance criteria of section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA have been met. If met, the Service will issue an ITP to the applicant.
We provide this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of issuance of permits.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, have issued the following permits to conduct certain activities with endangered species. We issue these permits under the Endangered Species Act.
Information about the applications for the permits listed in this notice is available online at
Timothy MacDonald, by phone at 703-358-2185 or via email at
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), have issued permits to conduct certain activities with endangered and threatened species in response to permit applications that we received under the authority of section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
After considering the information submitted with each permit application and the public comments received, we issued the requested permits subject to certain conditions set forth in each permit. For each application for an endangered species, we found that (1) the application was filed in good faith, (2) the granted permit would not operate to the disadvantage of the endangered species, and (3) the granted permit would be consistent with the purposes and policy set forth in section 2 of the ESA.
The permittees' original permit application materials, along with public comments we received during public comment periods for the applications, are available for review. To locate the application materials and received comments, go to
We issue this notice under the authority of the Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of receipt of permit application; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), invite the public to comment on a permit application regarding foreign bird species for which the Service has jurisdiction under the Wild Bird Conservation Act (WBCA). With some exceptions, the WBCA prohibits activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is issued that allows such activities. The WBCA also requires that we invite public comment before issuing permits for any activity it otherwise prohibits.
We must receive comments by June 27, 2024.
•
•
For more information, see Public Comment Procedures under
Brenda Tapia, by phone at 703-358-2185 or via email at
We invite the public and local, State, Tribal, and Federal agencies to comment on the application we have received. Before issuing any of the requested permits, we will take into consideration any information that we receive during the public comment period.
You may submit your comments and materials by one of the methods in
When submitting comments, please specify the name of the applicant and the permit number at the beginning of your comment. Provide sufficient information to allow us to authenticate any scientific or commercial data you include. The comments and recommendations that will be most useful and likely to influence agency decisions are: (1) Those supported by quantitative information or studies; and (2) those that include citations to, and analyses of, the applicable laws and regulations.
You may view and comment on others' public comments at
If you submit a comment at
To help us carry out our conservation responsibilities for affected species, and in consideration of section 112(4) of the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (WBCA; 16 U.S.C. 4901-4916), we invite public comments on permit applications before final action is taken. With some exceptions, the WBCA prohibits certain activities with listed species unless Federal authorization is issued that allows such activities. Service regulations regarding permits for any activity otherwise prohibited by the WBCA with respect to any wild birds are available in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations in part 15.
We invite comments on the following application.
The applicant, along with members Martin Stiasny, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., William G. Meeker, Gary D. Boberg, Mark and Ryan Moglich, Lewis R. Souder, Stephen Bucciarelli, Thomas J. Cullen IV, Michael Clark, Chase Delles, Civon Gewelber, Anthony C. and Joe Suffredini, Corey J. Dalton, David
After the comment period closes, we will make a decision regarding permit issuance. If we issue the permit to the applicant listed, we will publish a notice in the
We issue this notice under the authority of the implementing regulations and under the authority of the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992 (16 U.S.C. 4901-4916). This notice is provided pursuant to section 112(4) of the Wild Bird Conservation Act of 1992, 50 CFR 15.26(c).
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of availability; request for comments.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from California Resources Corporation for an incidental take permit (ITP), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act, under the approved General Conservation Plan for Oil and Gas Activities (GCP). If granted, the ITP would authorize take of the California red-legged frog (
We must receive your written comments on or before June 27, 2024.
•
•
Joseph Brandt, Assistant Field Supervisor, by email at
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), announce receipt of an application from California Resources Corporation for an incidental take permit (ITP), pursuant to the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA; 16 U.S.C. 1531
We invite public comment on a draft screening form we prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
The Service listed the California red-legged frog as threatened on May 23, 1996 (61 FR 25813), and the Santa Barbara County DPS of the California tiger salamander as endangered on September 21, 2000 (65 FR 57242). Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of fish and wildlife species listed as threatened or endangered (16 U.S.C. 1538), where take is defined to include the following activities: “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct” (16 U.S.C. 1532). Under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the ESA (16 U.S.C. 1539(a)(1)(B)), we may issue permits to authorize take of listed fish and wildlife species that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity. Regulations governing incidental take permits for endangered and threatened species are in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 50 CFR 17.22 and 17.32, respectively. Issuance of an ITP also must not jeopardize the existence of federally listed fish, wildlife, or plant species. The permittee would receive assurances under our “No Surprises” regulations (50 CFR 17.22(b)(5) and 17.32(b)(5)).
The applicant has applied for a permit for incidental take of California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander. The take would occur in association with activities necessary to remediate soil contaminated with hydrocarbons at the CAL Site within the North Cat Canyon Oil Field in Santa Maria, California. The project will excavate contaminated soils at three distinct remedial areas, A5-01, B5-02/B5-03, and B6-03 at the CAL Site. Based on initial investigations, approximately 4,926 cubic yards of soil will be excavated with 25 feet set as the maximum depth for excavation. Excavated material will be transported to a State of California licensed disposal facility. Dewatering activities may also be conducted if perched groundwater is encountered in the excavations. The applicant will return all excavated areas to its original grade and revegetate them with native seed mix. The project area does not contain California red-legged frog breeding habitat however, an ephemeral drainage within the project area may provide a movement corridor during winter months. Nearest known location of California red-legged frogs is within 5-miles of the project site. Additionally, a potential California tiger salamanders breeding pond occurs within 0.7 miles of the project site, making the project site potential California tiger salamander upland habitat. The proposed soil remediation would require excavating contaminated soils, which will result in impacts to burrowing and dispersal habitat as well as the potential for direct injury or mortality from crushing for both species.
The project includes minimization measures for the California red-legged frog and California tiger salamander and mitigation for unavoidable impacts to the species and its habitat. The applicant has proposed a one-time fixed payment of $13,050 to the California red-legged frog mitigation account managed by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to compensate for unavoidable impacts to the California red-legged frog. To mitigate for impacts to the California tiger salamander, the applicant proposes to purchase 1.25 credits from the Service-approved La Purisima Conservation Bank located in Santa Barbara County, California.
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 view, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
The Service provides this notice under section 10(c) of the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1531
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of intent.
In compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), and the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, as amended (FLPMA), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Canyon Country District, Moab Field Office, Moab, Utah, intends to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to consider the effects of the Lisbon Valley Mining Company, LLC (LVMC) proposed plan of operations modification. This notice announces the beginning of the scoping process to solicit public comments and identify issues.
This notice initiates the public scoping process for the EIS. The BLM requests the public submit comments concerning the scope of the analysis, potential alternatives, and identification of relevant information and studies by June 27, 2024. To afford the BLM the opportunity to consider comments in the draft EIS, please ensure your comments are received prior to the close of the 30-day scoping period or 15 days after the last public meeting, whichever is later.
You may submit comments related to the plan of operations modification EIS by any of the following methods:
•
•
Documents pertinent to this proposal may be examined online at
Jill Stephenson, Planning and Environmental Specialist, telephone: 435-249-2100; address: 82 East Dogwood, Moab, UT 84532; email:
The Lisbon Valley Copper Mine is in the Lisbon Valley in San Juan County in southeast Utah. The mine, situated on Federal, State, and private lands, has been in operation under the ownership of multiple companies since 1998. LVMC has operated the mine under Plan of Operations Serial No. UTU 072499 (mine plan) since it obtained ownership in 2009. The mine plan boundary encompasses 4,480 acres, of which current operations cover 1,146 acres (BLM: 521 acres; State: 333 acres; and private: 292 acres) of disturbance. LVMC also conducts exploration activities within a 5,430-acre authorized boundary adjacent to the mine plan boundary under Exploration Plan of Operations Serial No. UTU 077879 (exploration plan). Federal, State, and private lands occur within the exploration plan boundary (BLM: 3,199 acres; State:1,056 acres; and private: 1,175 acres).
LVMC currently mines copper ore at the mine from mineralized zones in porous sandstones approximately 50 to 200 feet below the surface using conventional open pit mining methods. Waste rock material is hauled to existing waste rock storage areas or is used to backfill existing pits. The copper ore is hauled to a heap leach facility where it is crushed and stacked onto a heap leach pad. A low pH solution is sprayed onto the crushed ore and copper is leached out of the rock into solution. The resultant copper-laden solution is sent to adjacent process facilities where it undergoes solvent extraction and electrowinning processing. The final product is copper cathode of a 99.9% purity. Currently, LVMC is mining copper ore from two open pits. LVMC expects to operate the current mine until both pits are exhausted in approximately 2028.
On April 11, 2023, the BLM Moab Field Office received a proposal from LVMC to modify its current mine plan. Consistent with the surface management regulations at 43 CFR 3809.411(a), the BLM reviewed the filed plan of operations modification and accepted it as complete on May 5, 2023.
The BLM's purpose and need are to respond to LVMC's mine plan modification proposal to expand mining operations and associated infrastructure and to prevent unnecessary and undue degradation of the public lands consistent with the BLM's responsibilities under FLPMA, surface management regulations (43 CFR subpart 3809), and use and occupancy regulations (43 CFR subpart 3715).
The proposed action is to modify the mine plan to expand open pit mining and beneficiation operations and to initiate the extraction of copper through a method of in-situ recovery (ISR) mining. The proposed expansion activities would include improvement of existing mining facilities in the mine plan boundary and construction of new facilities and associated access, power, and water facilities in the exploration plan boundary. Under the proposed action there would be approximately 2,391 acres of new surface disturbance (BLM: 1,388 acres; State: 412 acres; and private: 591 acres). Reclamation would be ongoing through the different phases of mining. The life of the mine is anticipated to be 20 years with final reclamation and post-closure monitoring occurring until approximately 2066.
The mine plan modification would include the following components: open pit, backfill area, ISR wellfield (injection wells, pump-back wells, and monitor wells), waste rock storage, storm water diversion channels, sediment basins, berms, heap leach pad, process ponds, solution pipelines, access roads, and ancillary facilities (power supply; reagent, fuel, ready line; crushing area and related stockpiles; area for temporary storage of petroleum-contaminated soils; groundwater monitoring wells; water supply pipeline and facilities; and construction laydown yards).
The proposed disturbance also includes improvements to the existing mining and processing facilities and their associated roads in the mine plan
The installation of ISR wellfields would occur in conjunction with open pit mining operations. ISR activities would include the construction of access roads and approximately 1,700 well pads for injection, production, and/or monitoring that would each be 50 feet by 50 feet in size and spaced approximately 125-200 feet apart. LVMC would install the first injection and production wells in an existing pit area for a pilot test for the ISR. The pilot test at the existing pit area would last approximately one year. At the end of the pilot test, the data derived would be used to fine-tune the installation of the ISR wellfield, which would be adjacent to the new open pit. ISR mining would occur for the life of the mine until final reclamation.
In accordance with 40 CFR 1502.14(e), the BLM will develop alternatives to the proposed action in response to resource concerns and public scoping input. Resource concerns likely to influence alternatives development include water and waste management (
Surface and subsurface disturbances associated with open-pit and ISR mining techniques may result in impacts to cultural, biological, visual, and water resources (surface and groundwater, including drinking water). Mining activities would also result in emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases.
The following permits and authorizations are anticipated to be required to proceed with the proposed action:
• BLM authorization of the modification to the Plan of Operations Serial No. UTU 072499. (The total acreage of the exploration plan boundary would be reduced commensurate with the total exploration plan area that would get subsumed in the mine plan area.)
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency authorization of an Aquifer Exemption (Class III Wells) Permit.
• State of Utah, Department of Environmental Quality authorization of Class III and Class V Underground Injection Control Permits, Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Industrial Stormwater Permit (UTR00737), Ground Water Discharge Permit (UGW370005), Approval Order for Emissions Source (DAQE-AN114620014).
• State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources authorization of a Large Mining Permit (M/037/0088), Reclamation Contract (M/037/0088), Exploration Permit (E/037/0115), and Water Rights 05-2593; 05-762.
• San Juan County, Utah authorization of a Conditional Use Permit and a Building Permit.
The BLM will provide additional opportunities for public participation consistent with the NEPA process, including a 45-day comment period on the draft EIS. The draft EIS is anticipated to be available for public review in the winter of 2025, and the final EIS is anticipated to be released in the spring of 2026 with a record of decision also in the spring of 2026.
This notice of intent initiates the scoping period. The BLM will be holding one in-person public scoping meeting in Moab, Utah, and one virtual public scoping meeting. The specific dates and locations of these scoping meetings and any additional scoping meetings will be announced in advance through the BLM Moab Field Office website (
The lead agency is the BLM. During the scoping process the BLM will invite other Federal, State, and local agencies with special expertise and/or jurisdiction by law to participate as cooperating agencies in the preparation of the EIS. Tribal nations will also be invited to participate as cooperating agencies.
The responsible official for the BLM is the BLM Utah State Director. The scope of the State Director's decision is limited to the modification to the Plan of Operations Serial No. UTU 072499.
The BLM will decide whether to authorize modifications to LVMC's mine plan of operations and, if so, under what terms and conditions.
The BLM will identify, analyze, and consider mitigation to address the reasonably foreseeable impacts to resources from the proposed action and all analyzed alternatives and, in accordance with 40 CFR 1502.14(e), include appropriate mitigation measures not already included in the proposed action or alternatives. Mitigation may include avoidance, minimization, rectification, reduction or elimination over time, and compensation; and it may be considered at multiple scales, including the landscape scale.
The BLM will utilize and coordinate the NEPA process to help support compliance with applicable procedural requirements under the Endangered Species Act (16 U.S.C. 1536) and section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (54 U.S.C. 306108) as provided in 36 CFR 800.2(d)(3), including public involvement requirements of Section 106. The information about historic and cultural resources and threatened and endangered species within the area potentially affected by the proposed project will assist the BLM in identifying and evaluating impacts to such resources.
The BLM will consult with Tribal nations on a government-to-government basis in accordance with Executive Order 13175, BLM Manual Section 1780, and other Department of the Interior policies. Tribal concerns, including impacts on Indian trust assets and potential impacts to cultural resources, will be given due consideration. Federal, State, and local agencies, along with Tribal nations and other stakeholders that may be interested in or affected by the proposed project that the BLM is evaluating, are invited to participate in the scoping process and, if eligible, may request or be requested by the BLM to participate in the development of the environmental analysis as a cooperating agency.
Before including your address, 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
Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
Notice of nomination and ranking process.
The Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act and the Federal Land Transaction Facilitation Act Reauthorization of 2018 (FLTFA) require the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture to provide public notice of new procedures to identify, by State, inholdings of land or interests therein for which the landowner has indicated a desire to sell to the United States and to prioritize the acquisition of inholdings in accordance with the FLTFA. The FLTFA land acquisition program is managed through an Interagency Implementation Agreement among the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), U.S. Forest Service (USFS), and National Park Service (NPS) (collectively referred to as the Agencies).
The processes identified in this notice will take effect immediately upon publication of this notice. They will remain in effect until changed by the Agencies and announced through a notice published in the
Erica Pionke, BLM Headquarters Office, (202) 570-2624 or by email at
The FLTFA was reauthorized on March 23, 2018, under title III of Public Law 115-141 (43 U.S.C. 2301 through 2306). The FLTFA allows the Agencies to use proceeds from the sale or exchange of public land to purchase lands or interests therein in Alaska and the 11 contiguous Western States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming. The FLTFA requires public notification of the procedures used to identify, by State, inholdings of land or interests therein for which the landowner has indicated a desire to sell to the United States and to prioritize the acquisition of inholdings. The FLTFA does not require the Agencies to acquire any land or interest in land that has been nominated by a willing landowner.
(a)
(b)
(1) A national monument, area of critical environmental concern, national conservation area, national riparian conservation area, national scenic area, research natural area, national outstanding natural area, priority species and habitats designated in a land use plan in accordance with subpart E (entitled “Fish and Wildlife”) of part I of appendix C of BLM Land Use Planning Handbook H-1601-1 (Rel 1-1693), a special recreation management area, or a national natural landmark managed by the BLM;
(2) A unit of the National Park System;
(3) A unit of the National Wildlife Refuge System;
(4) A National Forest or National Grassland in the National Forest System; or
(5) An area within which the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture is otherwise authorized by law to acquire lands or interests therein that is designated as:
(i) Wilderness under the Wilderness Act (16 U.S.C. 1131
(ii) A wilderness study area;
(iii) A component of the Wild and Scenic Rivers System under the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act (16 U.S.C. 1271
(iv) A component of the National Trails System under the National Trails System Act (16 U.S.C. 1241
(c)
(1) To which there is no public access or egress; or
(2) To which public access or egress to the land is significantly restricted, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior.
(d)
(e)
Effective upon publication of this notice, at any time, a landowner or their authorized representative may nominate their land for acquisition by the Agencies if their land meets the following criteria:
(a) The landowner must be a citizen of the United States or an entity that is lawfully authorized to conduct business in the relevant State and who voluntarily indicated a desire to sell land or interest in land to the United States;
(b) The nominated parcel must be located in Alaska or any of the 11 contiguous Western States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming; and
(c) The nominated parcel must either:
(1) Meet the criteria to be identified as an inholding, which is located within a federally designated area;
(2) Be located adjacent to a federally designated area and contain exceptional resources; or
(3) Be adjacent to inaccessible lands open to public hunting, fishing, recreational shooting, or other recreational purposes.
Nominations may be presented to a local BLM Field Office; FWS Refuge
Nominations to sell land or interest in land to the United States is subject to available funding and will be prioritized and reviewed by the following groups:
(a) Regional Interagency FLTFA Team (Regional Team) consisting of at least one member from each of the Agencies having jurisdiction over the nominated parcel. Each State listed in this notice shall have a Regional Team;
(b) State and regional leadership consisting of the BLM State Director; Regional Directors of the FWS and NPS; and Regional Forester for the USFS;
(c) A National Interagency FLTFA Team consisting of one or more representatives from each of the Agencies (FLTFA Team); and an Executive Committee consisting of the BLM Director; the FWS Director; the FS Chief; and the NPS Director, or their designated representative.
Funds made available under the FLTFA shall be supplemental to any funds appropriated under the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) Act (16 U.S.C. 4601-4
Upon receipt from its local office of a nomination to sell land or interest in land to the United States, the nominating Agency will make a discretionary determination if the parcel fits within the priorities of the Agency; if the parcel provides a benefit to the federally designated area; and other criteria as determined by the Agency. If the Agency determines to move forward with the acquisition, it will submit a request for funding to the Regional Team having jurisdiction over the nominated parcel. The Regional Team will first determine if there are sufficient funds available within the State having jurisdiction over the nominated parcel to complete the acquisition. Contributions from the LWCF will be identified by the submitting Agency at the time of submission. If sufficient funds are available, the Regional Team will review and rank the nomination based on the public benefits of a potential acquisition and availability of funds. The Regional Team will then forward the proposal to the State and Regional Leadership for review and concurrence of the recommendation. Nominations approved by the State and Regional Leadership will then be forwarded to the FLTFA Team, whose duties are to consolidate nominations from multiple regions and develop a ranking recommendation to present to the Executive Committee for final funding approval. The proposed acquisition may be re-submitted in the future if sufficient funds are not available within the State having jurisdiction over the nominated parcel to complete the acquisition. There is no process for appeal if a nominated parcel is not selected or approved for funding.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to institute a modification proceeding as to the limited exclusion order (“LEO”) issued against Realtek Semiconductor Corporation (“Realtek”) of Hsinchu, Taiwan in the underlying investigation.
Richard P. Hadorn, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3179. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on June 7, 2022, based on a complaint filed by Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. of Santa Clara, California and ATI Technologies ULC of Ontario, Canada (together, “AMD”). 87 FR 34718-19 (June 7, 2022). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337 (“section 337”), based on certain graphics systems, components thereof, and digital televisions containing the same by reason of infringement of certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 7,742,053; 8,760,454; 11,184,628; 8,468,547; and 8,854,381 (“the '381 patent”).
On September 26, 2022, the Commission allowed TTE Technology, Inc. of Corona, California to intervene in this investigation as an additional respondent (collectively, with all named respondents except for Realtek, “TCL”).
On January 24, 2024, the Commission issued a final determination finding a violation of section 337 by Realtek and TCL with respect to claims 19 and 20 of the '381 patent. 89 FR 5934-35 (Jan. 30, 2024);
On February 1, 2024, Realtek filed a petition for reconsideration of the following sentence on page 59 of the Commission's Opinion: “The Commission has determined not to limit the remedial orders to `GPUs with an ARM architecture.'” On May 6, 2024, the Commission denied Realtek's petition for reconsideration, reiterating that the LEO covers any of Realtek's infringing products that are within the scope of the investigation, including those containing GPUs manufactured by entities other than ARM.
On March 28, 2024, Realtek filed an appeal from the Commission's final determination with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
On April 1, 2024, AMD and TCL filed a joint petition to modify in part the LEO as to TCL and rescind the CDOs against TCL based on a settlement agreement. On April 12, 2024, AMD and TCL filed a joint corrected petition to modify and rescind. On April 30, 2024, the Commission determined not to institute the requested modification and rescission proceedings due to the petition's failure to comply with the Commission's rules.
On April 19, 2024, pursuant to 19 U.S.C. 1337(k) and Commission Rule 210.76(a) (19 CFR 210.76(a)), Realtek filed a petition to institute a modification proceeding as to the LEO based on a changed condition of fact. Specifically, Realtek contends that, on information and belief, non-party ARM—which supplied the GPUs contained in Realtek's products adjudicated as infringing the '381 patent—recently acquired a license to the '381 patent. On May 1, 2024, AMD filed a response opposing the petition. On May 3, 2024, Realtek submitted a letter to the Secretary in reply to AMD's opposition. On May 9, 2024, AMD submitted a letter to the Secretary in response to Realtek's letter.
The Commission, having reviewed the record in this investigation, including Realtek's petition, AMD's response thereto, Realtek's letter in reply, and AMD's letter in response to Realtek's letter, has determined that Realtek's petition complies with the Commission's rules. Accordingly, the Commission has determined that institution of a modification proceeding is warranted under 19 U.S.C. 1337(k) and 19 CFR 210.76. The Commission has further determined to delegate the proceeding to a presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”). For the modification proceeding so instituted, the Chief Administrative Law Judge, shall designate the presiding ALJ. The presiding ALJ shall submit a recommended determination within six (6) months after publication of notice of this Order in the
The Commission vote for this determination took place on May 21, 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.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission (“Commission”) has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 12) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) granting-in-part a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to name two additional respondents.
Edward S. Jou, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3316. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
The Commission instituted this investigation on November 27, 2023, based upon a complaint filed on behalf of Eli Lilly and Company (“Eli Lilly”) of Indianapolis, Indiana. 88 FR 82914-15 (Nov. 27, 2023). The complaint, as supplemented, alleges violations of section 337 based upon the importation into the United States and the sale of certain products containing tirzepatide or purporting to contain tirzepatide by reason of false designation of source and false and misleading advertising, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States, and based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain products containing tirzepatide or purporting to contain tirzepatide by reason of infringement of U.S. Trademark No. 6,809,369.
The Commission's notice of investigation named as respondents Arctic Peptides LLC of Akeny, Iowa; Audrey Beauty Co. of Hong Kong, China; Biolabshop Limited of Lancaster, United Kingdom; Mew Mews Company Limited of Hong Kong, China; Strate Labs LLC of Spring, Texas; Steroide Kaufen of Bialystok, Poland; Super Human Store of Barcelona, Spain; Supopeptide of Cedar Grove, New Jersey; Triggered Supplements LLC of Clearwater, Florida; Unewlife of Cedar Grove, New Jersey; and Xiamen Austronext Trading Co., Ltd. of Fujian, China.
Respondents Unewlife, Supopeptide, and Steroide Kaufen were terminated pursuant to withdrawal of the complaint.
On March 15, 2024, Eli Lilly filed a motion to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to name four additional respondents. On March 29, 2024, OUII filed a response to the motion identifying certain deficiencies in the proposed amendment. On April 2, 2024, Eli Lilly filed a motion for leave to submit a reply in support its motion, which was granted pursuant to Order No. 11 (Apr. 3, 2024). On April 9, 2024, OUII filed a sur-reply, which did not oppose the proposed amendment with respect to three respondents.
On April 22, 2024, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting-in-part the motion to amend and addressing other related issues. The ALJ found that Eli Lilly had complied with the requirements of Commission Rule 210.14(b) (19 CFR 210.14(b)) for amendment of the complaint and notice of investigation to add two respondents: Fibonacci Sequence LLC d/b/a GenX Peptides (“GenX Peptides”) of Houston, Texas; and Paradigm Peptides of Michigan City, Indiana.
No petitions for review of the subject ID were filed.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. The complaint and notice of investigation are hereby amended to add respondents GenX Peptides and Paradigm Peptides.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on May 21, 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.
The Commission hereby gives notice that it will proceed with full reviews pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 to determine whether revocation of the countervailing duty orders on large diameter welded pipe from China, India, South Korea, and Turkey and revocation of the antidumping duty orders on large diameter welded pipe from Canada, China, Greece, India, South Korea, and Turkey would be likely to lead to continuation or recurrence of material injury within a reasonably foreseeable time. A schedule for the reviews will be established and announced at a later date.
May 6, 2024.
Nitin Joshi (202-708-1669), Office of Investigations, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436. Hearing-impaired persons can obtain information on this matter by contacting the Commission's TDD terminal on 202-205-1810. Persons with mobility impairments who will need special assistance in gaining access to the Commission should contact the Office of the Secretary at 202-205-2000. General information concerning the Commission may also be obtained by accessing its internet server (
For further information concerning the conduct of these reviews and rules of general application, consult the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, part 201, subparts A through E (19 CFR part 201), and part 207, subparts A, D, E, and F (19 CFR part 207).
On May 6, 2024, the Commission determined that it should proceed to full reviews in the subject five-year reviews pursuant to section 751(c) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). The Commission found that the domestic interested party group responses and the respondent interested party group responses from Canada and Greece to its notice of institution (89 FR 6543, February 1, 2024) were adequate, and determined to conduct full reviews of the orders on imports from Canada and Greece. The Commission also found that the respondent interested party group responses from China, India, South Korea, and Turkey were inadequate
By order of the Commission.
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that on May 17, 2024, the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) issued an Initial Determination on Violation of Section 337. The ALJ also issued a Recommended Determination on remedy and bonding should a violation be found in the above-captioned investigation. The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest
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
Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides that, if the Commission finds a violation, it shall exclude the articles concerned from the United States unless, after considering the effect of such exclusion upon the public health and welfare, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, and United States consumers, it finds that such articles should not be excluded from entry. (19 U.S.C. 1337(d)(1)). A similar provision applies to cease and desist orders. (19 U.S.C. 1337(f)(1)).
The Commission is soliciting submissions on public interest issues raised by the recommended relief should the Commission find a violation, specifically: a limited exclusion order directed to certain portable battery jump starts and components thereof imported, sold for importation, and/or sold after importation by respondents Shenzhen Carku Technology Co., Ltd. of Guangdong, China; Aukey Technology Co., Ltd. of Shenzhen, China; Metasee LLC of Pearland, Texas (“Metasee”); Ace Farmer LLC of Houston, Texas; Shenzhen Konghui Trading Co., Ltd., d/b/a Hulkman Direct of Guangdong, China (“Hulkman Direct”); HULKMAN LLC of Santa Clara, California; and Shenzhenshi Daosishangmao Youxiangongsi, d/b/a/Fanttik Direct of Guangdong, China (“Fanttik Direct”); and cease and desist orders directed to Metasee, Hulkman Direct, and Fanttik Direct. Parties are to file public interest submissions pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4).
The Commission is interested in further development of the record on the public interest in this investigation. Accordingly, members of the public and interested government agencies are invited to file submissions of no more than five (5) pages, inclusive of attachments, concerning the public interest in light of the ALJ's Recommended Determination on Remedy and Bonding issued in this investigation on May 17, 2024. Comments should address whether issuance of the recommended remedial orders in this investigation, should the Commission find a violation, would affect the public health and welfare in the United States, competitive conditions in the United States economy, the production of like or directly competitive articles in the United States, or United States consumers.
In particular, the Commission is interested in comments that:
(i) explain how the articles potentially subject to the recommended remedial orders are used in the United States;
(ii) identify any public health, safety, or welfare concerns in the United States relating to the recommended orders;
(iii) identify like or directly competitive articles that complainant, its licensees, or third parties make in the United States which could replace the subject articles if they were to be excluded;
(iv) indicate whether complainant, complainant's licensees, and/or third-party suppliers have the capacity to replace the volume of articles potentially subject to the recommended orders within a commercially reasonable time; and
(v) explain how the recommended orders would impact consumers in the United States.
Written submissions must be filed no later than by close of business on June 18, 2024.
Persons filing written submissions must file the original document electronically on or before the deadlines stated above. The Commission's paper filing requirements in 19 CFR 210.4(f) are currently waived. 85 FR 15798 (Mar. 19, 2020). Submissions should refer to the investigation number (“Inv. No. 337-TA-1360”) in a prominent place on the cover page and/or the first page. (
Any person desiring to submit a document to the Commission in confidence must request confidential treatment by marking each document with a header indicating that the document contains confidential information. This marking will be deemed to satisfy the request procedure set forth in Rules 201.6(b) and 210.5(e)(2) (19 CFR 201.6(b) & 210.5(e)(2)). Documents for which confidential treatment by the Commission is properly sought will be treated accordingly. Any non-party wishing to submit comments containing confidential information must serve those comments on the parties to the investigation pursuant to the applicable Administrative Protective Order. A redacted non-confidential version of the document must also be filed simultaneously with any confidential filing and must be served in accordance with Commission Rule 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A) (19 CFR 210.4(f)(7)(ii)(A)). All information, including confidential business information and documents for which confidential treatment is properly sought, submitted to the Commission for purposes of this investigation may be disclosed to and used: (i) by 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, solely for cybersecurity purposes. All contract personnel will sign appropriate nondisclosure agreements. All nonconfidential written submissions will be available for public inspection on EDIS.
This action is taken under the authority of 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.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of TUV SUD America, Inc. (TUVAM) for expansion of recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the Agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before June 12, 2024.
Comments may be submitted as follows:
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA is providing notice that TUV SUD America, Inc. (TUVAM) is applying for expansion of the current recognition as a NRTL. TUVAM requests the addition of eighteen recognized testing standards to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The Agency processes an application by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A, 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the Agency publish two notices in the
TUVAM currently has sixteen facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: TUV SUD America, Inc., 401 Edgewater Place, Suite 500, Wakefield, MA 01880. A complete list of TUVAM's scope of recognition (including sites recognized by OSHA) is available at:
TUVAM submitted an application to OSHA for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition on September 30, 2021 (OSHA-2007-0043-0059), requesting the expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition to include eighteen additional test standards. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews with respect to this application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in TUVAM's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
TUVAM submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application file, and pertinent documentation, indicate that TUVAM can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding their recognition to include the addition of eighteen additional testing standards for NRTL testing and certification. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of TUVAM's applications. OSHA seeks comment on this preliminary determination.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether TUVAM meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified.
To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. These materials also are generally available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments, staff will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant TUVAM's applications for expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the applications. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the Agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Section 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of UL LLC, for expansion of the scope of recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's preliminary finding to grant the application. Additionally, OSHA proposes to add one test standard to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before June 12, 2024.
Submit comments by any of the following methods:
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA is providing notice that UL LLC, (UL) is applying to expand the current recognition as a NRTL. UL requests the addition of one test standard to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within the scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by the applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes applications by NRTLs or applicant organizations for initial recognition, as well as for expansion or renewal of recognition, following requirements in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
UL currently has fifty-five facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with headquarters located at: UL LLC, 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, Illinois 60062. A complete list of UL sites recognized by OSHA is available at
UL submitted an application, dated July 26, 2022 (OSHA-2009-0025-0062), to expand recognition to include one additional test standard. OSHA staff performed a detailed analysis of the application packet and other pertinent information. OSHA did not perform any on-site reviews in relation to this application.
Table 1, below, lists the test standard found in UL's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
Periodically, OSHA will propose to add new test standards to the NRTL list of appropriate test standards following an evaluation of the test standard document. To qualify as an appropriate test standard, the agency evaluates the document to: (1) verify it represents a product category for which OSHA requires certification by a NRTL; (2) verify the document represents a
In this notice, OSHA proposes to add one new test standard to the NRTL Program's list of appropriate test standards. Table 2, below, lists the test standard that is new to the NRTL Program. OSHA preliminarily determines that this test standard is an appropriate test standard. OSHA seeks public comment on this preliminary determination.
UL submitted an acceptable application for expansion of the scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application files and related material preliminarily indicates that UL can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding recognition to include the addition of the test standard listed above for NRTL testing and certification. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of UL's application.
OSHA also preliminarily determined that the test standard listed above is an appropriate test standard.
OSHA seeks public comment on these preliminary determinations.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether UL meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL and whether the test standard listed above is an appropriate test standard that should be included in the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified.
To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. These materials also are generally available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner and after addressing the issues raised by these comments, make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant UL's application for expansion of its scope of recognition and to add the test standards listed above to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application and on adding the test standard listed above to the NRTL Program's List of Appropriate Test Standards. In making these decisions, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of its final decision in the
James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393, Sept. 18, 2020)), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), Labor.
Notice.
In this notice, OSHA announces the application of Nemko North America, Inc. (NNA) for expansion of recognition as a Nationally Recognized Testing Laboratory (NRTL) and presents the agency's preliminary finding to grant the application.
Submit comments, information, and documents in response to this notice, or requests for an extension of time to make a submission, on or before June 12, 2024.
Comments may be submitted as follows:
Information regarding this notice is available from the following sources:
OSHA is providing notice that Nemko North America, Inc. (NNA) is applying for expansion of the current recognition as a NRTL. NNA requests the addition of nineteen recognized testing standards and one recognized testing site to the NRTL scope of recognition.
OSHA recognition of a NRTL signifies that the organization meets the requirements specified in 29 CFR 1910.7. Recognition is an acknowledgment that the organization can perform independent safety testing and certification of the specific products covered within its scope of recognition. Each NRTL's scope of recognition includes (1) the type of products the NRTL may test, with each type specified by its applicable test standard; and (2) the recognized site(s) that has/have the technical capability to perform the product-testing and product-certification activities for test standards within the NRTL's scope. Recognition is not a delegation or grant of government authority; however, recognition enables employers to use products approved by the NRTL to meet OSHA standards that require product testing and certification.
The agency processes an application by a NRTL for initial recognition and for an expansion or renewal of this recognition, following requirements in Appendix A, 29 CFR 1910.7. This appendix requires that the agency publish two notices in the
NNA currently has two facilities (sites) recognized by OSHA for product testing and certification, with its headquarters located at: Nemko North America, Inc., 2210 Faraday Avenue, Suite 150, Carlsbad, California 92008. A complete list of NNA's scope of recognition (including sites recognized by OSHA) is available at:
NNA submitted an application to OSHA for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition. The application, dated October 24, 2023 (OSHA-2013-0016-0026), requested the expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition to include one additional test site located at: 1601 N A.W. Grimes Blvd., Suite B, Round Rock, Texas 78665 and nineteen additional test standards. OSHA staff performed an on-site review of NNA's testing facilities at NNA Austin, Texas on January 23-24, 2024, in which assessors found some nonconformances with the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7. NNA has addressed these issues sufficiently, and OSHA staff has preliminarily determined that OSHA should grant the application.
Table 1 below lists the appropriate test standards found in NNA's application for expansion for testing and certification of products under the NRTL Program.
NNA submitted acceptable application for expansion of the NRTL scope of recognition. OSHA's review of the application files, and pertinent documentation, indicate that NNA can meet the requirements prescribed by 29 CFR 1910.7 for expanding their recognition to include the addition of nineteen additional testing standards and one additional testing site for NRTL testing and certification. This preliminary finding does not constitute an interim or temporary approval of NNA's application. OSHA seeks comment on this preliminary determination.
OSHA welcomes public comment as to whether NNA meets the requirements of 29 CFR 1910.7 for expansion of recognition as a NRTL. Comments should consist of pertinent written documents and exhibits.
Commenters needing more time to comment must submit a request in writing, stating the reasons for the request by the due date for comments. OSHA will limit any extension to 10 days unless the requester justifies a longer time period. OSHA may deny a request for an extension if it is not adequately justified.
To review copies of the exhibits identified in this notice, as well as comments submitted to the docket, contact the Docket Office, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor. These materials also are generally available online at
OSHA staff will review all comments to the docket submitted in a timely manner. After addressing the issues raised by these comments, staff will make a recommendation to the Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health on whether to grant NNA's application for expansion of the scope of recognition. The Assistant Secretary will make the final decision on granting the application. In making this decision, the Assistant Secretary may undertake other proceedings prescribed in Appendix A to 29 CFR 1910.7.
OSHA will publish a public notice of the final decision in the
James S. Frederick, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, authorized the preparation of this notice. Accordingly, the agency is issuing this notice pursuant to Section 29 U.S.C. 657(g)(2), Secretary of Labor's Order No. 8-2020 (85 FR 58393; Sept. 18, 2020), and 29 CFR 1910.7.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has issued an exemption in response to an exemption request from Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DENC, the licensee) submitted by letter dated May 2, 2023.
The exemption was issued on May 21, 2024.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0102 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Richard Guzman, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-1030; email:
The licensee is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49, which authorizes operation of Millstone Power Station, Unit No. 3 (Millstone 3), a pressurized-water reactor. The license provides, among other things, that the facility is subject to all rules, regulations, and orders of the NRC now or hereafter in effect. By letter dated May 2, 2023, as supplemented by letter dated April 1, 2024, DENC requested an exemption to section 50.46 of title 10 of the
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dominion Energy Nuclear Connecticut, Inc. (DENC, the licensee) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License No. NPF-49, which authorizes operation of Millstone Power
Millstone 3 shares the site with Millstone Power Station, Unit 1, a permanently defueled boiling water reactor nuclear unit, and Millstone Power Station, Unit 2, a PWR. The facility is located in Waterford, Connecticut, approximately 3.2 miles west southwest of New London, Connecticut. This exemption applies to Millstone 3 only. The other units, Units 1 and 2, are not covered by this exemption.
By letter dated May 2, 2023 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML23123A279), as supplemented by letter dated April 1, 2024 (ML24093A216), DENC, requested an exemption to title 10 of the
This exemption request relates solely to the specific types of cladding materials for which 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix K, are expressly applicable, namely zircaloy and ZIRLO
This exemption request is specific to the M5
Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the licensee requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46, and appendix K to 10 CFR part 50. The proposed exemption request would permit application of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 to fuel assemblies containing fuel rods fabricated with M5
The technical basis for the use of fuel clad with M5
This TR describes Framatome's evaluation for the use of the M5
The regulation in 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1)(i) requires, in part, that each boiling or pressurized light-water nuclear power reactor fueled with uranium oxide pellets within cylindrical zircaloy or ZIRLO
Paragraph I.A.5, “Metal—Water Reaction Rate,” of appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 requires the Baker-Just equation be used in the ECCS evaluation model to determine the rate of energy release, hydrogen generation, and cladding oxidation. The requirement for using the Baker-Just equation in appendix K conformant loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA) evaluation models presume use of zircaloy- or ZIRLO
In accordance with 10 CFR 50.12, the NRC may grant an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR part 50 if the exemption is authorized by law. The exemption requested in this instance is authorized by law, because no other prohibition of law exists to preclude the activities which would be authorized by the exemption.
This exemption would allow the use of M5
The 10 CFR 50.46 requirements establish acceptance criteria for ECCS performance for reactors fueled with zircaloy or ZIRLO cladding during a LOCA. The technical basis for the use of fuel clad with M5
Paragraph I.A.5 of appendix K to 10 CFR 50 requires that the Baker-Just equation be used in the ECCS evaluation
The NRC staff has reviewed the SBLOCA and RLBLOCA analyses in Attachments 3 through 6 in the licensee's May 2, 2023, letter, and concluded in a safety evaluation (ML24109A003) that the LOCA analyses meet the applicable acceptance criteria, confirming that the use of M5
The proposed exemption will allow the licensee to use M5
Special circumstances, in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(a)(2)(ii), are present whenever application of the regulation in the circumstances would not serve the purpose of the rule or is not necessary to achieve the purpose of the rule.
The underlying purpose of 10 CFR 50.46 and appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 is to establish acceptance criteria for ECCS performance to provide reasonable assurance of safety in the event of a LOCA. Although the regulations in 10 CFR 50.46 and appendix K to 10 CFR part 50 are not expressly applicable to M5
Paragraph I.A.5 of appendix K to 10 CFR 50 requires that the Baker-Just equation be used in the ECCS EMs to determine the rate of energy release, cladding oxidation, and hydrogen generation. The NRC-approved TR BAW-10227-P-A, Revision 1 demonstrated that the Baker-Just model is conservative in the postulated LOCA scenarios with respect to the use of the M5
Neither 10 CFR 50.46 acceptance criteria nor the 10 CFR 50 appendix K requirements for use of the Baker-Just equation in the ECCS EMs allows the use of M5
With respect to its impact on the quality of the human environment, the NRC has determined that the issuance of the exemption discussed herein meets the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9) because it is related to a requirement concerning the installation or use of a facility component located within the restricted area, as defined in 10 CFR part 20, and issuance of this exemption involves: (i) no significant hazards consideration; (ii) no significant change in the types or a significant increase in the amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite; and (iii) no significant increase in individual or cumulative occupational radiation exposure. Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the NRC's consideration of this exemption request. The basis for the NRC staff's determination is discussed as follows with an evaluation against each of the requirements in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i)-(iii).
The NRC evaluated whether the exemption involves no significant hazards consideration using the standards described in 10 CFR 50.92(c), as presented below:
1. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
The proposed exemption would allow the use of M5
Therefore, the proposed exemption does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed exemption create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
The use of M5
Therefore, the proposed exemption does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed exemption involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
The proposed exemption will not involve a significant reduction in the margin of safety because it has been demonstrated that the material properties of the M5
Therefore, the proposed exemption does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above evaluation of the standards set forth in 10 CFR 50.92(c), the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption involves no significant hazards consideration. Accordingly, the requirements of 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9)(i) are met.
The proposed exemption would allow the use of M5
The proposed exemption would allow the use of M5
Based on the above, the NRC staff concludes that the proposed exemption meets the eligibility criteria for the categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(9). Therefore, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.22(b), no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the NRC's issuance of this exemption.
Accordingly, the Commission has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12, the exemption is authorized by law, will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety, and is consistent with the common defense and security. Also, special circumstances are present. Therefore, the Commission hereby grants DENC an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and 10 CFR part 50, appendix K. The proposed exemption request would permit application of the requirements of 10 CFR 50.46 and appendix K to fuel rod cladding with M5
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 21st day of May, 2024.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering issuance of an exemption in response to the April 24, 2023, request from Connecticut Yankee Atomic Power Company (CYAPCO), for the Haddam Neck Plant (HNP or Haddam Neck) located in East Hampton, Connecticut. The proposed exemption from NRC regulations, if granted, would permit CYAPCO to make withdrawals from a segregated account within Haddam Neck's overall nuclear decommissioning trust (NDT), on an annual basis, for spent nuclear fuel (SNF) and Greater than Class C (GTCC) waste management and non-radiological site restoration without prior notification to the NRC. The NRC staff is issuing an environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact (FONSI) associated with the proposed exemption.
The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on May 28, 2024.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0093 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Tilda Liu, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 404-997-4730; email:
By letter dated April 24, 2023, CYAPCO submitted a request to the NRC for an exemption from paragraphs 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2) of title 10 of the
CYAPCO has established a separate (segregated) account within its over-arching NDT, entitled “ISFSI Radiological Decom,” that identifies the funds for radiological decommissioning of the ISFSI apart from the larger balance of funds in the NDT allocated for ongoing management of SNF and GTCC waste and for non-radiological site restoration activities. Although 10 CFR 50.82 applies to the segregated account, it does not apply to the overall NDT.
If granted, the exemptions from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(2) would permit CYAPCO to make withdrawals from the segregated account, on an annual basis, for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration without prior notification to the NRC. More specifically, with this exemption, CYAPCO would be able to annually transfer funds exceeding 110 percent of the inflation-adjusted decommissioning cost estimate (DCE), described in 10 CFR 50.75, from the segregated account to its overarching NDT and use those funds for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration.
HNP began commercial operations in January 1968, and ceased power production in December 1996. CYAPCO initiated decommissioning shortly thereafter. In July 2007, HNP completed its final decommissioning of the reactor site, except for the ISFSI, which included dismantling and removing all reactor plant related facilities. As a result, only the ISFSI remains at the old plant site of HNP in East Hampton, Connecticut.
By letter dated November 26, 2007, NRC approved the release of most portions of the HNP site from the 10 CFR part 50 license (DPR-61) for unrestricted release, except for the ISFSI and immediately surrounding areas. Under its 10 CFR part 72 general license, HNP is authorized to possess, and store SNF at the permanently shut down and decommissioned facility under the provision of 10 CFR part 72, subpart K, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites.”
The NRC staff is performing both a safety evaluation and an environmental review to determine whether to grant this exemption request. The NRC staff will prepare a separate safety evaluation report (SER) to document its safety review and analysis. The NRC's SER will evaluate the proposed exemption for reasonable assurance of adequate protection of public health and safety, and the common defense and security. This EA documents the environmental review which the NRC staff prepared in accordance with 10 CFR 51.21 and 51.30(a). The NRC's decision whether to grant the exemption will be based on the results of the NRC staff's review as documented in this EA, and the staff's safety review to be documented in the SER.
By letter dated April 24, 2023, CYAPCO submitted a request to the NRC for an exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2). If granted, the proposed exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(2) would permit CYAPCO to make withdrawals from the segregated account, on an annual basis, for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration without prior notification to the NRC. More specifically, with this exemption, CYAPCO would be able to annually transfer funds exceeding 110 percent of the inflation-adjusted DCE, described in 10 CFR 50.75, from the segregated account to its overarching NDT and use those funds for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration activities.
As required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A), decommissioning trust funds may be used by the licensee if the withdrawals are for legitimate decommissioning activity expenses, consistent with the definition of decommissioning in 10 CFR 50.2. This definition addresses radiological decommissioning and does not include activities associated with management of SNF and GTCC waste or non-radiological site restoration. Similarly, the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2) restrict the use of decommissioning trust fund disbursements (other than for ordinary and incidental expenses) to decommissioning expenses until final decommissioning has been completed.
CYAPCO stated that it has established a segregated account, entitled “ISFSI Radiological Decom,” within its over-arching NDT, that identifies the funds for radiological decommissioning of the ISFSI. This segregated account is apart from the larger balance of funds in the NDT allocated for ongoing management of SNF and GTCC waste and for other non-radiological site restoration activities. Therefore, exemption from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 50.75(h)(2) is needed to allow CYAPCO to use funds from the segregated account for SNF and GTCC waste management and other non-radiological site restoration activities.
In its Decommissioning Funding Assurance Status Report dated March 6, 2023, CYAPCO stated that, its inflation-adjusted DCE for the radiological decommissioning of the ISFSI is approximately $7.1 million in 2022 dollars. It asserted this amount provides reasonable assurance of adequate funding to complete the NRC required decommissioning activities. In the same report, CYAPCO reported that the segregated “ISFSI Radiological Decom” account had $46.4 million in 2022 dollars as of December 31, 2022. More specifically, in its exemption request, CYAPCO provided a table showing $7,070,450, in 2022 dollars, as the inflation-adjusted DCE. CYAPCO's exemption request further stated that the segregated account has a balance of $47,609,309 as of December 31, 2022, meaning that the segregated account had a balance of $40,538,859, or 573 percent beyond the inflation-adjusted DCE.
CYAPCO stated that, if the exemption is granted, funds in its segregated account which exceed 110 percent of the inflation-adjusted DCE for the radiological decommissioning of the ISFSI would be transferred to the overarching NDT on an annual basis without prior NRC notification. CYAPCO would then use those funds for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration, which in turn, would allow CYAPCO to return its additional excess funds in the overarching NDT to its customers as part of future rate cases with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.
The requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2) further provide that, except for withdrawals being made under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8) or for payments of ordinary administrative costs and other incidental expenses of the NDT in connection with the operation of the NDT, no disbursement may be made from the NDT without written notice to the NRC at least 30 working days in advance. Therefore, an exemption from 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2) is also needed to allow CYAPCO to use funds from the segregated account for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration activities without prior NRC notification.
The proposed action involves an exemption from requirements that are of financial and/or administrative nature and that do not have an impact on the environment. Before the NRC could approve the proposed action, it would have to conclude that there is reasonable assurance that adequate funds are available in the segregated account to complete all activities associated with radiological decommissioning as well as SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration. Therefore, there would be no decrease in safety associated with the use of funds from the segregated account to also fund activities associated with SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site-restoration.
The requested exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2), if approved, would allow transfers on an annual basis. CYAPCO stated that it will continue to provide its annual decommissioning funding assurance status report in accordance with 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1) and (2) and 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(v) and (vi) requirements. These reports provide the NRC staff with awareness of, and the ability to act on, any actual or potential funding deficiencies. As the proposed exemption would not affect these requirements, the NRC staff would have tools available for any potential funding deficiencies. Since the exemption would allow CYAPCO to use funds from the segregated account that are in excess of those required for radiological decommissioning, the adequacy of funds dedicated for radiological decommissioning would not be affected by the proposed exemption. Therefore, there is reasonable assurance that there would be no environmental impact due to lack of adequate funding for radiological decommissioning.
Further, there are no new accident precursors created by using the excess funds from the segregated account for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site-restoration. The exemption, if granted, would be financial and/or administrative in nature. Thus, the probability of postulated accidents is not increased. Also, the consequences of postulated accidents are not increased. No changes are being made in the types or amounts of effluents that may be released offsite. There is no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, the requested exemption will not present an undue risk to the public health and safety.
With regard to potential non-radiological impacts, the proposed action would have no direct impacts on land use or water resources, including terrestrial and aquatic biota, as it involves no new construction or modification of plant operational systems. There would be no changes to the quality or quantity of non-radiological effluents. In addition, there would be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region, no environmental justice impacts, no air quality impacts, and no impacts to historic and cultural resources from the proposed action. Therefore, there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
For these reasons, the NRC concludes there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed exemption request.
In addition to the proposed action, the NRC staff also considered denial of the proposed action (
There are no unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources under the proposed action.
By email dated April 5, 2024, the NRC provided a copy of the draft EA to the Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Radiation Division, for review. By email dated May 6, 2024, Connecticut Department of Energy and Environmental Protection, Radiation Division, indicated that it had no comments.
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), requires Federal agencies to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or National Marine Fisheries Service regarding actions that may affect listed species or designated critical habitats. The ESA is intended to prevent further decline of endangered and threatened species and restore those species and their critical habitat.
The NRC staff determined that a consultation under section 7 of the ESA is not required because the proposed action will not affect listed species or critical habitat.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. As stated in the NHPA, historic properties are any prehistoric or historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places.
The NRC determined that the scope of activities described in this exemption request do not have the potential to cause effects on historic properties because the NRC's approval of this exemption request will not authorize new construction or land disturbance activities. The NRC staff also determined that the proposed action is not a type of activity that has the potential to impact historic properties because the proposed action would occur within the established HNP site boundary. Therefore, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3(a)(1), no consultation is required under section 106 of NHPA.
The environmental impacts of the proposed action—an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) and 10 CFR 50.75(h)(2) allowing CYAPCO to make withdrawals from the segregated account, on an annual basis, for SNF and GTCC waste management and non-radiological site restoration without prior notification to the NRC—have been reviewed under the requirements in 10 CFR part 51, which implement the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended.
The proposed exemption would not have a significant adverse effect on the probability of an accident occurring and would not have any significant radiological or non-radiological impacts. The proposed exemption involves an
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS, as indicated.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; receipt.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is providing public notice each week for four consecutive weeks of receipt and availability of an application for a construction permit for a single unit reactor facility from US SFR Owner, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of TerraPower, LLC. The application for the construction permit was received on March 28, 2024, and a supplement to the application was submitted on May 2, 2024.
May 28, 2024.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0078 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:
•
•
•
Mallecia Sutton, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0673, email:
On March 28, 2024, TerraPower, LLC (TerraPower), on behalf of US SFR Owner, LLC., a wholly owned subsidiary of TerraPower, filed an application for a construction permit for a single-unit power reactor facility located in Lincoln County, Wyoming, pursuant to section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act, as amended, and part 50 of title 10 of the
The application submitted on March 28, 2024, is available in ADAMS under Package Accession No. ML24088A059. Along with other documents, the ADAMS package includes the transmittal letter (ADAMS Accession No. ML24088A060), the preliminary safety analysis report (ADAMS Accession No. ML24088A065), and the environmental report (ADAMS Accession No. ML24088A072). The application was supplemented on May 2, 2024 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24123A242). The information submitted by the applicant includes certain administrative information submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.33, such as on financial qualifications; technical information submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 50.34; and the environmental report submitted pursuant to 10 CFR part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.” These notices are being provided in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.43(a)(3).
The NRC staff is currently undertaking its acceptance review of the application. If the application is accepted for docketing, a subsequent
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice; issuance.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) issued an exemption to Constellation Energy Generation, LLC, permitting Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant to maintain nine loaded and to load six new 37 multi-purpose canisters (MPC) with continuous basket shims in HI-STORM Flood/Wind MPC Storage System at its Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2 independent spent fuel storage installation in a storage condition where the terms, conditions, and specifications in the Certificate of Compliance No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1, are not met.
The exemption was issued on May 20, 2024.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0085 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
Yen-Ju Chen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555; telephone: 301-415-1018; email:
The text of the exemption is attached.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Constellation Energy Generation, LLC (Constellation) is the holder of Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-53 and DPR-69, which authorize operation of the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant (CCNPP), Units 1 and 2, in Lusby, Maryland, pursuant to part 50 of title 10 of the
Consistent with 10 CFR part 72, subpart K, “General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites,” a general license is issued for the storage of spent fuel in an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) at power reactor sites to persons authorized to possess or operate nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR part 50. Constellation is authorized to operate nuclear power reactors under 10 CFR part 50 and holds a 10 CFR part 72 general license for storage of spent fuel at the CCNPP ISFSI. Under the terms of the general license, Constellation stores spent fuel at its CCNPP ISFSI using the HI-STORM Flood/Wind (FW) Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC) Storage System in accordance with Certificate of Compliance (CoC) No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1.
By a letter dated March 22, 2024 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System [ADAMS] Accession No. ML24082A008), Constellation requested an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11), and 72.214 that require CCNPP to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1 (ML15152A358). If approved, Constellation's exemption request would accordingly allow CCNPP to maintain nine loaded and to load six MPCs with continuous basket shims (CBS) (
Constellation currently uses the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System under CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1, for dry storage of spent nuclear fuel in MPC-37 at the CCNPP ISFSI. Holtec International (Holtec), the designer and manufacturer of the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System, developed a variant of the design with CBS for the MPC-37, known as MPC-37-CBS. Holtec performed a non-mechanistic tip-over analysis with favorable results and implemented the CBS variant design under the provisions of 10 CFR 72.48, “Changes, tests, and experiments,” which allows licensees to make changes to cask designs without a CoC amendment under certain conditions (listed in 10 CFR 72.48(c)). After evaluating the specific changes to the cask designs, the NRC determined that Holtec erred when it implemented the CBS variant design under 10 CFR 72.48, as this is not the type of change allowed without a CoC amendment. For this reason, the NRC issued three Severity Level IV violations to Holtec (ML24016A190).
Prior to the issuance of the violations, Constellation had loaded nine MPC-37-
Pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, “Specific exemptions,” the Commission may, upon application by any interested person or upon its own initiative, grant such exemptions from the requirements of the regulations of 10 CFR part 72 as it determines are authorized by law and will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security and are otherwise in the public interest.
This exemption would allow Constellation to maintain nine loaded and to load six MPC-37-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System at its CCNPP ISFSI in a storage condition where the terms, conditions, and specifications in the CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1, are not met. Constellation is requesting an exemption from the provisions in 10 CFR part 72 that require the licensee to comply with the terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC for the approved cask model it uses. Section 72.7 allows the NRC to grant exemptions from the requirements of 10 CFR part 72. This authority to grant exemptions is consistent with the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and is not otherwise inconsistent with NRC's regulations or other applicable laws. Additionally, no other law prohibits the activities that would be authorized by the exemption. Therefore, the NRC concludes that there is no statutory prohibition on the issuance of the requested exemption, and the NRC is authorized to grant the exemption by law.
This exemption would allow Constellation to maintain nine loaded and to load six MPC-37-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System at the CCNPP ISFSI in a storage condition where the terms, conditions, and specifications in the CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1, are not met. In support of its exemption request, Constellation asserts that issuance of the exemption would not endanger life or property because the administrative controls the applicant has in place prevent a tip-over or handling event, and that the containment boundary would be maintained in such an event. Constellation relies, in part, on the approach in the NRC's Safety Determination Memorandum (ML24018A085). The NRC issued this Safety Determination Memorandum to address whether, with respect to the enforcement action against Holtec regarding this violation, there was any need to take an immediate action for the cask systems that were already loaded with non-compliant basket designs. The Safety Determination Memorandum documents a risk-informed approach concluding that, during the design basis event of a non-mechanistic tip-over, the fuel in the basket in the MPC-37-CBS remains in a subcritical condition.
Constellation also provided site-specific technical information, including information explaining why the use of the approach in the NRC's Safety Determination Memorandum is appropriate for determining the safe use of the CBS variant baskets at the CCNPP ISFSI. Specifically, Constellation described that the analysis of the tip-over design basis event that is relied upon in the NRC's Safety Determination Memorandum, which demonstrates that the MPC confinement barrier is maintained, is documented in the updated final safety analysis report (UFSAR) for the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System CoC No. 1032, Amendment 1, Revision No. 1, that is used at the CCNPP site. Constellation also described its administrative controls for handling of the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System at the CCNPP ISFSI to prevent a tip-over or handling event. Those controls include using single-failure-proof handling systems as defined in Section 5.1.6 of NUREG-0612, “Control of Heavy Loads at Nuclear Power Plants” (ML070250180). CCNPP's UFSAR Section 5.7 describes the spent fuel cask handling crane as being designated single-failure-proof using criteria from NUREG-0554, “Single-Failure-Proof Cranes For Nuclear Power Plants.” Constellation referenced its “Rigging and Lifting Program” and use of the Lift Lock (a special lifting device designed to the increased stress limits of ANSI N14.6, “for Radioactive Materials—Special Lifting Devices for Shipping Containers Weighing 10 000 Pounds (4500 kg) or More”) to further demonstrate that CCNPP has applicable operational procedures in place to safely load, process, transfer and move the MPCs in accordance with the Technical Specifications in Appendix A of the CoC and the HI-STORM FW UFSAR.
Additionally, Constellation provided specific information from CCNPP's 72.212 Evaluation Report, Revision 3, indicating that during the design basis event of a non-mechanistic tip-over, CCNPP's ISFSI would meet the requirements in 10 CFR 72.104, “Criteria for radioactive materials in effluents and direct radiation from an ISFSI or MRS,” and 72.106, “Controlled area of an ISFSI or MRS.” Specifically, Constellation described that, in the highly unlikely event of a tip-over, any potential fuel damage from a non-mechanistic tip-over event would be localized, the confinement barrier would be maintained, and the shielding material would remain intact. Coupled with the distance of the CCNPP ISFSI to the site area boundary, Constellation concluded that compliance with 72.104 and 72.106 is not impacted by approving this exemption request.
The NRC staff reviewed the information provided by Constellation and concludes that issuance of the exemption would not endanger life or property because the administrative controls Constellation has in place at the CCNPP ISFSI sufficiently minimize the possibility of a tip-over or handling event, and that the containment boundary would be maintained in such an event. The staff confirmed that these administrative controls are documented in the Technical Specifications and UFSAR for the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System CoC No. 1032, Amendment 1, Revision No. 1, that is used at the CCNPP site. In addition, the staff confirmed that the information provided by Constellation regarding CCNPP's 72.212 Evaluation Report, Revision 3, demonstrates that the consequences of normal and accident conditions would be within the regulatory limits of the 10 CFR 72.104 and 10 CFR 72.106. The staff also determined that the requested exemption is not related to any aspect of the physical security or defense of the CCNPP ISFSI; therefore, granting the
For these reasons, the NRC staff has determined that under the requested exemption, the storage system will continue to meet the safety requirements of 10 CFR part 72 and the offsite dose limits of 10 CFR part 20 and, therefore, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security.
The proposed exemption would allow the nine already loaded MPC-37-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System to remain in storage at the CCNPP ISFSI, and allow Constellation to load six MPC-37-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System beginning in July 2024 at the CCNPP ISFSI, even though the CBS variant basket design is not part of the approved CoC No. 1032, Amendment No. 1, Revision No. 1. According to Constellation, the exemption is in the public interest because unloading fuel from already loaded canisters and not being able to load fuel into dry storage in the future loading campaign would impact Constellation's ability to offload fuel from the CCNPP reactor units, consequently impacting continued safe reactor operation. The reflooding of the MPCs, removal of fuel assemblies, and replacement into a different MPC would result in additional doses and handling operations with no added safety benefit. In addition, future loading campaigns would need to be delayed until older design canisters can be fabricated and delivered to the site.
Constellation stated that to unload already loaded MPC-37-CBS or delay the future loading campaign would impact the ability to effectively manage the margin to full core discharge capability in the CCNPP Units 1 and 2 spent fuel pools. The low spent fuel pool capability would make it difficult to refuel and present potential risks to fuel handling operations during pre- and post-outage. In addition, a crowded spent fuel pool would challenge the decay heat removal demand of the pool and increase the likelihood of a loss of fuel pool cooling event and a fuel handling accident. It could also result in higher dose to divers routinely performing underwater maintenance on the spent fuel pool fuel transfer system. Furthermore, CCNPP planned the cask loading campaigns years in advance based on availability of the specialized workforce and equipment that is shared throughout the Constellation fleet. These specialty resources support competing priorities including refueling outages, loading campaigns, fuel pool cleanouts, fuel inspections, fuel handing equipment upgrade and maintenance, fuel sipping, new fuel receipt, and crane maintenance and upgrades. Any delays would have a cascading impact on other scheduled specialized activities.
For the reasons described by Constellation in the exemption request, the NRC agrees that it is in the public interest to grant the exemption. If the exemption is not granted, in order to comply with the CoC, Constellation would have to unload MPC-37-CBS from the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System at the CCNPP ISFSI and reload into the older design MPC-37 to restore compliance with terms, conditions, and specifications of the CoC. This would subject onsite personnel to additional radiation exposure, increase the risk of a possible fuel handling accident, and increase the risk of a possible heavy load handling accident. Furthermore, the removed spent fuel would need to be placed in the spent fuel pool until it can be loaded into another storage cask or remain in the spent fuel pool if it is not permitted to be loaded into casks for the future loading campaign. As described by Constellation, this scenario would affect Constellation's ability to effectively manage the spent pool capacity and reactor fuel offloading at CCNPP. In addition, the rescheduling of the specialized resources for the future loading campaign would impact the operations of CCNPP and other Constellation sites.
Therefore, the staff concludes that approving the exemption is in the public interest.
The NRC staff also considered whether there would be any significant environmental impacts associated with the exemption. For this proposed action, the NRC staff performed an environmental assessment pursuant to 10 CFR 51.30. The environmental assessment concluded that the proposed action would not significantly impact the quality of the human environment. The NRC staff concluded that the proposed action would not result in any changes in the types or amounts of any radiological or non-radiological effluents that may be released offsite, and there would be no significant increase in occupational or public radiation exposure because of the proposed action. The environmental assessment and the finding of no significant impact was published on May 20, 2024 (89 FR 43878).
Based on these considerations, the NRC has determined that, pursuant to 10 CFR 72.7, the exemption is authorized by law, will not endanger life or property or the common defense and security, and is otherwise in the public interest. Therefore, the NRC grants Constellation an exemption from the requirements of §§ 72.212(a)(2), 72.212(b)(3), 72.212(b)(5)(i), 72.212(b)(11), and 72.214 with respect to the ongoing storage of nine MPC-37-CBS in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System and a future loading in the HI-STORM FW MPC Storage System of six new MPC-37-CBS beginning in July 2024.
This exemption is effective upon issuance.
Dated: May 20, 2024.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Opportunity to request a hearing and to petition for leave to intervene.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has received a license amendment application from Northern States Power Company (NSPM) for an amendment to Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-2506 for the Prairie Island Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (PI ISFSI) located in Welch, Minnesota. The amendment request seeks to change License Conditions 23(a), 24(A)(2), and 24(B)(2). The subject license conditions are management activities with specified inspection intervals of three months or one quarter. The inspection intervals are “not to exceed every quarter” for license condition 23 and “not to exceed three months” for license condition 24. This is inconsistent with similar independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) technical specifications (TS) surveillance requirements (SRs), for example, SR
A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene must be filed by July 29, 2024.
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0086 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You may obtain publicly available information related to this document using any of the following methods:
•
•
•
John-Chau Nguyen, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-0262; email:
The NRC received, by letter dated April 2, 2024 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24095A075), a license amendment application from NSPM, to amend Special Nuclear Materials License No. SNM-2506, which authorizes the storage of spent fuel at the PI ISFSI located in Welch, Minnesota. Specifically, the proposed amendment, if approved, would allow NSPM to perform inspections with intervals similar to TS Surveillance Requirement Frequency, allowing up to 1.25 times the specified intervals. An interval extension period will provide flexibility to schedule the inspections around typical challenges, including but not limited to inclement weather, security drills, and refueling outages. The proposed changes to the inspection intervals in the subject license conditions also make them more consistent with the ISFSI TS.
An NRC administrative completeness review, documented in a letter to NSPM dated May 16, 2024 (ADAMS Accession No. ML24128A257), found the application acceptable to begin a technical review.
Before any issuance of the proposed amendment, the NRC will need to make the findings required by the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and the NRC's regulations. The NRC's findings will be documented in a safety evaluation report. In the amendment request, NSPM asserted that the proposed amendment satisfies the categorical exclusion criteria of paragraph 51.22(c)(11) of title 10 of the
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, any person (petitioner) whose interest may be affected by this action may file a request for a hearing and petition for leave to intervene (petition) with respect to the action. Petitions shall be filed in accordance with the NRC's “Agency Rules of Practice and Procedure” in 10 CFR part 2. Interested persons should consult 10 CFR 2.309. If a petition is filed, the presiding officer will rule on the petition and, if appropriate, a notice of a hearing will be issued.
Petitions must be filed no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice in accordance with the filing instructions in the “Electronic Submissions (E-Filing)” section of this document. Petitions and motions for leave to file new or amended contentions that are filed after the deadline will not be entertained absent a determination by the presiding officer that the filing demonstrates good cause by satisfying the three factors in 10 CFR 2.309(c)(1)(i) through (iii).
A State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof, may submit a petition to the Commission to participate as a party under 10 CFR 2.309(h) no later than 60 days from the date of publication of this notice. Alternatively, a State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or agency thereof may participate as a non-party under 10 CFR 2.315(c).
For information about filing a petition and about participation by a person not a party under 10 CFR 2.315, see ADAMS Accession No. ML20340A053 (
All documents filed in NRC adjudicatory proceedings, including documents filed by an interested State, local governmental body, Federally recognized Indian Tribe, or designated agency thereof that requests to participate under 10 CFR 2.315(c), must be filed in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302. The E-Filing process requires participants to submit and serve all adjudicatory documents over the internet, or in some cases, to mail copies on electronic storage media, unless an exemption permitting an alternative filing method, as further discussed, is granted. Detailed guidance on electronic submissions is located in the “Guidance for Electronic Submissions to the NRC” (ADAMS Accession No. ML13031A056) and on the NRC's public website at
To comply with the procedural requirements of E-Filing, at least 10 days prior to the filing deadline, the participant should contact the Office of the Secretary by email at
Information about applying for a digital ID certificate is available on the NRC's public website at
A person filing electronically using the NRC's adjudicatory E-Filing system may seek assistance by contacting the NRC's Electronic Filing Help Desk through the “Contact Us” link located on the NRC's public website at
Participants who believe that they have good cause for not submitting documents electronically must file an exemption request, in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(g), with their initial paper filing stating why there is good cause for not filing electronically and requesting authorization to continue to submit documents in paper format. Such filings must be submitted in accordance with 10 CFR 2.302(b)-(d). Participants filing adjudicatory documents in this manner are responsible for serving their documents on all other participants. Participants granted an exemption under 10 CFR 2.302(g)(2) must still meet the electronic formatting requirement in 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1), unless the participant also seeks and is granted an exemption from 10 CFR 2.302(g)(1).
Documents submitted in adjudicatory proceedings will appear in the NRC's electronic hearing docket, which is publicly available at
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
President's Commission on White House Fellowships, Office of Personnel Management.
Notice of meeting.
The President's Commission on White House Fellowships (PCWHF) was established by an executive order in 1964. The PCWHF is an advisory committee composed of Special Government Employees appointed by the President. The Advisory Committee meets in late May/early June to interview potential candidates for recommendation to become a White House Fellow. The meeting is closed to the public.
Rosemarie Vela, 712 Jackson Place NW, Washington, DC 20503, Phone: 202-395-4522.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
2.
3.
This Notice will be published in the
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing for the Commission's consideration concerning a negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public comment, and takes other administrative steps.
Submit comments electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202-789-6820.
The Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition or removal of a negotiated service agreement from the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list, or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Market Dominant or the Competitive product list.
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, the title of each Postal Service request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each request, the Commission appoints an officer of the Commission to represent the interests of the general public in the proceeding, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each request.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) in the captioned docket(s) are consistent with the policies of title 39. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Market Dominant product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3622, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3030, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. For request(s) that the Postal Service states concern Competitive product(s), applicable statutory and regulatory requirements include 39 U.S.C. 3632, 39 U.S.C. 3633, 39 U.S.C. 3642, 39 CFR part 3035, and 39 CFR part 3040, subpart B. Comment deadline(s) for each request appear in section II.
1.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Cabinet Proximity Option Fee at General 8, Section 1, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change
The Exchange currently offers a Cabinet Proximity Option program where, for a monthly fee, customers can obtain an option for future use on available, unused cabinet space in proximity to their existing equipment. Cabinets reserved under the Cabinet Proximity Option program are unused cabinets that customers reserve for future use and can be converted to a powered cabinet at the customer's request. Under the program, customers can reserve up to maximum of 20 cabinets that the Exchange endeavors to provide as close as reasonably possible to the customer's existing cabinet space, taking into consideration power availability within segments of the data center and the overall efficiency of use of data center resources as determined by the Exchange. Should reserved data center space be needed for use, the reserving customer will have three business days to formally contract with the Exchange for full payment for the reserved cabinet space or it will be reassigned. In making determinations to require exercise or relinquishment of reserved space as among numerous customers, the Exchange will take into consideration several factors, including: proximity between available reserved cabinet space and the existing space of a customer seeking additional space for actual cabinet usage; a customer's ratio of cabinets in use to those reserved; the length of time that a particular reservation(s) has been in place; and any other factor that the Exchange deems relevant to ensure overall efficiency in use of the data center space.
The applicable monthly fees for the Cabinet Proximity Option program are in General 8, Section 1(d). The Cabinet Proximity Option fee is $1,055/month per medium or low density cabinets and $1,583/month per medium/high or high density cabinets.
Currently, the Exchange offers Super High Density Cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW and less than or equal to 17.3 kW.
The proposed Cabinet Proximity Option fee of $3,000 would only be charged to those customers that voluntarily choose to reserve cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW. Such option is available to all customers. Similar to other fees related to cabinet and power usage, the Cabinet Proximity Option fee is incremental,
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
First, the proposal is reasonable because the proposed fee is comparable to NYSE's monthly fee of $360 per kW for PNU cabinets.
Furthermore, the Exchange offers the Cabinet Proximity Option program as a convenience to customers, providing an option to reserve unused cabinet space in proximity to their existing equipment. No firms are required to reserve cabinets via the Cabinet Proximity Option program. Clients may simply order cabinets without utilizing reservations. The proposed Cabinet Proximity Option fee of $3,000 would only be charged to those customers that voluntarily choose to reserve cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW and such option is available to all customers.
The Exchange believes substitutable products and services are available to market participants, including, among other things, other equities and options exchanges that a market participant may connect to in lieu of the Exchange,
In offering the Cabinet Proximity Option the Exchange incurs certain costs, including costs related to the data center, including maintaining an adequate level of power so that reserved cabinets can be available and powered on promptly at the request of customers.
If the Exchange is incorrect in its determination that the proposed fee reflects the value of the Cabinet Proximity Option for cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW, customers will not reserve such cabinets.
In summary, the proposal represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges because the proposed fee is less than NYSE's fee for a comparable service, customers have choices in how they connect to the Exchange, and reservations under the Cabinet Proximity Option program are optional and provided as a convenience to customers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is not unfairly discriminatory because the Cabinet Proximity Option fee is assessed uniformly across all market participants that voluntarily select the option, which is available to all customers. All customers have the choice of whether and how to connect to the Exchange and may order cabinets without utilizing reservations.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Nothing in the proposal burdens inter-market competition because approval of the proposal does not impose any burden on the ability of other exchanges to compete. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can determine whether or not to connect to the Exchange based on the value received compared to the cost of doing so. Indeed, market participants have numerous alternative exchanges that they may participate on and direct their order flow, as well as off-exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading.
Nothing in the proposal burdens intra-market competition because the Cabinet Proximity Option program is available to any customer under the same fees as any other customer, and any customer that wishes to reserve a cabinet pursuant to the Cabinet Proximity Option program can do so on a non-discriminatory basis.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”).
Notice.
Notice of an application under section 6(c) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) for an exemption from sections 18(a)(2), 18(c), 18(i) and section 61(a) of the Act.
Applicants request an order to permit certain registered closed-end investment companies that have elected to be regulated as business development companies to issue multiple classes of shares with varying sales loads and asset-based distribution and/or service fees.
Kennedy Lewis Capital Company and Kennedy Lewis Capital Holdings LLC.
The application was filed on June 26, 2023, and amended on January 9, 2024, and April 16, 2024.
An order granting the requested relief will be issued unless the Commission orders a hearing. Interested persons may request a hearing on any application by emailing the SEC's Secretary at
Hearing requests should be received by the Commission by 5:30 p.m. on June 17, 2024, and should be accompanied by proof of service on the Applicants, in the form of an affidavit or, for lawyers, a certificate of service. Pursuant to rule 0-5 under the Act, hearing requests should state the nature of the writer's interest, any facts bearing upon the desirability of a hearing on the matter, the reason for the request, and the issues contested. Persons who wish to be notified of a hearing may request notification by emailing the Commission's Secretary.
The Commission:
Christine Y. Greenlees, Senior Counsel, or Lisa Reid Ragen, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-6825 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and condition, please refer to Applicants' second amended and restated application, dated April 16, 2024, which may be obtained via the Commission's website by searching for the file number at the top of this document, or for an Applicant using the Company name search field, on the SEC's EDGAR system. The SEC's EDGAR system may be searched at
For the Commission, by the Division of Investment Management, under delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Cabinet Proximity Option Fee at General 8, Section 1, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change
The Exchange currently offers a Cabinet Proximity Option program where, for a monthly fee, customers can obtain an option for future use on available, unused cabinet space in proximity to their existing equipment. Cabinets reserved under the Cabinet Proximity Option program are unused cabinets that customers reserve for future use and can be converted to a powered cabinet at the customer's request. Under the program, customers can reserve up to maximum of 20 cabinets that the Exchange endeavors to provide as close as reasonably possible to the customer's existing cabinet space, taking into consideration power availability within segments of the data center and the overall efficiency of use of data center resources as determined by the Exchange. Should reserved data center space be needed for use, the reserving customer will have three business days to formally contract with the Exchange for full payment for the reserved cabinet space or it will be reassigned. In making determinations to require exercise or relinquishment of reserved space as among numerous customers, the Exchange will take into consideration several factors, including: proximity between available reserved cabinet space and the existing space of a customer seeking additional space for actual cabinet usage; a customer's ratio of cabinets in use to those reserved; the length of time that a particular reservation(s) has been in place; and any other factor that the Exchange deems relevant to ensure overall efficiency in use of the data center space.
The applicable monthly fees for the Cabinet Proximity Option program are in General 8, Section 1(d). The Cabinet Proximity Option fee is $1,055/month per medium or low density cabinets and $1,583/month per medium/high or high density cabinets.
Currently, the Exchange offers Super High Density Cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW and less than or equal to 17.3 kW.
The proposed Cabinet Proximity Option fee of $3,000 would only be charged to those customers that voluntarily choose to reserve cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW. Such option is available to all customers. Similar to other fees related to cabinet and power usage, the Cabinet Proximity Option fee is incremental, with higher fees being imposed based
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
First, the proposal is reasonable because the proposed fee is comparable to NYSE's monthly fee of $360 per kW for PNU cabinets.
Furthermore, the Exchange offers the Cabinet Proximity Option program as a convenience to customers, providing an option to reserve unused cabinet space in proximity to their existing equipment. No firms are required to reserve cabinets via the Cabinet Proximity Option program. Clients may simply order cabinets without utilizing reservations. The proposed Cabinet Proximity Option fee of $3,000 would only be charged to those customers that voluntarily choose to reserve cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW and such option is available to all customers.
The Exchange believes substitutable products and services are available to market participants, including, among other things, other options exchanges that a market participant may connect to in lieu of the Exchange,
In offering the Cabinet Proximity Option the Exchange incurs certain costs, including costs related to the data center, including maintaining an adequate level of power so that reserved cabinets can be available and powered on promptly at the request of customers.
If the Exchange is incorrect in its determination that the proposed fee reflects the value of the Cabinet Proximity Option for cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW, customers will not reserve such cabinets.
In summary, the proposal represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges because the proposed fee is less than NYSE's fee for a comparable service, customers have choices in how they connect to the Exchange, and reservations under the Cabinet Proximity Option program are optional and provided as a convenience to customers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is not unfairly discriminatory because the Cabinet Proximity Option fee is assessed uniformly across all market participants that voluntarily select the option, which is available to all customers. All customers have the choice of whether and how to connect to the Exchange and may order cabinets without utilizing reservations.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Nothing in the proposal burdens inter-market competition because approval of the proposal does not impose any burden on the ability of other exchanges to compete. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can determine whether or not to connect to the Exchange based on the value received compared to the cost of doing so. Indeed, market participants have numerous alternative exchanges that they may participate on and direct their order flow, as well as off-exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading.
Nothing in the proposal burdens intra-market competition because the Cabinet Proximity Option program is available to any customer under the same fees as any other customer, and any customer that wishes to reserve a cabinet pursuant to the Cabinet Proximity Option program can do so on a non-discriminatory basis.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Cabinet Proximity Option Fee at General 8, Section 1, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change
The Exchange currently offers a Cabinet Proximity Option program where, for a monthly fee, customers can obtain an option for future use on available, unused cabinet space in proximity to their existing equipment. Cabinets reserved under the Cabinet Proximity Option program are unused cabinets that customers reserve for future use and can be converted to a powered cabinet at the customer's request. Under the program, customers can reserve up to maximum of 20 cabinets that the Exchange endeavors to provide as close as reasonably possible to the customer's existing cabinet space, taking into consideration power availability within segments of the data center and the overall efficiency of use of data center resources as determined by the Exchange. Should reserved data center space be needed for use, the reserving customer will have three business days to formally contract with the Exchange for full payment for the reserved cabinet space or it will be reassigned. In making determinations to require exercise or relinquishment of
The applicable monthly fees for the Cabinet Proximity Option program are in General 8, Section 1(d). The Cabinet Proximity Option fee is $1,055/month per medium or low density cabinets and $1,583/month per medium/high or high density cabinets.
Currently, the Exchange offers Super High Density Cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW and less than or equal to 17.3 kW.
The proposed Cabinet Proximity Option fee of $3,000 would only be charged to those customers that voluntarily choose to reserve cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW. Such option is available to all customers. Similar to other fees related to cabinet and power usage, the Cabinet Proximity Option fee is incremental, with higher fees being imposed based on higher levels of cabinet and power allocation. The proposed Cabinet Proximity Option fee of $3,000 for cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW is comparable to pricing for “PNU cabinets”
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
First, the proposal is reasonable because the proposed fee is comparable to NYSE's monthly fee of $360 per kW for PNU cabinets.
Furthermore, the Exchange offers the Cabinet Proximity Option program as a convenience to customers, providing an option to reserve unused cabinet space in proximity to their existing equipment. No firms are required to reserve cabinets via the Cabinet Proximity Option program. Clients may simply order cabinets without utilizing reservations. The proposed Cabinet Proximity Option fee of $3,000 would only be charged to those customers that voluntarily choose to reserve cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW and such option is available to all customers.
The Exchange believes substitutable products and services are available to market participants, including, among other things, other equities and options exchanges that a market participant may connect to in lieu of the Exchange,
In offering the Cabinet Proximity Option the Exchange incurs certain costs, including costs related to the data center, including maintaining an adequate level of power so that reserved cabinets can be available and powered on promptly at the request of customers.
If the Exchange is incorrect in its determination that the proposed fee reflects the value of the Cabinet Proximity Option for cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW, customers will not reserve such cabinets.
In summary, the proposal represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges because the proposed fee is less than NYSE's fee for a comparable service, customers have choices in how they connect to the Exchange, and reservations under the Cabinet Proximity Option program are optional and provided as a convenience to customers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is not unfairly discriminatory because the Cabinet Proximity Option fee is assessed uniformly across all market participants that voluntarily select the option, which is available to all customers. All customers have the choice of whether and how to connect to the Exchange and may order cabinets without utilizing reservations.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Nothing in the proposal burdens inter-market competition because approval of the proposal does not impose any burden on the ability of other exchanges to compete. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can determine whether or not to connect to the Exchange based on the value received compared to the cost of doing so. Indeed, market participants have numerous alternative exchanges that they may participate on and direct their order flow, as well as off-exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading.
Nothing in the proposal burdens intra-market competition because the Cabinet Proximity Option program is available to any customer under the same fees as any other customer, and any customer that wishes to reserve a cabinet pursuant to the Cabinet Proximity Option program can do so on a non-discriminatory basis.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX”) proposes to amend Rule 11.11 to describe the manner in which the Exchange processes executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from away Trading Centers priced in fractional pennies. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.11 to describe the manner in which the Exchange processes executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from away Trading Centers
Pursuant to Rule 2.11, the Exchange relies on its Routing Broker to provide outbound routing services from the Exchange to a routing destination. Rule 2.11 also provides the authority to the Exchange or the Routing Broker to cancel orders on the Exchange's equity securities platform when a technical or system issue occurs. In addition, Rule 2.11 also describes the operation of an error account for Cboe Trading. While Rule 2.11 speaks to the authority of the Routing Broker to provide outbound routing services, Rule 11.11 describes the manner in which orders are routed away from the Exchange to an away Trading Center. The Exchange proposes to add subparagraph (j) to Rule 11.11 to describe the order handling behavior of fractional penny executions on away Trading Centers.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes that in order to process executions which occur in securities priced below $1.00 in fractional pennies on away Trading Centers, the Exchange's Routing Broker will perform an adjustment to each fractional penny execution. In particular, for all buy executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies, the Routing Broker will round down to the nearest $0.0001. Additionally, for all sell executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies, the Routing Broker will round up to the nearest $0.0001. The only exception to this rounding behavior will occur when a buy execution in securities priced below $1.00 in fractional pennies received from an away Trading Center would result in the Routing Broker rounding down to a price of $0.0000. In this instance, and this instance only, the Routing Broker will instead round up to the minimum price of $0.0001 in order to comply with Rule 11.6(i). The Routing Broker will afford the Exchange order (and ultimately, the User
The Exchange's proposal is based on a similar proposal from NYSE that described how its routing broker would process orders received from an away market that were executed in odd-lots or in sub-pennies.
This service provided by the Routing Broker with regard to fractional penny executions is not intended to operate as a means to generate revenue. While the Routing Broker does not anticipate accruing any positions as a result of the adjustments made to executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from away Trading Centers in fractional pennies, the Routing Broker will liquidate positions assumed as a result of the services provided to the Exchange. To that end, it is the intent of the Routing Broker to be flat in all positions at the end of each trading day.
The Exchange has included the following examples to demonstrate the proposed order handling behavior.
Firm A enters an order on the Exchange to buy 100 shares of ABC at $0.5008. The Exchange's best offer is $0.5007. Trading Center 1 is displaying a best offer at $0.5006. Trading Center 1 also has the ability to execute trades in fractional pennies. The System
Firm A enters an order on the Exchange to sell 100 shares of ABC at $0.5004. The Exchange's best bid is $0.5005. Trading Center 1 is displaying a best bid at $0.5006. Trading Center 1 also has the ability to execute trades in fractional pennies. The System transmits Firm A's order with order handling instructions to the Routing Broker. The Routing Broker then transmits the order with the order handling instructions received from the Exchange to Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker receives a fill of 100 shares at $0.50068 due to price improvement received at Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker will buy 100 shares from Firm A at $0.5007 and uses the fill of 100 shares at $0.50068 to offset the position. The Routing Broker will incur a total loss of $0.002, or $0.00002 per share.
Firm A enters an order on the Exchange to buy 100 shares of ABC at $0.0001. The Exchange's best offer is $0.0003. Trading Center 1 is displaying a best offer at $0.0001. Trading Center 1 also has the ability to execute trades in fractional pennies. The System transmits Firm A's order with order handling instructions to the Routing Broker. The Routing Broker then transmits the order with the order handling instructions received from the Exchange to Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker receives a fill of 100 shares at $0.00008 due to price improvement received at Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker will sell 100 shares to Firm A at $0.0001 and uses the fill of 100 shares at $0.00008 to offset the position. The Routing Broker will have a total gain of $0.002, or $0.00002 per share.
The Routing Broker will not engage in any business for the Exchange other than its outbound and inbound routing functions as detailed in Rules 2.11 and 2.12 and in the manner described above. Users are not required to utilize the Routing Broker when submitting orders to the Exchange. In the event a User does not wish for its order to be routed and potentially subject to the order handling behavior described above, it must enter an immediate-or-cancel (“IOC”) or any such other order type available on the Exchange that is not eligible for routing. All bids and offers entered on the Exchange that are routed away via the Routing Broker which result in an execution shall be binding on the User that entered such bid or offer.
The Exchange believes that the above proposal detailing the order handling behavior for executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies will provide Users with the best possible outcome in situations where the Exchange is unable to process an
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing additional transparency into how the Exchange's Routing Broker processes executions in securities priced below $1.00 received in fractional pennies from away Trading Centers. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the Routing Broker's favorable price adjustment in favor of the User submitting the order promotes just and equitable principles of trade as it is designed to provide Users with the best possible outcome when their orders are adjusted due to System limitations on the Exchange. While the Routing Broker will be incurring a loss on each transaction except for in the limited scenario described in Example 3 above, the end result serves to protect investors and the public interest by providing a price more favorable to Users than the execution price received on the away Trading Center. The Exchange believes that the limited scenario presented in Example 3 above promotes just and equitable principles of trade because rather than providing an execution to the Exchange (and therefore the User) at a price of $0.0000, the Routing Broker will instead round up to a price of $0.0001, which is the minimum execution price supported by the Exchange. While this will result in a minimal profit for the Routing Broker and an inferior execution price than what is provided by the away Trading Center, the Exchange believes that the benefit of the Exchange (and User) ultimately receiving a buy execution at $0.0001 outweighs any minimal profit that the Routing Broker may receive and any minimal loss that the User experiences as a result of the rounding adjustment. Further, the proposal does not result in unfair discrimination as it applies to all executions received by the Routing Broker in securities priced below $1.00 that are priced in fractional pennies. Should a User not wish for its order to be subject to the proposed fractional penny adjustment described above, it is free to select a different order type that does not route to an away Trading Center.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition as the proposed order handling behavior by the Routing Broker will apply to all orders routed away equally, in that any order received by the Routing Broker from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies will be adjusted down (up) to the benefit of the User before being sent back to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that use of the Routing Broker is not mandatory. If a User does not wish to have its order subjected to the proposed order handling behavior it is free to choose a different order type that is not eligible for routing to away Trading Centers. In addition, the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intermarket competition as it is not being introduced to address a competitive issue, but rather to better describe order handling behavior by the Exchange's Routing Broker.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Exchange states that waiver of the operative delay would permit the Exchange's Routing Broker to immediately implement the order handling behavior described in the proposal, which would benefit Users who submit a routable order to the Exchange and receive an execution on an away Trading Center in fractional pennies. The Exchange further states the proposed rule change does not present any new or novel issues, as at least one other exchange indicated that its routing broker performed similar rounding behavior for orders received in odd-lot or sub-penny increments that were filled on away market centers and were not compatible with existing exchange system behavior.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1)
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules concerning supervision to adopt rules based on NYSE American Rules 3110—Equities (Supervision) and 3120—Equities (Supervisory Control System) and make certain conforming changes. The proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the self-regulatory organization included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of those statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant parts of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its rules concerning supervision to adopt rules based on NYSE American Rules 3110—Equities (Supervision) and 3120—Equities (Supervisory Control System) and make certain conforming changes. More specifically, the Exchange proposes to (1) adopt new rule text that is substantially similar to NYSE American Rule 3110—Equities and NYSE American Rule 3120—Equities; (2) delete Article 6, Rule 5 (Registration, Supervision and Training) except for certain text that will be retained as new Rule 11.20 (Adherence to Law); and (3) make conforming changes to Rule 10.9217 (Violations Appropriate for Disposition Under Rule 9216(b)).
The Exchange's current supervision Rule is Article 6, Rule 5.
Subsection (a) of Article 6, Rule 5 sets forth a basic declaration that Participants are responsible for adherence to federal securities laws and Exchange rules, and must reasonably supervise their operations and associated persons to prevent violations of thereof.
Subsection (b) provides for the designation of persons with supervisory authority. Specifically, the rule provides that each Participant Firm must designate a principal executive officer, general partner or managing partner to hold overall authority and responsibility
Article 6, Rule 5(c) governs written supervisory procedures, and provides that each Participant Firm shall establish, maintain and enforce written procedures to supervise the types of business in which it engages and to supervise the activities of registered and associated persons. Such written procedures must be reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with the applicable rules of the Exchange. The rule further specifies that the Participant Firm's written supervisory procedures must set forth the following: the supervisory system established by the Participant Firm; the titles, registration status and locations of the required supervisory personnel; and the responsibilities of each supervisor as they relate to the types of business engaged in, applicable securities laws and the rules of the Exchange. Article 6, Rule 5(c) requires that a copy of a Participant Firm's written supervisory procedures or the relevant portions thereof, be maintained at each location where supervisory activities are conducted on behalf of the firm. Each Participant Firm is required to periodically review and amend its written supervisory procedures as appropriate within a reasonable time, including but not limited to, updates required by changes in applicable securities laws and regulations, including the rules of the Exchange, and as changes occur in the supervisory system. In addition, the rule provides that each Participant Firm shall be responsible for communicating these amendments within its organization. Finally, the rule requires each Participant Firm to maintain records evidencing actual review of transactions, systems, programs or other activities by the designated supervisory personnel pursuant the written supervisory procedures.
Article 6, Rule 5(d) governs internal controls and training. The rule requires that at least annually, each Participant Firm must discuss compliance matters with its registered and associated persons and must maintain records confirming the dates of these discussions and the subject matters that were discussed. Each Participant Firm must also establish internal controls to determine that proper supervision is being exercised.
Article 6, Rule 5(e) governs branch and resident offices. Under the rule, a Participant Firm for which this Exchange is the Designated Examining Authority or which is subject to examination by another self-regulatory organization not having a comparable rule, shall not open a branch or resident office unless it has obtained the prior written approval of the Exchange. Application for approval of the opening of a branch or resident office must be made on a form provided by the Exchange at least one month (or such shorter period as the Exchange may approve) prior to the proposed opening date of the office. A Participant Firm maintaining branch or resident offices must establish procedures providing for close supervision of such offices, and maintain a close, responsible relationship with the person in charge of such office or offices. A designated partner or officer of the main office is personally responsible for proper supervision of such branch or resident office.
Finally, Supplementary Material .01 governs registration of new branch offices and sets forth the steps to be taken when registering new branch offices as required by Article 6, Rule 5(d). Supplementary Material .01 requires each Participant Firm to forward a completed Form BR to the Exchange. In addition, prior to approval of the branch office, the office manager or the registered representative in charge must have completed the Exchange requirements for registration. The office may begin operating as a branch on receipt of written approval from the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to delete the foregoing rules relating to supervision (except as noted below), which are, in main part, either duplicative of, or do not align with, the proposed supervision requirements discussed below, and adopt the text of NYSE American Rules 3110—Equities and 3120—Equities, subject to certain technical and conforming changes.
Proposed Rule 11.3110 is based primarily on requirements in the NYSE American and FINRA rulebooks and current Article 6, Rule 5 relating to, among other things, supervisory systems, written procedures, internal inspections, and review of correspondence.
Proposed Rule 11.3110(a) would cover supervisory systems and would require each Participant Firm to establish and maintain a system to supervise the activities of each associated person that is reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules. Under the proposed rule, final responsibility for proper supervision would rest with the Participant Firm. In addition, a Participant Firm's supervisory system would need to provide, at a minimum, for the following:
• The establishment and maintenance of written procedures as required by proposed Rule 11.3110.
• The designation, where applicable, of an appropriately registered principal with authority to carry out the supervisory responsibilities of the Participant Firm for each type of business in which it engages for which
• The registration and designation as a branch office or an office of supervisory jurisdiction (“OSJ”) of each location, including the main office, that meets the definitions contained in proposed Rule 11.3110(e). The Exchange has not previously designated OSJs. As such, the requirements relating to OSJs described hereinafter would be new for Participant Firms.
• The designation of one or more appropriately registered principals in each OSJ and one or more appropriately registered representatives or principals in each non-OSJ branch office with authority to carry out the supervisory responsibilities assigned to that office by the Participant Firm.
• The assignment of each registered person to an appropriately registered representative or principal who would be responsible for supervising that person's activities.
• The use of reasonable efforts to determine that all supervisory personnel are qualified, either by virtue of experience or training, to carry out their assigned responsibilities.
• The participation of each registered representative and registered principal, either individually or collectively, no less than annually, in an interview or meeting conducted by persons designated by the Participant Firm at which compliance matters relevant to the activities of the representative and principal are discussed, which may occur in conjunction with the discussion of other matters and may be conducted at a central or regional location or at the representative's or principal's place of business.
Proposed Rule 11.3110(b)(1) would address written procedures and would require each Participant Firm to establish, maintain, and enforce written procedures to supervise the types of business in which it engages and the activities of its associated persons that are reasonably designed to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and applicable Exchange rules.
Under proposed Rule 11.3110(b)(2), the supervisory procedures required by proposed Rule 11.3110(b) would need to include procedures for the review by a registered principal, evidenced in writing, of all transactions relating to the investment banking or securities business of the Participant Firm.
Consistent with NYSE American Rule 3110(b)(3)—Equities, proposed Rule 11.3110(b)(3) would be marked “Reserved.”
Under proposed Rule 11.3110(b)(4), the supervisory procedures required by proposed Rule 11.3110(b) would need to also include procedures for the review of incoming and outgoing written (including electronic) correspondence and internal communications relating to the Participant Firm's investment banking or securities business and be appropriate for the Participant Firm's business, size, structure, and customers. The supervisory procedures would need to require the Participant Firm's review of:
• Incoming and outgoing written (including electronic) correspondence to properly identify and handle in accordance with firm procedures, customer complaints, instructions, funds and securities, and communications that are of a subject matter that require review under Exchange rules and federal securities laws.
• Internal communications to properly identify those communications that are of a subject matter that require review under Exchange rules and federal securities laws.
Such reviews would need to be conducted by a registered principal and evidenced in writing, either electronically or on paper. Those communications include (without limitation) certain communications with the public that require a principal's preapproval (Rule 11.2210).
Proposed Rule 11.3110(b)(5) requires a Participant Firm's supervisory procedures to include procedures to capture, acknowledge, and respond to all written (including electronic) customer complaints.
Under proposed Rule 11.3110(b)(6), the supervisory procedures required by proposed Rule 11.3110(b) would need to set forth the supervisory system established by the Participant Firm pursuant to proposed Rule 11.3110(a), and would need to include:
• The titles, registration status, and locations of the required supervisory personnel and the responsibilities of each supervisory person as these relate to the types of business engaged in, applicable securities laws and regulations, and Exchange rules.
• A record, preserved by the Participant Firm for a period of not less than three years, the first two years in an easily accessible place, of the names of all persons who are designated as supervisory personnel and the dates for which such designation is or was effective.
• Procedures prohibiting associated persons who perform a supervisory function from:
○ Supervising their own activities; and
○ Reporting to, or having their compensation or continued employment determined by, a person or persons they are supervising.
If a Participant Firm determines, with respect to any of its supervisory personnel, that compliance with the preceding two bullets is not possible because of the Participant Firm's size or a supervisory personnel's position within the firm, the Participant Firm would need to document:
• The factors the Participant Firm used to reach such determination; and
• How the supervisory arrangement with respect to such supervisory personnel otherwise complies with proposed Rule 11.3110(a).
• Procedures reasonably designed to prevent the supervisory system required pursuant to proposed Rule 11.3110(a) from being compromised due to the conflicts of interest that may be present with respect to the associated person being supervised, including the position of such person, the revenue such person generates for the firm, or any compensation that the associated person conducting the supervision may derive from the associated person being supervised.
Proposed Rule 11.3110(b)(7) would require a Participant Firm to keep and maintain a copy of its written supervisory procedures, or such relevant portions, in each OSJ and at each location where supervisory activities are conducted on behalf of the Participant Firm. Each Participant Firm would need to promptly amend its written supervisory procedures to reflect changes in applicable securities laws or regulations, including Exchange rules, and as changes occur in its supervisory system. Each Participant Firm would be responsible for promptly communicating its written supervisory procedures and amendments to all associated persons to whom such written supervisory procedures and amendments are relevant based on their activities and responsibilities.
Proposed Rule 11.3110(c) would cover internal inspections. Proposed Rule 11.3110(c)(1) would require each Participant Firm to conduct a review, at least annually (on a calendar-year basis), of the businesses in which it engages. The review would need to be reasonably designed to assist the Participant Firm in detecting and preventing violations of, and achieving compliance with, applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules. Each Participant Firm
In addition, proposed Rule 11.3110(c)(1) would require each Participant Firm to inspect at least annually (on a calendar-year basis) every OSJ and any branch office that supervises one or more non-branch locations. Each Participant Firm would need to also inspect at least every three years every branch office that does not supervise one or more non-branch locations. In establishing how often to inspect each non-supervisory branch office, the Participant Firm would need to consider whether the nature and complexity of the securities activities for which the location is responsible, the volume of business done at the location, and the number of associated persons assigned to the location require the non-supervisory branch office to be inspected more frequently than every three years. If a Participant Firm establishes a more frequent inspection cycle, the Participant Firm would need to ensure that at least every three years, the inspection requirements enumerated in proposed Rule 11.3110(c)(2) have been met. The Participant Firm's written supervisory and inspection procedures would need to set forth the non-supervisory branch office examination cycle, an explanation of the factors the Participant Firm used in determining the frequency of the examinations in the cycle, and the manner in which a Participant Firm will comply with proposed Rule 11.3110(c)(2) if using more frequent inspections than every three years. Each Participant Firm would need to inspect, on a regular periodic schedule, every non-branch location. In establishing such schedule, the Participant Firm would need to consider the nature and complexity of the securities activities for which the location is responsible and the nature and extent of contact with customers. The Participant Firm's written supervisory and inspection procedures would also need to set forth the schedule and an explanation regarding how the Participant Firm determined the frequency of the examination.
Proposed Rule 11.3110(c)(2) would require the inspection and review by a Participant Firm pursuant to proposed Rule 11.3110(c)(1) to be reduced to a written report and kept on file by the Participant Firm for a minimum of three years, unless the inspection is being conducted pursuant to proposed Rule 11.3110(c)(1)(C) and the regular periodic schedule is longer than a three-year cycle, in which case the report would need to be kept on file at least until the next inspection report has been written. Under proposed Rule 11.3110(c)(2)(A), if applicable to the location being inspected, that location's written inspection report would need to include, without limitation, the testing and verification of the Participant Firm's policies and procedures, including supervisory policies and procedures in the following areas:
• Safeguarding of customer funds and securities;
• Maintaining books and records;
• Supervision of supervisory personnel;
• Transmittals of funds (
• Changes of customer account information, including address and investment objectives changes and validation of such changes.
The policies and procedures regarding transmittals of funds would need to include a means or method of customer confirmation, notification, or follow-up that can be documented. Participant Firm s may use reasonable risk-based criteria to determine the authenticity of the transmittal instructions. The policies and procedures regarding changes of customer account information would need to include, for each change processed, a means or method of customer confirmation, notification, or follow-up that can be documented and that complies with SEA Rules 17a-3(a)(17)(i)(B)(2) and 17a-3(a)(17)(i)(B)(3).
If a Participant Firm does not engage in all of the activities enumerated in the bullets immediately above at the location being inspected, the Participant Firm would need to identify those activities in the Participant Firm's written supervisory procedures or the location's written inspection report and document in the Participant Firm's written supervisory procedures or the location's written inspection report that supervisory policies and procedures for such activities would need to be in place at that location before the Participant Firm can engage in them.
Under proposed Rule 11.3110(c)(3), for each inspection conducted pursuant to the proposed rule, a Participant Firm would need to:
• have procedures reasonably designed to prevent the effectiveness of inspections from being compromised due to the conflicts of interest that may be present with respect to the location being inspected, including but not limited to, economic, commercial, or financial interests in the associated persons and businesses being inspected; and
• ensure that the person conducting an inspection is not an associated person assigned to the location or is not directly or indirectly supervised by, or otherwise reporting to, an associated person assigned to the location. If a Participant Firm determines that compliance with this requirement is not possible either because of a Participant Firm's size or its business model, the Participant Firm would need to document in the inspection report both the factors the Participant Firm used to make its determination and how the inspection otherwise complies with proposed Rule 11.3110(c)(1).
The Exchange currently does not have a comparable rule.
Section 15(g) of the Act,
Proposed Rule 11.3110(d) would cover transaction reviews and investigations. Proposed Rule 11.3110(d)(1) would require each Participant Firm to include in its supervisory procedures a process for the review of securities transactions reasonably designed to identify trades that may violate the provisions of the Act, the rules thereunder, or Exchange rules prohibiting insider trading and manipulative and deceptive devices that are effected for the:
• Accounts of the Participant Firm;
• Accounts introduced or carried by the Participant Firm in which a person associated with the Participant Firm has a beneficial interest or the authority to make investment decisions;
• Accounts of a person associated with the Participant Firm that are
• Covered accounts.
Under proposed Rule 11.3110(d)(2), each Participant Firm would need promptly to conduct an internal investigation into any such trade to determine whether a violation of those laws or rules has occurred. In addition, under proposed Rule 11.3110(d)(3), a Participant Firm engaging in investment banking services would need to file with the Exchange, written reports, signed by a senior officer of the Participant Firm, at such times and, without limitation, including such content, as follows:
• Within ten business days of the end of each calendar quarter, a written report describing each internal investigation initiated in the previous calendar quarter pursuant to proposed Rule 11.3110(d)(2), including the identity of the Participant Firm, the date each internal investigation commenced, the status of each open internal investigation, the resolution of any internal investigation reached during the previous calendar quarter, and, with respect to each internal investigation, the identity of the security, trades, accounts, associated persons of the Participant Firm, or associated person of the Participant Firm's family members holding a covered account, under review, and that includes a copy of the Participant Firm's policies and procedures required by proposed Rule 11.3110(d)(1).
• Within five business days of completion of an internal investigation pursuant to proposed Rule 11.3110(d)(2) in which it was determined that a violation of the provisions of the Act, the rules thereunder, or Exchange rules prohibiting insider trading and manipulative and deceptive devices had occurred, a written report detailing the completion of the investigation, including the results of the investigation, any internal disciplinary action taken, and any referral of the matter to the Exchange, another SRO, the SEC, or any other federal, state, or international regulatory authority.
For purposes of proposed Rule 11.3110(d)(4) the following definitions would apply:
• The term “covered account” would include any account introduced or carried by the Participant Firm that is held by:
○ The spouse of a person associated with the Participant Firm;
○ A child of the person associated with the Participant Firm or such person's spouse, provided that the child resides in the same household as or is financially dependent upon the person associated with the Participant Firm;
○ Any other related individual over whose account the person associated with the Participant Firm has control; or
○ Any other individual over whose account the associated person of the Participant Firm has control and to whose financial support such person materially contributes.
• The term “investment banking services” would include, without limitation, acting as an underwriter, participating in a selling group in an offering for the issuer, or otherwise acting in furtherance of a public offering of the issuer; acting as a financial adviser in a merger or acquisition; providing venture capital or equity lines of credit or serving as placement agent for the issuer or otherwise acting in furtherance of a private offering of the issuer.
Proposed Rule 11.3110(e) would define OSJ and branch office. As noted above, OSJ would be a new designation for the Exchange and the definition of the term would substantially mirror NYSE American's definition. The term would mean any office of a Participant Firm at which any one or more of the following functions take place:
• Order execution or market making;
• Structuring of public offerings or private placements;
• Maintaining custody of customers' funds or securities;
• Final acceptance (approval) of new accounts on behalf of the Participant Firm;
• Review and endorsement of customer orders;
• Final approval of retail communications for use by persons associated with the Participant Firm, pursuant to Rule 11.2210(b)(1), except for an office that solely conducts final approval of research reports; or
• Responsibility for supervising the activities of persons associated with the Participant Firm at one or more other branch offices of the Participant Firm.
The definition of “branch office” would be new and would mean any location where one or more associated persons of a Participant Firm regularly conducts the business of effecting any transactions in, or inducing or attempting to induce the purchase or sale of, any security, or is held out as such, excluding:
• Any location that is established solely for customer service or back office type functions where no sales activities are conducted and that is not held out to the public as a branch office;
• Any location that is the associated person's primary residence, provided that
○ only one associated person, or multiple associated persons who reside at that location and are members of the same immediate family, conduct business at the location;
○ the location is not held out to the public as an office and the associated person does not meet with customers at the location;
○ neither customer funds nor securities are handled at that location;
○ the associated person is assigned to a designated branch office, and such designated branch office is reflected on all business cards, stationery, retail communications and other communications to the public by such associated person;
○ the associated person's correspondence and communications with the public are subject to the firm's supervision in accordance with proposed Rule 11.3110;
○ electronic communications (
○ all orders are entered through the designated branch office or an electronic system established by the Participant Firm that is reviewable at the branch office;
○ written supervisory procedures pertaining to supervision of sales activities conducted at the residence are maintained by the Participant Firm; and
○ a list of the residence locations is maintained by the Participant Firm.
• Any location, other than a primary residence, that is used for securities business for less than 30 business days in any one calendar year, provided the Participant Firm complies with the first eight bullet points immediately above;
• Any office of convenience, where associated persons occasionally and exclusively by appointment meet with customers, which is not held out to the public as an office;
• Any location that is used primarily to engage in non-securities activities and from which the associated person(s) effects no more than 25 securities transactions in any one calendar year, provided that any retail communication identifying such location also sets forth the address and telephone number of the location from which the associated person(s) conducting business at the non-branch locations are directly supervised;
• The Floor of a registered national securities exchange where a Participant Firm conducts a direct access business with public customers; or
• A temporary location established in response to the implementation of a business continuity plan.
Notwithstanding the exclusions for branch offices described above, any location that is responsible for supervising the activities of persons associated with the Participant Firm at one or more non-branch locations of the Participant Firm would be considered a branch office.
The term “business day” would not include any partial business day provided that the associated person spends at least four hours on such business day at his or her designated branch office during the hours that such office is normally open for business.
Proposed Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 11.3110 would require a Participant Firm's main office location to be registered and designated as a branch office or OSJ if it meets the definitions of a “branch office” or “office of supervisory jurisdiction” as set forth in proposed Rule 11.3110(e). In general, the nature of activities conducted at a main office will satisfy the requirements of such terms.
Proposed Supplementary Material .02 to Rule 11.3110 would provide that, in addition to the locations that meet the definition of OSJ in proposed Rule 11.3110(e), each Participant Firm would need to also register and designate other offices as OSJs as is necessary to supervise its associated persons in accordance with the standards set forth in proposed Rule 11.3110. In making a determination as to whether to designate a location as an OSJ, the Participant Firm should consider the following factors:
• Whether registered persons at the location engage in retail sales or other activities involving regular contact with public customers;
• Whether a substantial number of registered persons conduct securities activities at, or are otherwise supervised from, such location;
• Whether the location is geographically distant from another OSJ of the firm;
• Whether the Participant Firm's registered persons are geographically dispersed; and
• Whether the securities activities at such location are diverse or complex.
Proposed Supplementary Material .03 to Rule 11.3110 would provide additional guidance relating to proposed Rule 11.3110(a)(4), which requires a Participant Firm to designate one or more appropriately registered principals in each OSJ with the authority to carry out the supervisory responsibilities assigned to that office (“on-site principal”). The proposed Supplementary Material would provide that the designated on-site principal for each OSJ would need to have a physical presence, on a regular and routine basis, at each OSJ for which the principal has supervisory responsibilities. Consequently, there is a general presumption that a principal will not be designated and assigned to be the on-site principal pursuant to proposed Rule 11.3110(a)(4) to supervise more than one OSJ. If a Participant Firm determines it is necessary to designate and assign one appropriately registered principal to be the on-site principal pursuant to proposed Rule 11.3110(a)(4) to supervise two or more OSJs, the Participant Firm would need to take into consideration, among others, the following factors:
• Whether the on-site principal is qualified by virtue of experience and training to supervise the activities and associated persons in each location;
• Whether the on-site principal has the capacity and time to supervise the activities and associated persons in each location;
• Whether the on-site principal is a producing registered representative;
• Whether the OSJ locations are in sufficiently close proximity to ensure that the on-site principal is physically present at each location on a regular and routine basis; and
• The nature of activities at each location, including size and number of associated persons, scope of business activities, nature and complexity of products and services offered, volume of business done, the disciplinary history of persons assigned to such locations, and any other indicators of irregularities or misconduct.
The Participant Firm would need to establish, maintain, and enforce written supervisory procedures regarding the supervision of all OSJs. In all cases where a Participant Firm designates and assigns one on-site principal to supervise more than one OSJ, the Participant Firm would need to document in the Participant Firm's written supervisory and inspection procedures the factors used to determine why the Participant Firm considers such supervisory structure to be reasonable and the determination by the Participant Firm will be subject to scrutiny.
Proposed Supplementary Material .04 to Rule 11.3110 would provide that a Participant Firm is not required to conduct in-person meetings with each registered person or group of registered persons to comply with the annual compliance meeting (or interview) required by proposed Rule 11.3110(a)(7). A Participant Firm that chooses to conduct compliance meetings using other methods (
Proposed Supplementary Material .05 to Rule 11.3110 would provide that a Participant Firm may use a risk-based review system to comply with proposed Rule 11.3110(b)(2)'s requirement that a registered principal review all transactions relating to the investment banking or securities business of the Participant Firm. A Participant Firm is not required to conduct detailed reviews of each transaction if a Participant Firm is using a reasonably designed risk-based review system that provides a Participant Firm with sufficient information that permits the Participant Firm to focus on the areas that pose the greatest numbers and risks of violation.
Proposed Supplementary Material .06 to Rule 11.3110 would provide that, by employing risk-based principles, a Participant Firm would need to decide the extent to which additional policies and procedures for the review of:
• Incoming and outgoing written (including electronic) correspondence that fall outside of the subject matters listed in proposed Rule 11.3110(b)(4) are necessary for its business and structure. If a Participant Firm's procedures do not require that all correspondence be reviewed before use or distribution, the procedures would need to provide for:
○ The education and training of associated persons regarding the firm's procedures governing correspondence;
○ The documentation of such education and training; and
○ Surveillance and follow-up to ensure that such procedures are implemented and followed.
• Internal communications that are not of a subject matter that require review under Exchange rules and federal securities laws are necessary for its business and structure.
Proposed Supplementary Material .07 to Rule 11.3110 would provide that the evidence of review required in proposed Rule 11.3110(b)(4) would need to be chronicled either electronically or on paper and clearly identify the reviewer, the internal communication or correspondence that was reviewed, the date of review, and the actions taken by the Participant Firm as a result of any significant regulatory issues identified during the review. Merely opening a communication would not be sufficient review.
Proposed Supplementary Material .08 to Rule 11.3110 would provide that, in the course of the supervision and review of correspondence and internal communications required by proposed Rule 11.3110(b)(4), a supervisor/principal may delegate certain functions to persons who need not be registered. However, the supervisor/principal remains ultimately responsible for the performance of all necessary supervisory reviews, irrespective of whether he or she delegates functions related to the review. Accordingly, supervisors/principals would need to take reasonable and appropriate action to ensure delegated functions are properly executed and should evidence performance of their procedures sufficiently to demonstrate overall supervisory control.
Proposed Supplementary Material .09 to Rule 11.3110 would provide that each Participant Firm would need to retain the internal communications and correspondence of associated persons relating to the Participant Firm's investment banking or securities business for the period of time and accessibility specified in SEA Rule 17a-4(b). The names of the persons who prepared outgoing correspondence and who reviewed the correspondence would need to be ascertainable from the retained records, and the retained records would need to be readily available to the Exchange, upon request.
Proposed Supplementary Material .10 to Rule 11.3110 would provide that a Participant Firm's determination that it is not possible to comply with proposed Rules 3110(b)(6)(C)(i) or (b)(6)(C)(ii) prohibiting supervisory personnel from supervising their own activities and from reporting to, or otherwise having compensation or continued employment determined by, a person or persons they are supervising generally will arise in instances where:
• The Participant Firm is a sole proprietor in a single-person firm;
• A registered person is the Participant Firm's most senior executive officer (or similar position); or
• A registered person is one of several of the Participant Firm's most senior executive officers (or similar positions).
Proposed Supplementary Material .11 to Rule 11.3110 would provide that a Participant Firm may use electronic media to satisfy its obligation to communicate its written supervisory procedures, and any amendment thereto, pursuant to proposed Rule 11.3110(b)(7), provided that:
• The written supervisory procedures have been promptly communicated to, and are readily accessible by, all associated persons to whom such supervisory procedures apply based on their activities and responsibilities through, for example, the Participant Firm's intranet system;
• All amendments to the written supervisory procedures are promptly
posted to the Participant Firm's electronic media;
• Associated persons are notified that amendments relevant to their activities and responsibilities have been made to the written supervisory procedures;
• The Participant Firm has reasonable procedures to monitor and maintain the security of the material posted to ensure that it cannot be altered by unauthorized persons; and
• The Participant Firm retains current and prior versions of its written supervisory procedures in compliance with the applicable record retention requirements of SEA Rule 17a-4(e)(7).
Proposed Supplementary Material .12 to Rule 11.3110 would provide that, in fulfilling its obligations under proposed Rule 11.3110(c), each Participant Firm would need to conduct a review, at least annually, of the businesses in which it engages. The review would need to be reasonably designed to assist in detecting and preventing violations of and achieving compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations and with Exchange rules. Each Participant Firm would need to establish and maintain supervisory procedures that take into consideration, among other things, the firm's size, organizational structure, scope of business activities, number and location of the firm's offices, the nature and complexity of the products and services offered by the firm, the volume of business done, the number of associated persons assigned to a location, the disciplinary history of registered representatives or associated persons, and any indicators of irregularities or misconduct (
Proposed Supplementary Material .13 to Rule 11.3110 would provide additional guidance to proposed Rule 11.3110(c)(1)(C), which would require a Participant Firm to inspect on a regular periodic schedule every non-branch location. In establishing a non-branch location inspection schedule, there is a general presumption that a non-branch location will be inspected at least every three years, even in the absence of any indicators of irregularities or misconduct (
Proposed Supplementary Material .14 to Rule 11.3110 would provide that a Participant Firm's determination that it is not possible to comply with proposed Rule 11.3110(c)(3)(B) with respect to who is not allowed to conduct a location's inspection will generally arise in instances where:
• The Participant Firm has only one office; or
• The Participant Firm has a business model where small or single person offices report directly to an OSJ manager who is also considered the offices' branch office manager.
Proposed Supplementary Material .15 to Rule 11.3110 would provide that for purposes of the proposed rule, the term “associated person” and “person associated with a Participant Firm” would have the same meaning as the terms “person associated with a member” or “associated person of a
Finally, proposed Supplementary Material .16 to Rule 11.3110 would provide that individuals in charge of a group of employees shall reasonably discharge their duties and obligations with respect to supervision and control of those employees related to the business of their employer and compliance with securities laws and regulations and Exchange rules.
Proposed Rule 11.3120(a), which is based on NYSE American Rule 3120(a)—Equities, would provide that each Participant Firm would need to designate and specifically identify to the Exchange one or more principals who would need to establish, maintain, and enforce a system of supervisory control policies and procedures that:
• Test and verify that the Participant Firm's supervisory procedures are reasonably designed with respect to the activities of the Participant Firm and its associated persons, to achieve compliance with applicable securities laws and regulations, and with applicable Exchange rules; and
• Create additional or amend supervisory procedures where the need is identified by such testing and verification.
The designated principal or principals would be required to submit to the Participant Firm's senior management no less than annually, a report detailing each Participant Firm's system of supervisory controls, the summary of the test results and significant identified exceptions, and any additional or amended supervisory procedures created in response to the test results.
Proposed Rule 11.3120(b) would provide that each report provided to senior management pursuant to proposed Rule 11.3120(a) in the calendar year following a calendar year in which a Participant Firm reported $200 million or more in gross revenue would need to include, to the extent applicable to the Participant Firm's business:
• A tabulation of the reports pertaining to customer complaints and internal investigations made to the Exchange during the preceding year; and
• Discussion of the preceding year's compliance efforts, including procedures and educational programs, in each of the following areas:
○ Trading and market activities;
○ Investment banking activities;
○ Antifraud and sales practices;
○ Finance and operations;
○ Supervision; and
○ Anti-money laundering.
The proposed rule change seeks to mitigate compliance costs and burdens with respect to proposed Rule 11.3120's annual reporting requirements by requiring that only Participant Firms reporting $200 million or more in gross revenues in the preceding year include in their annual reports supplemental information. The Exchange also believes that the proposed threshold strikes the appropriate balance as it encompasses larger Participant Firms, Participant Firms engaged in significant underwriting activities and substantial trading activities or market making business, and Participant Firms with extensive sales platforms.
Proposed Rule 11.3120(c) would provide that, for purposes of proposed Rule 11.3120(b), “gross revenue” is defined as:
• Total revenue as reported on FOCUS Form Part II or IIA (line item 4030) less commodities revenue (line item 3990), if applicable; or
• Total revenue as reported on FOCUS Form Part II CSE (line item 4030) less, if applicable,
○ Commissions on commodity transactions (line item 3991); and
○ Commodities gains or losses (line items 3924 and 3904).
Proposed Supplementary Material .01 to Rule 11.3120 would provide that for purposes of the proposed rule, the term “associated person” and “person associated with a Participant Firm” would have the same meaning as the terms “person associated with a member” or “associated person of a member” as defined in Article I (rr) of the FINRA By-Laws.
Finally, the Exchange proposes conforming changes to Rule 10.9217 to replace references to Article 6, Rule 5(a) & (b) with proposed Rule 11.20 and Rule 11.3110(a) as well as references to Article 6, Rule 5(c) with Rule 11.3110(b)(1).
The proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) 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 purposes of the Act. The proposed rule change is not intended to address competitive issues but rather to achieve greater consistency between the Exchange's rules and the rules of its affiliate and FINRA concerning supervision.
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
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
At any time within 60 days of the filing of such proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings 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.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-NYSECHX-2024-18 and should be submitted on or before June 18, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Cabinet Proximity Option Fee at General 8, Section 1, as described further below.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The purpose of the proposed rule change
The Exchange currently offers a Cabinet Proximity Option program where, for a monthly fee, customers can obtain an option for future use on available, unused cabinet space in proximity to their existing equipment. Cabinets reserved under the Cabinet Proximity Option program are unused cabinets that customers reserve for future use and can be converted to a powered cabinet at the customer's request. Under the program, customers can reserve up to maximum of 20 cabinets that the Exchange endeavors to provide as close as reasonably possible to the customer's existing cabinet space, taking into consideration power availability within segments of the data center and the overall efficiency of use of data center resources as determined by the Exchange. Should reserved data center space be needed for use, the reserving customer will have three business days to formally contract with the Exchange for full payment for the reserved cabinet space or it will be reassigned. In making determinations to require exercise or relinquishment of reserved space as among numerous customers, the Exchange will take into consideration several factors, including: proximity between available reserved cabinet space and the existing space of a customer seeking additional space for actual cabinet usage; a customer's ratio of cabinets in use to those reserved; the length of time that a particular reservation(s) has been in place; and any other factor that the Exchange deems relevant to ensure overall efficiency in use of the data center space.
The applicable monthly fees for the Cabinet Proximity Option program are in General 8, Section 1(d). The Cabinet Proximity Option fee is $1,055/month per medium or low density cabinets and $1,583/month per medium/high or high density cabinets.
Currently, the Exchange offers Super High Density Cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW and less than or equal to 17.3 kW.
The proposed Cabinet Proximity Option fee of $3,000 would only be charged to those customers that voluntarily choose to reserve cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW. Such option is available to all customers. Similar to other fees related to cabinet and power usage, the Cabinet Proximity Option fee is incremental, with higher fees being imposed based on higher levels of cabinet and power allocation. The proposed Cabinet Proximity Option fee of $3,000 for cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW is comparable to pricing for “PNU cabinets”
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
First, the proposal is reasonable because the proposed fee is comparable to NYSE's monthly fee of $360 per kW for PNU cabinets.
Furthermore, the Exchange offers the Cabinet Proximity Option program as a convenience to customers, providing an option to reserve unused cabinet space in proximity to their existing equipment. No firms are required to reserve cabinets via the Cabinet Proximity Option program. Clients may simply order cabinets without utilizing reservations. The proposed Cabinet Proximity Option fee of $3,000 would only be charged to those customers that voluntarily choose to reserve cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW and such option is available to all customers.
The Exchange believes substitutable products and services are available to market participants, including, among
In offering the Cabinet Proximity Option the Exchange incurs certain costs, including costs related to the data center, including maintaining an adequate level of power so that reserved cabinets can be available and powered on promptly at the request of customers.
If the Exchange is incorrect in its determination that the proposed fee reflects the value of the Cabinet Proximity Option for cabinets with power densities greater than 10 kW, customers will not reserve such cabinets.
In summary, the proposal represents an equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees and other charges because the proposed fee is less than NYSE's fee for a comparable service, customers have choices in how they connect to the Exchange, and reservations under the Cabinet Proximity Option program are optional and provided as a convenience to customers.
The Exchange believes that the proposed fee change is not unfairly discriminatory because the Cabinet Proximity Option fee is assessed uniformly across all market participants that voluntarily select the option, which is available to all customers. All customers have the choice of whether and how to connect to the Exchange and may order cabinets without utilizing reservations.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
Nothing in the proposal burdens inter-market competition because approval of the proposal does not impose any burden on the ability of other exchanges to compete. The Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can determine whether or not to connect to the Exchange based on the value received compared to the cost of doing so. Indeed, market participants have numerous alternative exchanges that they may participate on and direct their order flow, as well as off-exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading.
Nothing in the proposal burdens intra-market competition because the Cabinet Proximity Option program is available to any customer under the same fees as any other customer, and any customer that wishes to reserve a cabinet pursuant to the Cabinet Proximity Option program can do so on a non-discriminatory basis.
No written comments were either solicited or received.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is: (i) necessary or appropriate in the public interest; (ii) for the protection of investors; or (iii) otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule should be approved or disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGA”) proposes to amend Rule 11.11 to describe the manner in which the Exchange processes executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from away Trading Centers priced in fractional pennies. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.11 to describe the manner in which the Exchange processes executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from away Trading Centers
Pursuant to Rule 2.11, the Exchange relies on its Routing Broker to provide outbound routing services from the Exchange to a routing destination. Rule 2.11 also provides the authority to the Exchange or the Routing Broker to cancel orders on the Exchange's equity securities platform when a technical or system issue occurs. In addition, Rule 2.11 also describes the operation of an error account for Cboe Trading. While Rule 2.11 speaks to the authority of the Routing Broker to provide outbound routing services, Rule 11.11 describes the manner in which orders are routed away from the Exchange to an away Trading Center. The Exchange proposes to add subparagraph (j) to Rule 11.11 to describe the order handling behavior of fractional penny executions on away Trading Centers.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes that in order to process executions which occur in securities priced below $1.00 in fractional pennies on away Trading Centers, the Exchange's Routing Broker will perform an adjustment to each fractional penny execution. In particular, for all buy executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies, the Routing Broker will round down to the nearest $0.0001. Additionally, for all sell executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies, the Routing Broker will round up to the nearest $0.0001. The only exception to this rounding behavior will occur when a buy execution in securities priced below $1.00 in fractional pennies received from an away Trading Center would result in the Routing Broker rounding down to a price of $0.0000. In this instance, and this instance only, the Routing Broker will instead round up to the minimum price of $0.0001 in order to comply with Rule 11.6(i). The Routing Broker will afford the Exchange order (and ultimately, the User
The Exchange's proposal is based on a similar proposal from NYSE that described how its routing broker would process orders received from an away market that were executed in odd-lots or in sub-pennies.
This service provided by the Routing Broker with regard to fractional penny executions is not intended to operate as a means to generate revenue. While the Routing Broker does not anticipate accruing any positions as a result of the adjustments made to executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from away Trading Centers in fractional pennies, the Routing Broker will liquidate positions assumed as a result of the services provided to the Exchange. To that end, it is the intent of the Routing Broker to be flat in all positions at the end of each trading day.
The Exchange has included the following examples to demonstrate the proposed order handling behavior.
Firm A enters an order on the Exchange to buy 100 shares of ABC at $0.5008. The Exchange's best offer is $0.5007. Trading Center 1 is displaying a best offer at $0.5006. Trading Center 1 also has the ability to execute trades in fractional pennies. The System
Firm A enters an order on the Exchange to sell 100 shares of ABC at $0.5004. The Exchange's best bid is $0.5005. Trading Center 1 is displaying a best bid at $0.5006. Trading Center 1 also has the ability to execute trades in fractional pennies. The System transmits Firm A's order with order handling instructions to the Routing Broker. The Routing Broker then transmits the order with the order handling instructions received from the Exchange to Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker receives a fill of 100 shares at $0.50068 due to price improvement received at Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker will buy 100 shares from Firm A at $0.5007 and uses the fill of 100 shares at $0.50068 to offset the position. The Routing Broker will incur a total loss of $0.002, or $0.00002 per share.
Firm A enters an order on the Exchange to buy 100 shares of ABC at $0.0001. The Exchange's best offer is $0.0003. Trading Center 1 is displaying a best offer at $0.0001. Trading Center 1 also has the ability to execute trades in fractional pennies. The System transmits Firm A's order with order handling instructions to the Routing Broker. The Routing Broker then transmits the order with the order handling instructions received from the Exchange to Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker receives a fill of 100 shares at $0.00008 due to price improvement received at Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker will sell 100 shares to Firm A at $0.0001 and uses the fill of 100 shares at $0.00008 to offset the position. The Routing Broker will
The Routing Broker will not engage in any business for the Exchange other than its outbound and inbound routing functions as detailed in Rules 2.11 and 2.12 and in the manner described above. Users are not required to utilize the Routing Broker when submitting orders to the Exchange. In the event a User does not wish for its order to be routed and potentially subject to the order handling behavior described above, it must enter an immediate-or-cancel (“IOC”) or any such other order type available on the Exchange that is not eligible for routing. All bids and offers entered on the Exchange that are routed away via the Routing Broker which result in an execution shall be binding on the User that entered such bid or offer.
The Exchange believes that the above proposal detailing the order handling behavior for executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies will provide Users with the best possible outcome in situations where the Exchange is unable to process an execution in fractional pennies due to System limitations.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing additional transparency into how the Exchange's Routing Broker processes executions in securities priced below $1.00 received in fractional pennies from away Trading Centers. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the Routing Broker's favorable price adjustment in favor of the User submitting the order promotes just and equitable principles of trade as it is designed to provide Users with the best possible outcome when their orders are adjusted due to System limitations on the Exchange. While the Routing Broker will be incurring a loss on each transaction except for in the limited scenario described in Example 3 above, the end result serves to protect investors and the public interest by providing a price more favorable to Users than the execution price received on the away Trading Center. The Exchange believes that the limited scenario presented in Example 3 above promotes just and equitable principles of trade because rather than providing an execution to the Exchange (and therefore the User) at a price of $0.0000, the Routing Broker will instead round up to a price of $0.0001, which is the minimum execution price supported by the Exchange. While this will result in a minimal profit for the Routing Broker and an inferior execution price than what is provided by the away Trading Center, the Exchange believes that the benefit of the Exchange (and User) ultimately receiving a buy execution at $0.0001 outweighs any minimal profit that the Routing Broker may receive and any minimal loss that the User experiences as a result of the rounding adjustment. Further, the proposal does not result in unfair discrimination as it applies to all executions received by the Routing Broker in securities priced below $1.00 that are priced in fractional pennies. Should a User not wish for its order to be subject to the proposed fractional penny adjustment described above, it is free to select a different order type that does not route to an away Trading Center.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition as the proposed order handling behavior by the Routing Broker will apply to all orders routed away equally, in that any order received by the Routing Broker from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies will be adjusted down (up) to the benefit of the User before being sent back to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that use of the Routing Broker is not mandatory. If a User does not wish to have its order subjected to the proposed order handling behavior it is free to choose a different order type that is not eligible for routing to away Trading Centers. In addition, the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intermarket competition as it is not being introduced to address a competitive issue, but rather to better describe order handling behavior by the Exchange's Routing Broker.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Exchange states that waiver of the operative delay would permit the Exchange's Routing Broker to immediately implement the order handling behavior described in the proposal, which would benefit Users who submit a routable order to the Exchange and receive an execution on an away Trading Center in fractional pennies. The Exchange further states the proposed rule change does not present any new or novel issues, as at least one other exchange indicated that its routing broker performed similar rounding behavior for orders received in odd-lot or sub-penny increments that were filled on away market centers and were not compatible with existing exchange system behavior.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act” or “Act”),
This proposed rule change would make modifications to its Board of Directors Charter and Corporate Governance Principles (“Board Charter”) and Risk Committee Charter (“Risk Committee Charter”) to comply with recently adopted governance requirements
The proposed changes to OCC's Board Charter are included [sic] as Exhibit 5A to File No. SR-OCC-2024-005 and proposed changes to the Risk Committee Charter are included [sic] as Exhibit 5B to File No. SR-OCC-2024-005. Material proposed to be added is underlined and material proposed to be deleted is marked in strikethrough text.
All terms with initial capitalization that are not defined herein have the same meaning as set forth in the OCC By-Laws and Rules.
In its filing with the Commission, OCC 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. OCC has prepared summaries, set forth in sections (A), (B), and (C) below, of the most significant aspects of these statements.
OCC is the sole clearing agency registered with the Commission for standardized equity options listed on national securities exchanges. OCC also clears and settles certain stock loan transactions and transactions in futures and options on futures. In connection with its clearance and settlement of transactions in securities, OCC is a “covered clearing agency”
As a covered clearing agency and DCO, OCC maintains a robust governance structure that is designed to comply with existing requirements of the Commission and the CFTC. Recently, the CFTC adopted new regulations regarding governance requirements for DCOs that supplement the existing governance requirements applicable to OCC as a DCO (“Governance Rules”).
The purpose of this proposed rule change by OCC is to modify its Board Charter and Risk Committee Charter to implement changes that are designed to comply with certain of the Governance Rules. The Governance Rules are found in CFTC Regulation 39.24.
As described below, OCC already maintains a robust governance structure that is designed to promote clear and transparent governance arrangements that, among other things, help effectively manage risks that arise in or are borne by OCC as a covered clearing agency and DCO. This structure is shaped by existing Commission and CFTC requirements, which are also described in part below. Within OCC's existing governance structure, the FRAC serves a similar purpose as the risk management committee and risk advisory working group described in the Governance Rules. OCC intends to make modifications to the FRAC to satisfy both the risk management committee and risk advisory working group Governance Rules requirements by designating a rotating smaller group of FRAC members to comprise the non-Board-level risk management committee, and the FRAC will function as the risk advisory working group. The changes that OCC is proposing to its Board Charter and Risk Committee Charter to address the Governance Rules for DCOs would become one facet of OCC's larger and overall governance structure. Because OCC treats the Board Charter and Risk Committee Charter as “rules” for purposes of Section 19(b) of the Exchange Act, it is therefore submitting the changes in connection with this proposed rule change.
OCC believes that the material aspects of its operations will appropriately comply with the new Governance Rules by including the proposed provisions in OCC's Board Charter and Risk Committee Charter. As detailed below, these proposed provisions include requiring the Board and the Risk Committee to consult with and respond to input from a new, non-Board-level risk management committee on all matters that could materially affect OCC's risk profile.
As part of OCC's existing governance structure, OCC already maintains a Board-level Risk Committee. Therefore, the new non-Board-level risk management committee is not and will not be the only aspect of OCC's governance structure that is designed to provide appropriate consideration and supervision over matters that could materially affect OCC's risk profile.
For example, as specified in the Risk Committee Charter, the duties of the Risk Committee in discharging oversight include, but are not limited to, reviewing the adequacy of OCC's management of risks related to credit exposures (including margin and clearing fund methodologies), overseeing OCC's risk models and risk model validation process, reviewing and approving new products that materially impact OCC's established risk profile (and referring such products to the Board for potential approval), overseeing OCC's framework for membership of Clearing Members, and considering and discussing input and guidance from the FRAC relating to financial risk issues.
The Risk Committee is also just one part of the more robust overall governance structure that OCC maintains to promote best practices and to comply with existing Commission and CFTC regulatory requirements that apply to OCC as a covered clearing agency and as a DCO. Certain of these regulatory requirements concerning OCC's governance structure are described in more detail below to provide greater context about the existing regulatory landscape to which the new Governance Rules are being added.
In connection with OCC's existing Board and Board committee structure, OCC maintains charters for the Board and all Board committees, Fitness Standards for Directors, Clearing Members and Others (“Fitness Standards”), and a Code of Conduct for OCC Directors (“Code of Conduct”). The charters, Fitness Standards, and Code of Conduct are all publicly available on OCC's website.
OCC's existing governance structure, as partially described above, is already shaped by significant regulatory requirements under the Exchange Act and the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”) that apply to OCC as a covered clearing agency and DCO. Accordingly, the Governance Rules for DCOs are supplementary to these existing regulatory obligations applicable to OCC's governance structure.
For example, the DCO core principles in the CEA already require OCC to have governance arrangements that are transparent to permit the consideration of the views of owners and participants.
As part of OCC's approach to comply with the Governance Rules, OCC will create a separate, non-Board-level risk management committee. As noted above, OCC already has a Risk Committee that is a Board-level committee. Creation of the new risk management committee as a non-Board-level advisory committee will be consistent with the CFTC Adopting Release guidance that a DCO may structure the required risk management committee as either a non-Board-level
While OCC's existing governance structure, including the consideration of the FRAC's input on risk initiatives, is robust and meets the CFTC's overall objective in requiring governance arrangements that are transparent, fulfill the public interest, and permit the consideration of the views of owners and participants, OCC's existing FRAC requires slight modifications to ensure continued compliance with the Governance Rules. Specifically, modifications are required to OCC's existing FRAC that are important to include within OCC's Risk Committee's delegation. These modifications, as outlined in the proposed Risk Committee Charter, (i) codify the required oversight and consultation between OCC's existing Board-level Risk Committee and the non-Board-level risk management committee, and (ii) establish the responsibility of OCC's existing Board-level Risk Committee to provide the Board with pertinent information for the Board's review and consideration for all matters that could materially affect OCC's risk profile from the non-Board-level risk management committee. Furthermore, modifications to OCC's existing FRAC are required to codify a regular rotation of membership and refine the current membership composition. By proposing modifications to OCC's existing FRAC to create a non-Board-level risk management committee and a risk advisory working group, OCC will satisfy the membership composition and rotation requirements outlined in the Governance Rules.
The operation of the non-Board-level risk management committee will be controlled by written policies and procedures that OCC will design to ensure compliance with the new DCO requirements. For example, the DCO must maintain written policies and procedures to make certain that the risk management committee consultation process is described in detail and to include requirements for the DCO to document the board's consideration of and response to risk management committee input.
The changes that OCC is proposing to its Board Charter and Risk Committee Charter to comply with part of the Governance Rules are described below, and they are designed to ensure that the Risk Committee and the Board work in coordination to consult with the new non-Board-level risk management committee and to respond to input from that committee on all matters that could materially affect OCC's risk profile. Consistent with the descriptions above of OCC's existing governance structure and the current Commission and CFTC requirements that already shape it, the proposed changes to the Board Charter and Risk Committee Charter would become part of the larger overall governance structure that OCC maintains to promote clear and transparent governance arrangements and to effectively manage risks that arise within or are borne by OCC as a covered clearing agency and DCO.
OCC proposes to modify the Board Charter to provide two new aspects of how the Board fulfills its oversight role. Specifically, the Board Charter would state that the Board would oversee OCC's process for consultation with the new, non-Board-level risk management committee and the consideration of, and responses to, input from the non-Board-level risk management committee by the Board through reports from the Risk Committee. The Board would provide oversight of this process and would review and consider the discussions with the Risk Committee regarding the Risk Committee's consultation with the non-Board-level risk management committee.
In addition to the proposed changes described above, OCC proposes to incorporate several non-substantive changes to the Board Charter, including but not limited to, using initial capitalization for the term “Executive Session” consistently throughout the document, eliminating unnecessary words, and adding minor grammatical updates and terms for clarity.
OCC also proposes to modify the Risk Committee Charter in a manner consistent with the proposed changes to the Board Charter. Specifically, the Risk Committee Charter would be revised to state that the Risk Committee would have responsibility for consulting with the non-Board-level risk management committee
In addition to the proposed changes described above, OCC proposes to incorporate several non-substantive changes to the Risk Committee Charter, including but not limited to, eliminating unnecessary words, and adding minor grammatical updates and terms for clarity and consistency.
Section 17A(b)(3)(F) of the Exchange Act requires, among other things, that the rules of a clearing agency must be designed to promote the prompt and accurate clearance and settlement of securities transactions, safeguard securities and funds in its custody or control or for which it is responsible, and, in general, protect investors and the public interest.
OCC believes that the proposed rule changes are consistent with these requirements because the proposed rule change is designed to modify OCC's Board Charter and Risk Committee Charter to reflect how the Board and Risk Committee would work in coordination to consult with and consider input from a new, non-Board-level risk management committee on all matters that could materially affect OCC's risk profile and to consider and respond to input from the non-Board-level risk management committee on such matters. Implementation of these proposed changes would promote OCC's compliance with the new Governance Rules,
In addition, OCC believes the proposed changes are consistent with Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2). Specifically, Rule 17Ad-22(e)(2) requires OCC to, among other things, provide for governance arrangements that are clear and transparent, clearly prioritize the safety and efficiency of the covered clearing agency and specify clear and direct lines of responsibility. Modifying the Board Charter and Risk Committee Charter through the proposed changes described above would be consistent with these requirements because the changes would document in a clear, direct and transparent way the material aspects of the process through which the Board and Risk Committee would work in coordination to consult with and consider input from a new, non-Board-level risk management committee on all matters that could materially affect OCC's risk profile and to consider and respond to input from the non-Board-level risk management committee on such matters.
Section 17A(b)(3)(I) of the Exchange Act
Written comments were not and are not intended to be solicited with respect to the proposed rule change and none have been received.
Because the foregoing proposed rule change does not:
(i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest;
(ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and
(iii) become operative for 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, it has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The proposal shall not take effect until all regulatory actions required with respect to the proposal are completed.
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.
Do not include personal identifiable information in submissions; you should submit only information that you wish to make available publicly. We may redact in part or withhold entirely from publication submitted material that is obscene or subject to copyright protection.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-OCC-2024-005 and should be submitted on or before June 18, 2024.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
FINRA is proposing to amend the FINRA Code of Arbitration Procedure for Customer Disputes (“Customer Code”) to clarify and, in some instances, amend the applicability of the Document Production Lists to simplified customer arbitrations administered under FINRA Rule 12800.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on FINRA's website at
In its filing with the Commission, FINRA included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. FINRA has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
FINRA Dispute Resolution Services (“DRS”) provides a Discovery Guide to supplement the discovery rules contained in the Customer Code and help guide the parties and arbitrators through the discovery process in customer arbitrations.
The proposed rule change would affect the applicability of the Document Production Lists in simplified customer arbitrations. Simplified customer arbitrations are arbitrations in which the dispute between a customer and member firm or associated person involves $50,000 or less, exclusive of interest and expenses.
Currently, the Document Production Lists do not apply in paper cases and special proceedings.
By contrast, the Document Production Lists do apply in simplified customer arbitrations in which the customer requests a regular hearing. As noted above, if the customer requests a regular hearing during the simplified customer arbitration, FINRA Rule 12800(c)(3)(A) states that the “regular provisions” of the Customer Code “relating to prehearings and hearings” apply. DRS has issued guidance clarifying this language to mean that the Document Production Lists apply in simplified customer arbitrations in which the customer requests a regular hearing.
The proposed rule change would amend FINRA Rule 12800(g)(1) to give customers in paper cases and special proceedings the option to elect at the time that they initiate an arbitration or, if they are a respondent, no later than the answer due date, whether they want the Document Production Lists to apply to all parties. Specifically, under proposed Rule 12800(g)(1)(B), FINRA Rule 12506—which describes the Document Production Lists and sets forth the timeframes for responding to the Document Production Lists—would not apply in paper cases or special proceedings “unless the customer requests that the Document Production Lists apply to all parties when initiating an arbitration pursuant to Rule 12302 or, if the customer is a respondent, no later than the answer due date pursuant to Rule 12303, regardless of the parties' agreement to extend any answer due date.”
If the customer does not timely elect to apply the Document Production Lists to all parties when initiating an arbitration or, as applicable, no later than the answer due date, proposed Rule 12800(g)(1)(B) would retain the current provision in the rule that the arbitrator has the discretion to use relevant portions of the Document Production Lists in a manner consistent with the expedited nature of simplified customer arbitrations. Additionally, proposed Rule 12800(g)(2) would retain the current provision in the rule that would permit the parties to request documents and information from each other.
Based on feedback from customer representatives, FINRA is concerned that
If the SEC approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will develop and publish guidance about discovery that will be available to all parties in simplified customer arbitrations. The guidance would, among other things, direct parties to the Discovery Guide. In addition to describing the Document Production Lists, the Discovery Guide includes information that could improve the parties' awareness and understanding of the discovery process such as information about the circumstances under which the parties may object to the production of documents on the Document Production Lists, the parties' ability to request additional documents other than those included on the Document Production Lists, the process for obtaining the production of documents from non-parties, the forms that the production of documents should take, and the parties' right to object to the production of documents based on confidentiality and privilege concerns.
As discussed above, proposed Rule 12800(g)(1)(B) would require that the customer decide whether to apply the Document Production Lists in a paper case or special proceeding “when initiating an arbitration pursuant to Rule 12302” or “no later than the answer due date pursuant to Rule 12303, regardless of the parties' agreement to extend any answer due date.”
Finally, the proposed rule change would give only customers the right to elect to have the Document Production Lists apply in paper cases and special proceedings because, as discussed above, a majority of the customers who appear in these types of cases are
Further, although only customers would have the option to choose whether the Document Production Lists would apply in their case, FINRA does not believe the proposed rule change would impose an unfair burden on industry parties or deprive them in any way of their right to obtain discoverable documents and information. If a customer elects to have the Document Production Lists apply in a paper case or special proceeding, that election would trigger production obligations for both customers and industry parties; as noted above, the documents on List 1 would be presumptively discoverable by customers, and the documents on List 2 would be presumptively discoverable by member firms and associated persons.
Currently, FINRA Rule 12800(c)(3)(A) states that, when a customer requests a regular hearing, the “regular provisions” of the Customer Code relating to prehearings and hearings apply. As noted above, DRS has issued guidance clarifying this language to mean that the Document Production Lists apply in simplified customer arbitrations in which the customer requests a regular hearing.
If the Commission approves the proposed rule change, FINRA will announce the effective date of the proposed rule change in a
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions of Section 15A(b)(6) of the Act,
FINRA believes that the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest as it will provide customers in paper cases and special proceedings with the option to use the Document Production Lists, thereby increasing customer awareness and understanding of the discovery process and the likelihood that these parties are able to discover the documents and information that are relevant to their arbitration. If the customer elects to use the Document Production Lists in a paper case or special proceeding, parties should automatically (
FINRA also believes that the proposed rule change will protect investors and the public interest by aligning the Customer Code with existing DRS practice and guidance that the Document Production Lists apply in simplified customer arbitrations in which the customer requests a regular hearing. Codifying this existing practice and guidance will improve transparency and enhance parties' awareness and understanding of the discovery process in simplified customer arbitrations.
FINRA does not believe that the proposed rule change will result in any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
FINRA has undertaken an economic impact assessment to analyze the regulatory need for the proposed rule change, its potential economic impacts, including anticipated costs, benefits, and distributional and competitive effects, relative to the current baseline, and the alternatives FINRA considered in assessing how best to meet FINRA's regulatory objectives.
The proposed rule change addresses a concern that certain customers in simplified customer arbitrations may be at a disadvantage in obtaining relevant documents and other information useful to their cases, due to a lack of awareness and understanding of how to use the discovery process. The proposed rule change and additional guidance are anticipated to increase customer
The economic baseline for the proposed rule change consists of the current provisions under the Customer Code and published guidance that address the discovery process in simplified customer arbitrations. FINRA anticipates the proposed rule change to affect the customers, industry parties, and arbitrators to simplified customer arbitrations.
To better understand the potential impacts of the proposed rule change, FINRA examines the 1,717 simplified customer arbitrations that closed from 2018 to 2023.
As discussed above, customer representatives have provided feedback that the Customer Code provides inadequate guidance, particularly to
To put these concerns in context, for the 1,717 simplified customer arbitrations that closed from 2018 to 2023, FINRA identifies the number where a customer appears
Data are not available to comprehensively describe the discovery process in the DRS arbitration forum. FINRA is therefore not able to determine the number of discovery requests in simplified customer arbitrations, the frequency of objections, and how discovery may differ by proceeding or representation type.
In paper cases and special proceedings, the proposed rule change would provide customers the option to apply the Document Production Lists. Along with the planned additional guidance, this proposed rule change may increase customer awareness and understanding of the discovery process and their access to relevant documents and other information through an established framework of presumptively discoverable documents. This increased access may improve the efficiency of the DRS arbitration forum to bring about outcomes (
Paper cases and special proceedings may be decided on the merits of the case where customers appear
When customers elect to apply the Document Production Lists in paper cases or special proceedings, parties may incur additional or fewer discovery-related costs. The additional costs customers may incur would be at their own expense. The overall impact on discovery-related costs would depend on how the number of production requests and discovery-related motions change relative to the baseline. Parties may need to produce additional documents or information described in the Document Production Lists, increasing costs relative to the baseline. On the other hand, parties may cease objecting to the production of documents that were requested in the baseline and that become presumptively discoverable. They may, however, incur additional costs objecting to the production of additional documents or information that were not requested under the baseline and which the proposed rule change makes presumptively discoverable.
The costs parties incur may also relate to the time to resolution. The proposed 60 days for parties to respond to the Document Production Lists may lengthen the time to resolution.
The greater exchange of relevant documents or information when customers elect to apply the Document Production Lists may also increase the ability of parties to settle prior to an award. Relative to arbitrating the dispute, parties who settle may incur fewer costs (
The codification of existing DRS guidance (as detailed above) that the Document Production Lists apply in simplified customer arbitrations in which the customer requests a regular hearing should not result in material economic effects. In the experience of FINRA staff, since DRS issued additional guidance, few questions have arisen regarding the application of
An alternative to the proposed rule change is to automatically apply the Document Production Lists in paper cases and special proceedings without the need for the customer to make an election. Relative to the proposed rule change, all parties in paper cases and special proceedings would obtain the relevant documents and other information and further decrease the risk that arbitration outcomes do not reflect the actual merits of the underlying dispute. As discussed above, most customers appear
Another alternative is to pare the Document Production Lists for paper cases and special proceedings, to the extent possible, to those documents and other information that are thought to be more relevant for these arbitrations. Relative to the proposed rule change, this alternative may decrease production costs. However, given that the Document Production Lists were designed to capture those documents that are most likely to lead to the discovery of relevant information in customer arbitrations, paring down the Document Production Lists may reduce the ability of customers to access relevant documents and other information. It is not known how these countervailing effects may impact the decision of customers to apply the Document Production Lists and case outcomes.
Finally, an alternative to the proposed rule change is to decrease the number of days for a party to respond when customers elect to apply the Document Production Lists in paper cases and special proceedings (
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove such proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to amend its Fee Schedule. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend its Fee Schedule applicable to its equities trading platform (“BZX Equities”) by modifying certain Add/Remove Volume Tiers. The Exchange proposes to implement these changes effective May 13, 2024.
The Exchange first notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. More specifically, the Exchange is only one of 16 registered equities exchanges, as well as a number of alternative trading systems and other off-exchange venues that do not have similar self-regulatory responsibilities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”), to which market participants may direct their order flow. Based on publicly available information,
Under footnote 1 of the Fee Schedule, the Exchange offers various Add/Remove Volume Tiers. In particular, the Exchange offers eight Add Volume Tiers that provide enhanced rebates for orders yielding fee codes B,
• Add Volume Tier 8 provides a rebate of $0.0031 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
The proposed criteria for Add Volume Tier 8 is as follows:
• Add Volume Tier 8 provides a rebate of $0.0031 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
In addition to the Add/Remove Volume Tiers offered under footnote 1, the Exchange also offers four Non-Displayed Add Volume Tiers that each provide an enhanced rebate for Members' qualifying orders yielding fee codes HB,
• Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 provides a rebate of $0.0018 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
The proposed criteria for Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 is as follows:
• Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 provides a rebate of $0.0018 per share in securities priced at or above $1.00 to qualifying orders (
The proposed, modified Add Volume Tier 8 and Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 are intended to continue to provide an additional opportunity to incentivize Members to earn an enhanced rebate by increasing their order flow to the Exchange, which further contributes to a deeper, more liquid market and provides even more execution opportunities for active market participants. While the proposed criteria for Add Volume Tier 8 is slightly less difficult than existing criteria and the proposed criteria for Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 is slightly more difficult than existing criteria, the Exchange believes that both tiers continue to offer an enhanced rebate that is commensurate with the proposed criteria. Incentivizing an increase in liquidity adding volume through enhanced rebate opportunities encourages liquidity-adding Members on the Exchange to increase transactions and take execution opportunities provided by such increased liquidity, together providing for overall enhanced price discovery and price improvement opportunities on the Exchange. As such, increased overall order flow benefits all Members by contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
As described above, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily direct order flow to competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive or incentives to be insufficient. The Exchange believes that its proposal to modify Add Volume Tier 8 and Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 reflects a competitive pricing structure designed to incentivize market participants to direct their order flow to the Exchange, which the Exchange believes would enhance market quality to the benefit of all Members. Specifically, the Exchange's proposal to introduce slightly different criteria to Add Volume Tier 8 and Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 is not a significant departure from existing criteria, is reasonably correlated to the enhanced rebate offered by the Exchange and other competing exchanges,
In particular, the Exchange believes its proposal to modify Add Volume Tier 8 and Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 is reasonable because the revised tiers will be available to all Members and provide all Members with an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate. The Exchange further believes its proposal to modify Add Volume Tier 8 and Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 will provide a reasonable means to encourage liquidity adding displayed orders in Members' order flow to the Exchange and to incentivize Members to continue to provide liquidity adding and liquidity removing volume to the Exchange by offering them an opportunity to receive an enhanced rebate on qualifying orders. An overall increase in activity would deepen the Exchange's liquidity pool, offer additional cost savings, support the quality of price discovery, promote market transparency and improve market quality, for all investors.
The Exchange believes that its proposal to modify Add Volume Tier 8 and Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 is reasonable as the proposed criteria do not represent a significant departure from the criteria currently offered in the Fee Schedule. The Exchange also believes that the proposal represents an equitable allocation of fees and rebates and is not unfairly discriminatory because all Members continue to be eligible for the proposed Add Volume Tier 8 and Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 and have the opportunity to meet the tiers' criteria and receive the corresponding enhanced rebate if such criteria is met. Without having a view of activity on other markets and off-exchange venues, the Exchange has no way of knowing whether this proposed rule change would definitely result in any Members qualifying for proposed Add Volume Tier 8 and Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1. While the Exchange has no way of predicting with certainty how the proposed changes will impact Member activity, based on the prior month's volume, the Exchange anticipates that at least one Member will be able to satisfy proposed Add Volume Tier 8 and at least three Members will be able to satisfy proposed Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1. The Exchange also notes that proposed changes will not adversely impact any Member's ability to qualify for enhanced rebates offered under other tiers. Should a Member not meet the proposed new criteria, the Member will merely not receive that corresponding enhanced rebate.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Rather, as discussed above, the Exchange believes that the proposed change would
The Exchange believes the proposed rule changes do not impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. Particularly, the Exchange's proposal to modify Add Volume Tier 8 and Non-Displayed Add Volume Tier 1 will apply to all Members equally in that all Members are eligible for the new and modified tiers, have a reasonable opportunity to meet the proposed tiers' criteria and will receive the enhanced rebate on their qualifying orders if such criteria is met. The Exchange does not believe the proposed changes burden competition, but rather, enhance competition as they are intended to increase the competitiveness of BZX by amending existing pricing incentives in order to attract order flow and incentivize participants to increase their participation on the Exchange, providing for additional execution opportunities for market participants and improved price transparency. Greater overall order flow, trading opportunities, and pricing transparency benefits all market participants on the Exchange by enhancing market quality and continuing to encourage Members to send orders, thereby contributing towards a robust and well-balanced market ecosystem.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule changes does not impose any burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. As previously discussed, the Exchange operates in a highly competitive market. Members have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on and direct their order flow, including other equities exchanges, off-exchange venues, and alternative trading systems. Additionally, the Exchange represents a small percentage of the overall market. Based on publicly available information, no single equities exchange has more than 16% of the market share.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
All submissions should refer to file number SR-CboeBZX-2024-039. This file number should be included on the subject line if email is used. To help the Commission process and review your comments more efficiently, please use only one method. The Commission will post all comments on the Commission's internet website (
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. (the “Exchange” or “BZX”) proposes to amend Rule 11.13 to describe the manner in which the Exchange processes executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from away Trading Centers priced in fractional pennies. The text of the proposed rule change is provided in Exhibit 5.
The text of the proposed rule change is also available on the Exchange's website (
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of, and basis for, the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.13 to describe the manner in which the Exchange processes executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from away Trading Centers
Pursuant to Rule 2.11, the Exchange relies on its Routing Broker to provide outbound routing services from the Exchange to a routing destination. Rule 2.11 also provides the authority to the Exchange or the Routing Broker to cancel orders on the Exchange's equity securities platform when a technical or system issue occurs. In addition, Rule 2.11 also describes the operation of an error account for Cboe Trading. While Rule 2.11 speaks to the authority of the Routing Broker to provide outbound routing services, Rule 11.13(b) describes the manner in which orders are routed away from the Exchange to an away Trading Center. The Exchange proposes to add subparagraph (6) to Rule 11.13(b) to describe the order handling behavior of fractional penny executions on away Trading Centers.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes that in order to process executions which occur in securities priced below $1.00 in fractional pennies on away Trading Centers, the Exchange's Routing Broker will perform an adjustment to each fractional penny execution. In particular, for all buy executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies, the Routing Broker will round down to the nearest $0.0001. Additionally, for all sell executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies, the Routing Broker will round up to the nearest $0.0001. The only exception to this rounding behavior will occur when a buy execution in securities priced below $1.00 in fractional pennies received from an away Trading Center would result in the Routing Broker rounding down to a price of $0.0000. In this instance, and this instance only, the Routing Broker will instead round up to the minimum price of $0.0001 in order to comply with Rule 11.11(a)(2). The Routing Broker will afford the Exchange
The Exchange's proposal is based on a similar proposal from NYSE that described how its routing broker would process orders received from an away market that were executed in odd-lots or in sub-pennies.
This service provided by the Routing Broker with regard to fractional penny executions is not intended to operate as a means to generate revenue. While the Routing Broker does not anticipate accruing any positions as a result of the adjustments made to executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from away Trading Centers in fractional pennies, the Routing Broker will liquidate positions assumed as a result of the services provided to the Exchange. To that end, it is the intent of the Routing Broker to be flat in all positions at the end of each trading day.
The Exchange has included the following examples to demonstrate the proposed order handling behavior.
Firm A enters an order on the Exchange to buy 100 shares of ABC at $0.5008. The Exchange's best offer is $0.5007. Trading Center 1 is displaying a best offer at $0.5006. Trading Center 1 also has the ability to execute trades in fractional pennies. The System
Firm A enters an order on the Exchange to sell 100 shares of ABC at $0.5004. The Exchange's best bid is $0.5005. Trading Center 1 is displaying a best bid at $0.5006. Trading Center 1 also has the ability to execute trades in fractional pennies. The System transmits Firm A's order with order handling instructions to the Routing Broker. The Routing Broker then transmits the order with the order handling instructions received from the Exchange to Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker receives a fill of 100 shares at $0.50068 due to price improvement received at Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker will buy 100 shares from Firm A at $0.5007 and uses the fill of 100 shares at $0.50068 to offset the position. The Routing Broker will incur a total loss of $0.002, or $0.00002 per share.
Firm A enters an order on the Exchange to buy 100 shares of ABC at $0.0001. The Exchange's best offer is $0.0003. Trading Center 1 is displaying a best offer at $0.0001. Trading Center 1 also has the ability to execute trades in fractional pennies. The System transmits Firm A's order with order handling instructions to the Routing Broker. The Routing Broker then
The Routing Broker will not engage in any business for the Exchange other than its outbound and inbound routing functions as detailed in Rules 2.11 and 2.12 and in the manner described above. Users are not required to utilize the Routing Broker when submitting orders to the Exchange. In the event a User does not wish for its order to be routed and potentially subject to the order handling behavior described above, it must enter an immediate-or-cancel (“IOC”) or any such other order type available on the Exchange that is not eligible for routing. All bids and offers entered on the Exchange that are routed away via the Routing Broker which result in an execution shall be binding on the User that entered such bid or offer.
The Exchange believes that the above proposal detailing the order handling behavior for executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies will provide Users with the best possible outcome in situations where the Exchange is unable to process an execution in fractional pennies due to System limitations.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade by providing additional transparency into how the Exchange's Routing Broker processes executions in securities priced below $1.00 received in fractional pennies from away Trading Centers. Additionally, the Exchange believes that the Routing Broker's favorable price adjustment in favor of the User submitting the order promotes just and equitable principles of trade as it is designed to provide Users with the best possible outcome when their orders are adjusted due to System limitations on the Exchange. While the Routing Broker will be incurring a loss on each transaction except for in the limited scenario described in Example 3 above, the end result serves to protect investors and the public interest by providing a price more favorable to Users than the execution price received on the away Trading Center. The Exchange believes that the limited scenario presented in Example 3 above promotes just and equitable principles of trade because rather than providing an execution to the Exchange (and therefore the User) at a price of $0.0000, the Routing Broker will instead round up to a price of $0.0001, which is the minimum execution price supported by the Exchange. While this will result in a minimal profit for the Routing Broker and an inferior execution price than what is provided by the away Trading Center, the Exchange believes that the benefit of the Exchange (and User) ultimately receiving a buy execution at $0.0001 outweighs any minimal profit that the Routing Broker may receive and any minimal loss that the User experiences as a result of the rounding adjustment. Further, the proposal does not result in unfair discrimination as it applies to all executions received by the Routing Broker in securities priced below $1.00 that are priced in fractional pennies. Should a User not wish for its order to be subject to the proposed fractional penny adjustment described above, it is free to select a different order type that does not route to an away Trading Center.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition as the proposed order handling behavior by the Routing Broker will apply to all orders routed away equally, in that any order received by the Routing Broker from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies will be adjusted down (up) to the benefit of the User before being sent back to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that use of the Routing Broker is not mandatory. If a User does not wish to have its order subjected to the proposed order handling behavior it is free to choose a different order type that is not eligible for routing to away Trading Centers. In addition, the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intermarket competition as it is not being introduced to address a competitive issue, but rather to better describe order handling behavior by the Exchange's Routing Broker.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Exchange states that waiver of the operative delay would permit the Exchange's Routing Broker to immediately implement the order handling behavior described in the proposal, which would benefit Users who submit a routable order to the Exchange and receive an execution on an away Trading Center in fractional pennies. The Exchange further states the proposed rule change does not present any new or novel issues, as at least one other exchange indicated that its routing broker performed similar rounding behavior for orders received in odd-lot or sub-penny increments that were filled on away market centers and were not compatible with existing exchange system behavior.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX”) proposes to amend Rule 11.13 to describe the manner in which the Exchange processes executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from away Trading Centers priced in fractional pennies. 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 Exchange proposes to amend Rule 11.13 to describe the manner in which the Exchange processes executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from away Trading Centers
Pursuant to Rule 2.11, the Exchange relies on its Routing Broker to provide outbound routing services from the Exchange to a routing destination. Rule 2.11 also provides the authority to the Exchange or the Routing Broker to cancel orders on the Exchange's equity securities platform when a technical or system issue occurs. In addition, Rule 2.11 also describes the operation of an error account for Cboe Trading. While Rule 2.11 speaks to the authority of the Routing Broker to provide outbound routing services, Rule 11.13(b) describes the manner in which orders are routed away from the Exchange to an away Trading Center. The Exchange proposes to add subparagraph (6) to Rule 11.13(b) to describe the order handling behavior of fractional penny executions on away Trading Centers.
Specifically, the Exchange proposes that in order to process executions which occur in securities priced below $1.00 in fractional pennies on away Trading Centers, the Exchange's Routing Broker will perform an adjustment to each fractional penny execution. In particular, for all buy executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies, the Routing Broker will round down to the nearest $0.0001. Additionally, for all sell executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies, the Routing Broker will round up to the nearest $0.0001. The only exception to this rounding behavior will occur when a buy execution in securities priced below $1.00 in fractional pennies received from an away Trading Center would result in the Routing Broker rounding down to a price of $0.0000. In this instance, and this instance only, the Routing Broker will instead round up to the minimum price of $0.0001 in order to comply with Rule 11.11(a)(2). The Routing Broker will afford the Exchange order (and ultimately, the User
The Exchange's proposal is based on a similar proposal from NYSE that described how its routing broker would process orders received from an away market that were executed in odd-lots or in sub-pennies.
This service provided by the Routing Broker with regard to fractional penny executions is not intended to operate as a means to generate revenue. While the Routing Broker does not anticipate accruing any positions as a result of the adjustments made to executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from away Trading Centers in fractional pennies, the Routing Broker will liquidate positions assumed as a result of the services provided to the Exchange. To that end, it is the intent of the Routing Broker to be flat in all positions at the end of each trading day.
The Exchange has included the following examples to demonstrate the proposed order handling behavior.
Firm A enters an order on the Exchange to buy 100 shares of ABC at $0.5008. The Exchange's best offer is $0.5007. Trading Center 1 is displaying a best offer at $0.5006. Trading Center 1 also has the ability to execute trades in fractional pennies. The System
Firm A enters an order on the Exchange to sell 100 shares of ABC at $0.5004. The Exchange's best bid is $0.5005. Trading Center 1 is displaying a best bid at $0.5006. Trading Center 1 also has the ability to execute trades in fractional pennies. The System transmits Firm A's order with order handling instructions to the Routing Broker. The Routing Broker then transmits the order with the order handling instructions received from the Exchange to Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker receives a fill of 100 shares at $0.50068 due to price improvement received at Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker will buy 100 shares from Firm A at $0.5007 and uses the fill of 100 shares at $0.50068 to offset the position. The Routing Broker will incur a total loss of $0.002, or $0.00002 per share.
Firm A enters an order on the Exchange to buy 100 shares of ABC at $0.0001. The Exchange's best offer is $0.0003. Trading Center 1 is displaying a best offer at $0.0001. Trading Center 1 also has the ability to execute trades in fractional pennies. The System transmits Firm A's order with order handling instructions to the Routing Broker. The Routing Broker then transmits the order with the order handling instructions received from the Exchange to Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker receives a fill of 100 shares at $0.00008 due to price improvement received at Trading Center 1. The Routing Broker will sell 100 shares to Firm A at $0.0001 and uses the fill of 100 shares at $0.00008 to offset the position. The Routing Broker will have a total gain of $0.002 or $0.00002 per share.
The Routing Broker will not engage in any business for the Exchange other than its outbound and inbound routing functions as detailed in Rules 2.11 and 2.12 and in the manner described above. Users are not required to utilize the Routing Broker when submitting orders to the Exchange. In the event a User does not wish for its order to be routed and potentially subject to the order handling behavior described above, it must enter an immediate-or-cancel (“IOC”) or any such other order type available on the Exchange that is not eligible for routing. All bids and offers entered on the Exchange that are routed away via the Routing Broker which result in an execution shall be binding on the User that entered such bid or offer.
The Exchange believes that the above proposal detailing the order handling behavior for executions in securities priced below $1.00 received from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies will provide Users with the best possible outcome in situations where the Exchange is unable to process an execution in fractional pennies due to System limitations.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change is consistent with the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”) and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the Exchange and, in particular, the requirements of Section 6(b) of the Act.
In particular, the proposal promotes just and equitable principles of trade by
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition as the proposed order handling behavior by the Routing Broker will apply to all orders routed away equally, in that any order received by the Routing Broker from an away Trading Center in fractional pennies will be adjusted down (up) to the benefit of the User before being sent back to the Exchange. The Exchange notes that use of the Routing Broker is not mandatory. If a User does not wish to have its order subjected to the proposed order handling behavior it is free to choose a different order type that is not eligible for routing to away Trading Centers. In addition, the proposed rule change will not impose any burden on intermarket competition as it is not being introduced to address a competitive issue, but rather to better describe order handling behavior by the Exchange's Routing Broker.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
Because the proposed rule change does not: (i) significantly affect the protection of investors or the public interest; (ii) impose any significant burden on competition; and (iii) become operative prior to 30 days from the date on which it was filed, or such shorter time as the Commission may designate, if consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest, the proposed rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A)(iii) of the Act
A proposed rule change filed under Rule 19b-4(f)(6)
The Exchange states that waiver of the operative delay would permit the Exchange's Routing Broker to immediately implement the order handling behavior described in the proposal, which would benefit Users who submit a routable order to the Exchange and receive an execution on an away Trading Center in fractional pennies. The Exchange further states the proposed rule change does not present any new or novel issues, as at least one other exchange indicated that its routing broker performed similar rounding behavior for orders received in odd-lot or sub-penny increments that were filled on away market centers and were not compatible with existing exchange system behavior.
At any time within 60 days of the filing of the proposed rule change, the Commission summarily may temporarily suspend such rule change if it appears to the Commission that such action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act. If the Commission takes such action, the Commission shall institute proceedings under Section 19(b)(2)(B)
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange proposes changes to its trading rules in connection with its transition to a new trading platform with technology provided by MEMX Technologies LLC (“MEMX Technologies”), an affiliated entity of MEMX LLC (“MEMX Exchange”), with different functionality and features unique to the LTSE market model. The Exchange will retain responsibility for overseeing the daily market operations of the Exchange's trading system and will maintain operational control over the features of such system and any changes thereto. Further, the Exchange will continue to have regulatory responsibility for the Exchange's trading system and will continue to fully discharge all of its obligations as a registered national securities exchange.
The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The self-regulatory organization has prepared summaries, set forth in Sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange is proposing rule changes that will effectuate a transition of the technology supporting the Exchange's trading system (the “System”)
The Exchange is proposing to delete the following LTSE Rules and replace them with an identical or substantially similar version of the corresponding MEMX Rule. Specifically, LTSE Rule 11.151 (Market Maker Obligations) is being amended to delete the definitions of “Crossing Quotation” and “Locking
As discussed above, the rule changes proposed herein are based on rules already approved by or filed for immediate effectiveness with the Commission for use by MEMX Exchange. The LTSE notes, however, that it is not proposing to adopt all of the MEMX Exchange trading rules for use by the System as LTSE has different functionality and features unique to its market model; for example, the Exchange will not offer routing functionality,
As initially designed and implemented, the current System was based on the concept of a “Very Simple Market” (“VSM”).
Additionally, and importantly, LTSE will continue to fully discharge its obligations as a national securities exchange, separate and distinct from those of the MEMX Exchange, and will not rely on nor utilize the MEMX Exchange to fulfill any aspect of those obligations on LTSE's behalf.
The Exchange and MEMX Technologies executed a Development, License and Services Agreement on January 23, 2024, with accompanying Schedules (collectively, the “DLSA”). MEMX Technologies, an affiliate of the MEMX Exchange, is in the business of developing technology systems for use in the financial industry. As part of the arrangement, MEMX Technologies will
The DLSA sets forth a multiyear arrangement that requires MEMX Technologies to provide the system and services to allow the Exchange to operate fair and orderly markets. Upon contract termination for any reason, the DLSA requires MEMX Technologies to provide transition services for a period of not less than 18 months, which include the transition of any Equipment that is capable of being transferred to Exchange including any Exchange data, confidential information, and system information. The DLSA further requires that such transition services be designed to ensure minimal disruption to Exchange's business operations. In addition, upon the occurrence of certain circumstances, including MEMX Technologies' cessation of the services or insolvency, the Exchange is entitled to a complete and accurate copy of the source code for the system, together with all associated information, documentation and materials required to enable the Exchange to operate, support and maintain the system, including integrations with any third-party provider product or service. In addition, because any suspension or termination of access to the system or the services of MEMX Technologies would be a violation of the agreement as it could impair the Exchange's ability to ensure continuity of service, the parties have agreed that the Exchange would be entitled to an injunction and other equitable relief (such as an order requiring specific performance) from MEMX Technologies. Finally, in the event that MEMX Technologies is unwilling or unable to provide the system or services, MEMX Holdings LLC (“MEMX Holdings”), the parent of MEMX Technologies, has entered into a guaranty agreement (“Parent Guaranty”) with the Exchange that, among other things, would require MEMX Holdings to perform in MEMX Technologies' stead, or cause the performance of MEMX Technologies obligations under the DLSA, including transition services.
The instance of the trading platform being licensed by LTSE is based on the functionality of the MEMX Exchange, but will be differentiated by the addition of certain functionalities specific to LTSE's market model and the deletion of certain functionalities specific to MEMX Exchange's market model.
The Exchange notes that there is nothing in Section 6 of the Exchange Act, or any other provision of the Act, that prevents two independent exchanges from utilizing the technology infrastructure provided to both by an affiliate of one of the exchanges, which offers it as “market-as-a-service.” Section 6(a)(1) of the Act,
Additionally, there are several examples of separately registered national securities exchanges and self-regulatory organizations successfully migrating to a common technology platform, while retaining important differentiators particular to each respective market. In each such case, the rule changes proposed by each exchange to accomplish the re-platforming were filed with the Commission for approval or immediate effectiveness.
As a further example of the differentiation between LTSE and the MEMX Exchange, LTSE will not be obligated to accept any change to LTSE's instance of the technology platform that may be proposed by the MEMX Exchange for its own market but is not desired by LTSE. Importantly, there is no incentive, monetary or otherwise, for LTSE to accept any changes proposed by the MEMX Exchange. Moreover, if MEMX Exchange proposes a rule for its own market, it does not mean that LTSE will automatically adopt the same rule. LTSE will continue to independently evaluate other exchanges' rule filings, including MEMX Exchange, to determine whether or not such changes should be adopted by LTSE. If LTSE seeks to implement an enhancement to its trading platform that is not applicable to the MEMX Exchange, MEMX Technologies will be obligated to develop and implement that enhancement (at a cost to be borne by LTSE). Importantly, MEMX Technologies has no authority to make any changes to the LTSE System without LTSE's direct instruction to do so.
LTSE's instance of the trading platform will operate on separate servers from those of the MEMX Exchange, and neither exchange will gain any advantage over other market participants in terms of access or speed or otherwise. Moreover, LTSE Members will be required to separately connect to LTSE and there will be no cross-connections between members of the respective exchanges. Simply stated, LTSE utilizing the outsourced trading platform provided by MEMX Technologies will have no impact on the competitive relationship between LTSE and the MEMX Exchange, which will continue to operate within the context of the national market system as it currently does.
LTSE will continue to provide for its market and cross-market surveillance through its Regulatory Services Agreement with FINRA (“RSA”), as it does today pursuant to LTSE Rule 1.170. The Exchange will maintain its independent regulatory function to oversee the RSA and will not utilize personnel from the MEMX Exchange for that purpose. The DLSA agreement provides that MEMX Technologies will provide to FINRA all of the required data needed to effectively surveil the LTSE market in a timely, complete and accurate way. Prior to the re-launch of the Exchange on the new trading platform, extensive testing will be conducted in conjunction with FINRA to assure that there are no data issues or gaps in surveillance coverage.
In summary, the Exchange believes that the use of a common, but not functionally identical, trading platform by LTSE and the MEMX Exchange will not in any way alter the competitive position of the two exchanges or establish any type of connection or opportunity for interaction that would be different than LTSE currently has with every other exchange participant in the national market system.
As a registered national securities exchange, LTSE is an “SCI entity” responsible for compliance with the requirements of Regulation SCI—Systems Compliance and Integrity (“Reg. SCI”) under the Exchange Act.
Accordingly, the Exchange submits that its proposal to move to an outsourced trading technology infrastructure is consistent with Reg. SCI. In the Adopting Release, the Commission stated that an SCI entity may contract with third parties to operate SCI systems on its behalf with the requirement that “. . . [the] SCI entity is responsible for having in place processes and requirements to ensure that it is able to satisfy the requirements of Regulation SCI for SCI systems operated on its behalf by a third party . . . .”
Reg. SCI Rule 1001(a)(1), requires LTSE to “. . . establish, maintain and enforce policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that its SCI systems . . . have levels of capacity, integrity, resiliency, availability, and security, adequate to maintain the SCI's entity's operational capability and promote the maintenance of fair and orderly markets.” Accordingly, the Exchange has in place detailed policies and procedures reasonably designed to ensure that its systems, including third-party systems, operate in the manner intended, including in compliance with the federal securities laws and rules, and the Exchange's rules and governing documents, and will review and revise its policies and procedures as necessary.
Consistent with that approach and the Exchange's obligations under Reg. SCI Rule 1001(a)(2) to have policies and procedures reasonably designed to include the requirements enumerated in that section, the negotiated DLSA provides the Exchange with information allowing it to meet all regulatory requirements, including requisite oversight to ensure the Exchange continues to meet all regulatory requirements. Consistent with Reg. SCI Rule 1001(a)(2)(i) such policies and procedures shall include, at a minimum: (i) the establishment of current and future technological infrastructure capacity planning estimates; (ii) periodic capacity stress tests to determine ability of the Exchange's Reg SCI systems to process transactions in an accurate, timely, and efficient manner; (iii) a program to review and keep current systems development and testing methodology for such systems; (iv) regular reviews and testing, as applicable, of such systems, including backup systems, to identify vulnerabilities pertaining to internal and external threats, physical hazards, and natural or manmade disasters; (v) business continuity and disaster recovery plans designed to effectuate the requirements for backup and recovery capabilities sufficiently resilient and geographically diverse and reasonably designed to achieve next business day resumption of trading and two-hour resumption of critical SCI systems following a wide-scale disruption; (vi) standards that result in such systems being designed, developed, tested, maintained, operated, and surveilled in a manner that facilitates the successful collection,
In furtherance of meeting the above, and to supplement and support its current Reg. SCI policies and procedures, LTSE will independently approve and disapprove System changes and, in addition to oversight of the testing performed by MEMX Technologies, will maintain an independent methodology to test proposed changes to the System. Pursuant to the Agreement, MEMX Technologies is required to provide certain information to LTSE regarding the operation of the System in order to allow for LTSE to conduct sufficient oversight in compliance with its Reg. SCI policies and procedures.
Additionally, the Exchange has established processes and requirements for communication between responsible Exchange personnel and MEMX Technologies personnel which, it believes, will fully satisfy all of the Exchange's independent Reg. SCI obligations.
Pursuant to Reg. SCI Rule 1001(a)(3) the Exchange will periodically review the effectiveness of its policies and procedures required by Reg. SCI Rule 1001(a) and take prompt action to remedy any deficiencies in such policies and procedures.
Pursuant to Reg. SCI Rule 1001(b)(1), the Exchange shall establish policies and procedures regarding systems compliance reasonably designed to ensure that all SCI systems operate in a manner that complies with all rules and regulations. Such policies shall include at a minimum, and as required by LTSE Rule 1001(b)(1)(i)—(iv) including (i) testing of all systems and changes to SCI systems prior to implementation; (ii) a system of internal controls over changes to SCI systems; (iii) a plan for assessments of the functionality of SCI designed to detect compliance issues, including by responsible SCI personnel; and (iv) a plan of coordination communication between regulatory and other personnel of the SCI entity, including by responsible SCI personnel, regarding SCI systems design, changes, testing, and controls designed to detect and prevent systems compliance issues.
LTSE will have oversight of MEMX Technologies to ensure that, for all required reportable information relating to the Exchange, the following must be provided to the Exchange in a manner consistent with the timelines required by Reg. SCI: (i) disruption, systems intrusion, and systems compliance issues; (ii) material system changes including enhancements and defect remediations; (iii) relevant annual audit and SCI systems compliance review reports; (iv) evidence of periodic security training for MEMX personnel; and (v) such additional information as may be required by Regulation SCI or written SEC guidance about the interpretation of Regulation SCI, or as may be requested by Exchange that is necessary to accurately respond to a request from staff at the Commission. This provision is reasonably designed to ensure that the Exchange can meet its obligations under SCI Rule 1002(b)
Additionally, MEMX Technologies, on behalf of LTSE, has established and shall maintain disaster recovery and business continuity plans and the capacity and resources to implement such plans. The plans must include maintaining backup and recovery capabilities sufficiently resilient and geographically diverse and are reasonably designed to achieve next-business day resumption of trading and two-hour resumption of the System and any supporting SCI systems following a wide-scale disruption. The DLSA stipulates that these plans shall comply with all legal requirements, including Reg SCI.
Consistent with Rule 1001(c)(1)
Reg. SCI Rule 1005(a) requires the Exchange to make, keep and preserve all documents relating to its compliance with Reg. SCI as prescribed in Section 17a-1 of the Act. The Exchange has policies and procedures in place to meet the requirements of Reg. SCI Rule 1005(a), including contractual undertakings by MEMX Technologies to assist the Exchange in fulfilling its recording keeping responsibilities with all the applicable laws.
The DLSA also provides the Exchange with other controls, including audit rights. Specifically, the Exchange or its designee shall have the right to audit and inspect the services provided by MEMX Technologies and the records of those services, as well as all facilities, systems and equipment used to provide the System or services for regulatory compliance purposes or to confirm compliance with the DLSA and any amounts paid or owed by the Exchange to MEMX Technologies.
There are also additional reporting requirements that require MEMX Technologies to, among other things, provide the Exchange, on a quarterly basis, with a summary of audit reports that relate to the services or System, including any system and organization control (“SOC”) reports or other audit reports completed by an independent party. The audit summary will contain a summary of audits issued during the quarter, a listing of open issues with their current status (including target completion dates and issue ratings), and a listing of issues closed during the quarter. The Exchange submits that these provisions will provide a rigorous framework to assure that it meets its regulatory obligations under Reg. SCI and effective oversight of the operation of the System by MEMX Technologies.
The Exchange is proposing rule changes that will effectuate the transition to the technology infrastructure provided by MEMX Technologies. The proposed amendments are designed to provide for a timely and efficient transition to the new trading platform with minimal operational risk or disruption to Members. While certain of the Exchange's current trading rules will remain unchanged, the proposed rule changes conform, in large part to the MEMX Exchange including the introduction of certain order types and order handling processes that are new to LTSE but are used by the MEMX Exchange. Therefore, the exchange believes that these proposed changes are neither novel nor controversial, and their introduction on the System will not significantly affect investor protection, competition within the national market system, or limit access to or availability of the System. Additionally, the Exchange is not proposing any changes to its rules governing membership or member conduct.
First, in LTSE Rule 11.151 (Market Maker Obligations), the Exchange proposes two ministerial amendments to paragraph (e)(2)(A)(ii), which defines the term “Crossing Quotation” and paragraph (e)(2)(A)(iii), which defines the term “Locking Quotation.” The Exchange is proposing to delete the substance of the definitions from this section and adopt a cross-reference to each of the defined terms, “Crossing Quotation” and “Locking Quotation,” to newly proposed LTSE Rule 11.180 (Definitions). The text of the newly proposed definitions, which will appear in newly proposed LTSE Rule 11.180(b) and (e), respectively, will conform with the definitions contained in MEMX Exchange Rule 11.6(b) (Crossing Quotation) and 11.6(e) (Locking Quotation).
LTSE Rule 11.180 (Units of Trading) is being amended to conform to MEMX Rule 11.6 (Definitions). Accordingly, the title of LTSE Rule 11.180, is being amended to change from “Units of Trading” to “Definitions” to conform with MEMX Rule 11.6 (Definitions). The current text of 11.180 is being deleted in its entirety and in its place, MEMX Rule 11.6 (Definitions) is being adopted in its entirety. Each of the definitions set forth below are the same as those contained in current MEMX Exchange Rule 11.6(a)-11.6(q) and LTSE is proposing to adopt conforming definitions in newly proposed LTSE Rule 11.180, as described below.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(a) (Cancel Back)—An instruction the User may attach to an order instructing the System to immediately cancel the order when, if displayed by the System on the LTSE Book at the time of entry would create a violation of Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS or Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, or the order cannot otherwise be executed or posted by the System to the LTSE Book at its limit price.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(b) (Crossing Quotation)—The display of a bid (offer) for an NMS stock at a price that is higher (lower) than the price of an offer (bid) for such NMS stock previously disseminated pursuant to an effective national market system plan in violation of Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS. This defined term is being moved from LTSE Rule 11.310 (Locking or Crossing Quotations in NMS Stocks), paragraph (a)(2) to this newly proposed rule to consolidate definitions applicable throughout Chapter 11 into a single rule.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(c) (Display Options)—(1) Displayed, which is an instruction the User may attach to an order stating that the order is to be displayed by the System on the LTSE Book; and (2) Non-Displayed, which is an instruction the User may attach to an order stating that the order is not to be displayed by the System on the LTSE Book. The proposal to allow Users to enter non-displayed orders on LTSE represents a change from the display options afforded to Users under the VSM, which allowed only for displayed orders, and is designed to allow for greater opportunities for market participants to interact with the System.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(d) (Locking Price)—The price at which an order to buy (sell), that if displayed by the System on the LTSE Book, would be a Locking Quotation.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(e) (Locking Quotation)—The display of a bid for an NMS stock at a price that equals the price of an offer for such NMS stock previously disseminated pursuant to an effective national market system plan, or the display of an offer for an NMS stock at a price that equals the price of a bid for such NMS stock previously disseminated pursuant to an effective national market system plan in violation of Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS. This defined term is being moved from LTSE Rule 11.310 (Locking or Crossing Quotations in NMS Stocks), paragraph (a)(3) to this newly proposed rule to consolidate definitions applicable throughout Chapter 11 into a single rule.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(f) (Minimum Execution Quantity)—This proposed amendment replaces the Minimum Quantity Order definition in current LTSE Rule 11.190(b)(11) and will permit a User
However, an order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction that crosses an order on the LTSE Book may execute at a price less aggressive than its ranked price against an incoming order so long as such execution is consistent with the above restrictions. An order with a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction may be partially executed so long as the execution size of the individual order is equal to or exceeds the quantity provided in the instruction.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(g) (Minimum Price Variation (“MPV”))—Bids, offers, or orders in securities traded on the Exchange shall not be made in an increment smaller than: (i) $0.01 if those bids, offers, or orders are priced equal to or greater than $1.00 per share; or (ii) $0.0001 if those bids, offers, or orders are priced less than $1.00 per share; or (iii) any other increment established by the Commission for any security which has been granted an exemption from the minimum price increments requirements of SEC Rule 612(a) or 612(b) of Regulation NMS. This proposed rule text is substantially similar to that contained in current LTSE Rule 11.210 (Minimum Price Variant). The Exchange proposes to reposition the definition of an MPV to this LTSE Rule 11.180(g) and current LTSE Rule 11.210 will become a “Reserved” section.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(h) (Pegged Order)—An order that automatically re-prices in response to changes in the NBBO, as further described in LTSE Rule 11.190(c). A User entering a Pegged Order can specify that the order's price will peg to the NBB or NBO or a certain amount away from the NBB or NBO (offset) or the midpoint of the NBBO, as described below. The Exchange currently does not offer Pegged Orders as part of the VSM and this will be new functionality. The proposed rule text is based on MEMX Exchange Rule 11.6(h).
In proposed LTSE Rule 1.180(h)(1), the Exchange defines a “Primary Peg” as an order with instructions to peg to the NBB, for a buy order, or the NBO, for a sell order. A User may, but is not required to, select an offset equal to or greater than $0.01 above or below the NBB or NBO that the order is pegged to (“Primary Offset Amount”). A User submitting a Pegged Order with a Primary Peg instruction may, but is not required to, include a limit price on such order.
In proposed LTSE Rule 11.180(h)(2), the Exchange defines a “Midpoint Peg” as a Pegged Order with an instruction to peg to the midpoint of the NBBO. A User submitting a Pegged Order with a Midpoint Peg instruction may, but is not required to, include a limit price on such order. A Pegged Order with a Midpoint Peg instruction and a limit price that is more aggressive than the midpoint of the NBBO will execute at the midpoint of the NBBO or better subject to its limit price. A Pegged Order with a Midpoint Peg instruction may execute at its limit price or better when its limit price is less aggressive than the midpoint of the NBBO.
A Pegged Order with a Midpoint Peg instruction will be ranked at the midpoint of the NBBO where its limit price is equal to or more aggressive than the midpoint of the NBBO. In such case, pursuant to LTSE Rule 11.220 (Priority of Orders), all Pegged Orders with a Midpoint Peg instruction that are ranked at the midpoint of the NBBO will retain their priority as compared to each other based upon the time such orders were initially received by the System. A Pegged Order with a Midpoint Peg instruction will be ranked at its limit price where its limit price is less aggressive than the midpoint of the NBBO.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(i) (Permitted Price)—The Exchange proposes to define “Permitted Price” as the price at which a sell order will be displayed at one Minimum Price Variation above the NBB.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(j) (Re-Pricing)—The Exchange is proposing to define how certain conditions will result in a repricing of an order by the System. First, in subparagraph (1)(A)(i) through (1)(A)(v), the Exchange describes re-pricing instructions to comply with Rule 610(d) of Regulation NMS, as follows:
(A) Display-Price Sliding.
(i) An order instruction, where an order would be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation of an external market if displayed by the System on the LTSE Book at the time of entry, will be ranked at the Locking Price in the LTSE Book and displayed by the System at one Minimum Price Variation lower (higher) than the Locking Price for orders to buy (sell). A User may elect to have the System only apply the Display-Price Sliding instruction to the extent a display-eligible order at the time of entry would be a Locking Quotation. For Users that select this portion of the Display-Price Sliding instruction, any order will be canceled if, upon entry, such order would be a Crossing Quotation of an external market.
(ii) An order subject to the Display-Price Sliding instruction will retain its original limit price irrespective of the prices at which such order is ranked and displayed. In the event the NBBO changes such that an order subject to the Display-Price Sliding instruction would not be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation, the order will receive a new timestamp, and will be displayed at the most aggressive permissible price. All orders that are re-ranked and re-displayed pursuant to the Display-Price Sliding instruction will retain their priority as compared to other orders subject to the Display-Price Sliding instruction based upon the time such orders were initially received by the Exchange.
Following the initial ranking and display of an order subject to the Display-Price Sliding instruction, an order will only be re-ranked and re-displayed to the extent it achieves a more aggressive price, provided, however, that (1) the Exchange will re-rank an order at the same price as the displayed price in the event such order's displayed price would be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation, which event will not result in a change in priority for the order at its displayed price, and (2) when an away Trading Center publishes a Protected Quotation that locks or crosses the displayed price of a resting Limit Order of Odd Lot size with a multiple price sliding instruction (as described in sub-paragraph (iii) below) and the Exchange does not have a Protected Quotation displayed at such price, the resting Limit Order will be ranked at the Locking Price in the LTSE Book and displayed by the System at one Minimum Price Variation lower (higher) than the Locking Price for orders to buy (sell).
(iii) The ranked and displayed prices of an order subject to the Display-Price Sliding instruction may be adjusted once or multiple times depending upon the instructions of a User and changes to the prevailing NBBO. A User that submits an order with a Display-Price Sliding instruction must select either single or multiple price sliding. The Exchange's single price sliding process will only adjust the ranked and displayed prices of an order upon entry and then the displayed price one time following a change to the prevailing NBBO, provided however, that if such an order's displayed price becomes a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation then the Exchange will adjust the ranked price of such order and it will not be further re-ranked or redisplayed at any other price. Orders subject to the Exchange's multiple price sliding process will be further re-ranked and re-displayed as permissible based on changes to the prevailing NBBO.
(iv) Any display-eligible order with a Post Only instruction that would be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation of the Exchange upon entry will be executed or canceled. In the event the NBBO changes such that an order with a Post Only instruction subject to Display-Price Sliding instruction would be ranked at a price at which it could remove displayed liquidity from the LTSE Book, the order will be executed or canceled.
(v) An order with a Post Only instruction will be permitted to post and be displayed opposite the ranked price of orders subject to Display-Price Sliding instruction. In the event an order subject to the Display-Price Sliding instruction is ranked on the LTSE Book with a price equal to an opposite side order displayed by the Exchange, it will be subject to processing as set forth in LTSE Rule 11.230(a)(4).
In proposed LTSE Rule 11.180(j)(2)(A) through (D), the Exchange describes re-pricing instructions to comply with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO,
(A) An order to sell with a Short Sale instruction that, at the time of entry, could not be executed or displayed in compliance with Regulation SHO will be re-priced by the System at the Permitted Price. A User that submits an order with a short sale re-pricing instruction must select either single or multiple price sliding. The Exchange's single price sliding process will only re-price an order upon entry. To reflect declines in the NBB, the Exchange's multiple price sliding process will continue to re-price and re-display a short sale order at the Permitted Price down to the order's limit price. In the event the NBB changes such that the price of an order of Odd Lot size or with a Non-Displayed instruction subject to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO would be a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation, the order will be canceled.
(B) When a Short Sale Circuit Breaker is in effect, the System may execute a sell order with a Displayed and Short Sale instruction at the price of the NBB if, at the time of initial display of the sell order with a Short Sale instruction, the order was at a price above the then-current NBB.
(C) Orders with a Short Exempt instruction will not be subject to repricing under this section.
(D) If an order is subject to a Display-Price Sliding instruction and also contains a Short Sale instruction when a Short Sale Circuit Breaker is in effect, the re-pricing instructions to comply with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO under this Rule will apply.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(k) (Reserve Quantity)—The Exchange is proposing to define “Reserve Quantity” as a portion of an order that includes a Non-Displayed instruction in which a portion of that order is also displayed on the LTSE Book. Both the portion of the order with a Displayed instruction and the Reserve Quantity are available for execution against incoming orders.
In proposed LTSE Rule 11.80(k)(1), the Exchange defines “Replenishment Amounts.” If the portion of the order with a Displayed instruction is reduced to less than a Round Lot, the System will, in accordance with the User's instruction, replenish the displayed quantity from the Reserve Quantity using one of the below replenishment instructions. Under either instruction below, any order with a Reserve Quantity will be handled as a new order by the System and a new order identification number will be created each time a displayed quantity is replenished. The Exchange will obfuscate the unique order identification number on its data feeds for replenishment of an order with Reserve Quantity. If the remainder of an order is less than the replenishment amount, the Exchange will replenish and display the entire remainder of the order. A User must instruct the Exchange as to the quantity of the order to be initially displayed by the System (“Max Floor”) when entering an order with a Reserve Quantity, which is also used to determine the replenishment amount, as described in proposed LTSE Rule 11.180(k)(1)(A) and (B). In subparagraph (A), the Exchange proposes to define Random Replenishment as an instruction a User may attach to the Reserve Quantity of an order where replenishment quantities for the order are randomly determined by the System in Round Lot increments only within a replenishment range established by the User. In particular, the User entering an order into the System subject to the Random Replenishment instruction must select a replenishment value and Max Floor. The actual quantity that will be initially displayed will be the Max Floor. The displayed replenishment quantities will then be determined by the System by randomly selecting a number of shares within a replenishment range that is between: (i) the Max Floor minus the replenishment value; and (ii) the Max Floor plus the replenishment value. A User entering an order into the System subject to the Random Replenishment instruction must either select immediate replenishment or to have the time interval of such replenishment randomly set by the Exchange. If a User has selected a random time interval, the System will randomly replenish the User's displayed replenishment quantity at different time intervals ranging up to one (1) millisecond following each execution that triggers replenishment. The non-displayed portion of an order subject to Random Replenishment will remain fully executable prior to the replenishment of a User's displayed quantity.
In proposed subparagraph (B) regarding Fixed Replenishment, the Exchange proposes that, for an order for which the Random Replenishment instruction has not been selected, the System will replenish the displayed quantity of the order to the Max Floor designated by the User.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(l) (Posting Instructions)—The Exchange is proposing to designate subparagraph (1) of this rule as “Reserved.” In subparagraph (2), the Exchange describes “Post Only” as an instruction that may be attached to an order that is to be ranked and executed on the Exchange pursuant to LTSE Rule 11.220 and LTSE Rule 11.230(a)(4) or canceled, as appropriate, except that the order will not remove liquidity from the LTSE Book, except in the following condition: an order with a Post Only instruction
• LTSE Rule 11.180(m) (Short Sale)—An instruction on an order which shall have the same meaning as defined in Rule 200(a) of Regulation SHO.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(n) (Short Exempt)—An instruction on an order with a Short Sale instruction that satisfies the requirements set forth in Rule 201 of Regulation SHO.
• LTSE Rule 11.180(o) (Time-in-Force (“TIF”)—The Exchange is proposing to adopt the same TIFs as appear in MEMX Exchange Rule 11.6(o), as follows: (1) Immediate-or-Cancel (“IOC”), which is an instruction the User may attach to an order stating the order is to be executed in whole or in part as soon as such order is received. The portion not executed immediately on the Exchange is treated as canceled and is not posted to the LTSE Book. This is identical to MEMX Exchange Rule 11.6(o)(1) except that LTSE is not adopting the provision related to routing of the order.
In proposed subparagraph (2), the Exchange proposes to define the TIF of “Day” as an instruction the User may attach to an order stating that an order to buy or sell is designated for execution starting with the Pre-Market Session and, if not executed, expires at the end of Regular Trading Hours. Any Day Order entered into the System before the opening for business on the Exchange as determined pursuant to LTSE Rule 11.110, or after the closing of Regular Trading Hours, will be rejected. The Exchange is deleting in its entirety LTSE Rule 11.190(d)(2) and replacing it with newly proposed LTSE Rule 11.180(o), which is substantially similar to MEMX Exchange Rule 11.6(o)(2).
In proposed LTSE Rule 11.180(o)(3), the Exchange is proposing to adopt a TIF of Fill-or-Kill (“FOK”), which is an instruction the User may attach to an order stating that the order is to be executed in its entirety as soon as it is received and, if not so executed, is canceled. This represents an addition to the Exchange's rules, which currently does not provide for an TIF of FOK but conforms to MEMX Exchange Rule 11.6(o)(3).
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.180(o)(4) describes the Good-'til-Time (“GTT”) TIF as an instruction the User may attach to an order specifying the time of day at which the order expires, which is designated for execution starting with the Pre-Market Session. Any unexecuted portion of an order with a TIF instruction of GTT will be canceled at the expiration of the User's specified time, which can be no later than the close of the Post-Market Session. This definition is in current LTSE Rule 11.190(o)(5) but is being moved to this LTSE Rule 11.180 and amended to conform to MEMX Exchange Rule 11.6(o)(4).
In proposed LTSE Rule 11.180(o)(5), the Exchange seeks to define the TIF of Regular Hours Only (“RHO”) as an instruction a User may attach to an order stating that an order to buy or sell is designated for execution only during Regular Trading Hours and, if not executed, expires at the end of Regular Trading Hours. Any order with a TIF instruction of RHO entered into the System before the opening or after the closing of Regular Trading Hours will be rejected. The Exchange currently does not offer a TIF of RHO and is proposing to adopt the RHO TIF to conform to MEMX Exchange Rule 11.6(o)(5).
• LTSE Rule 11.180(p) (Trading Center)—The Exchange is proposing to define “Trading Center” to mean other securities exchanges, facilities of securities exchanges, automated trading systems, electronic communications networks or other brokers or dealers. The Exchange's current rules do not contain that definition and the Exchange is proposing to adopt the same definition found in MEMX Rule 11.6(p) (Trading Center).
• LTSE Rule 11.180(q) (Units of Trading)—The Exchange proposes in subparagraphs (1)-(3) to define units of trading. In (1), the Exchange defines a Round Lot as one hundred (100) shares or any multiple thereof, unless an alternative number of shares is established as a Round Lot by the listing exchange for the security. Orders that are a Round Lot are eligible to be Protected Quotations. In (2), the Exchange defines an Odd Lot as any amount less than a Round Lot. Orders of Odd Lot size are only eligible to be Protected Quotations if aggregated to form a Round Lot. In (3), the Exchange defines a Mixed Lot as any amount greater than a Round Lot that is not an integer multiple of a Round Lot. Odd Lot portions of orders of Mixed Lot size are only eligible to be Protected Quotations if aggregated to form a Round Lot.
The Exchange is proposing revisions to current LTSE Rule 11.190 governing orders and modifiers available to Users pursuant to the VSM. The Exchange is amending the title of LTSE Rule 11.190 from “Orders and Modifiers” to “Order Types and Modifiers” to better describe the content of the newly proposed rule and to conform to MEMX Rule 11.8 (Order Types and Modifiers) upon which this rule is modeled.
The Exchange is proposing to amend the entirety of the rule text, to conform with MEMX Rule 11.8 (Order Types and Modifiers). Only provisions governing order routing are not being adopted, otherwise the rules, as proposed, are identical. These changes are intended to better facilitate a transition to the new trading platform with minimal disruption to Members by implementing order types and order handling processes that are currently in the technology utilized by MEMX Exchange and will support the System post-replatforming.
Next, the introductory text to the rule will provide that Users may enter into the System the types of orders listed in LTSE Rule 11.190, subject to the limitations set forth in this rule or elsewhere in Exchange rules. The Exchange will also include new text stating that, by default, orders are limited to a maximum of 1,000,000 shares or $30,000,000.00, which will align with the capacity of the System after the replatforming is complete. Additionally, the Exchange proposes to reposition the statement that any order that is submitted to the System will be an “LTSE Only” order from LTSE Rule 11.190(b)(6), which is proposed for deletion as described below.
Newly proposed LTSE Rule 11.190(a), will include the definition of a Limit Order, specifically, that a Limit Order is an order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security at a specified price (“Limit Price”) or better. A “marketable” Limit Order is a Limit Order to buy (sell) at or above (below) the lowest (highest)
Newly proposed subparagraph (a)(2) will address the size of Limit Orders that can be submitted through the System. A Limit Order may be an Odd Lot, Round Lot or Mixed Lot. A User may include a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction for a Limit Order with a Non-Displayed instruction or TIF of IOC.
Newly proposed subparagraph (a)(3) will provide that a Limit Order may include a Displayed instruction or a Non-Displayed instruction.
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.190(a)(4) provides that a Limit Order with a Displayed instruction may include a Reserve Quantity, which will not be displayed by the System. A Limit Order with both a Displayed instruction and Reserve Quantity must include a replenishment instruction and a replenishment amount.
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.90(a)(5) adopts rule text governing an Intermarket Sweep Order (“ISO”). The System will accept ISOs (as such term is defined in Regulation NMS). To be eligible for treatment as an ISO, the order must be: (i) a Limit Order; (ii) marked “ISO”; and (iii) the User entering the order must simultaneously route one or more additional Limit Orders marked “ISO,” if necessary, to away Trading Centers to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotation for the security with a price that is superior to the limit price of the ISO entered in the System. Such orders, if they meet the requirements of the foregoing sentence, may be executed at one or multiple price levels in the System without regard to Protected Quotations at away Trading Centers consistent with Regulation NMS (
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.190(a)(5) further provides that the Exchange relies on the marking of an order as an ISO when handling such order, and thus, it is the entering Member's responsibility, not the Exchange's responsibility, to comply with the requirements of Regulation NMS relating to ISOs. Incoming ISOs must have a TIF instruction of Day, GTT, or IOC. Incoming ISOs cannot include a TIF instruction of FOK or RHO. Any unfilled portion of an incoming ISO with a GTT or Day instruction will be posted by the System to the LTSE Book at the entered limit price. An incoming ISO with a Post Only and TIF instruction of GTT or Day will be canceled without execution if, when entered, it is immediately marketable against an order with a Display instruction resting in the LTSE Book unless such order removes liquidity pursuant to LTSE Rule 11.180(l)(2). A User entering an incoming ISO with a TIF instruction of Day represents that such User has simultaneously routed one or more additional Limit Orders marked “ISO,” if necessary, to away Trading Centers to execute against the full displayed size of any Protected Quotation for the security with a price that is superior or equal to the limit price of the ISO entered in the System. Incoming ISOs may be an Odd Lot, Round Lot, or Mixed Lot. A User may include a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction for an incoming ISO with an IOC instruction.
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.190(a)(6) (Session)—provides that a Limit Order can be eligible for execution during the Pre-Market Session, Regular Market Session and the Post-Market Session.
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.190(a)(7) (Posting)—states that a Limit Order may include a Post only instruction.
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.190(a)(8) (Locked or Crossed Market)—provides that, to the extent an incoming Limit Order with a Non-Displayed instruction would be a Crossing Quotation if displayed at its limit price, such order will execute against interest in the LTSE Book at prices up to and including the Locking Price and will then be canceled by the System.
When an away Trading Center publishes a Protected Quotation that locks or crosses the displayed price of a resting Limit Order of Odd Lot size with a Displayed instruction and the Exchange does not have a Protected Quotation displayed at such price, such order will be canceled by the System unless such order contains a multiple price sliding instruction, in which case such order will be re-priced pursuant to LTSE Rule 11.180(j)(1)(A).
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.190(a)(9) (Re-Pricing Instructions to Comply with Rule 610 of Regulation NMS)—provides that a Limit Order may include a Display-Price Sliding instruction or a Cancel Back instruction. A Limit Order to buy (sell) with a limit price that would be a Crossing Quotation at the time of entry into the System will not execute at a price that is higher (lower) than the Locking Price. An incoming ISO that includes a Post Only and TIF instruction of GTT, or Day may be displayed at prices equal to or more aggressive than the Locking Price. However, the System will immediately Cancel Back an ISO that includes a Post Only and TIF instruction of GTT, or DAY if the System is displaying orders on the LTSE Book at the Locking Price at the time of the ISO's entry in the System unless such order removes liquidity pursuant to LTSE Rule 11.180(l).
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.190(a)(10) (Re-Pricing Instructions to Comply with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO)—provides that a Limit Order that includes a Short Sale instruction that is not marked Short Exempt, and that cannot be executed in the System or displayed by the System on the LTSE Book at its limit price because a Short Sale Circuit Breaker is in effect, will be subject to the Re-Pricing Instruction to comply with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO if the order includes a Display-Price Sliding instruction or will be subject to the Cancel Back instruction. The System will immediately Cancel Back an incoming ISO combined with a TIF instruction of GTT or Day and a Short Sale instruction that does not include a Short Exempt instruction and that cannot be executed or displayed at its limit price at the time of entry into the System because of the existence of a Short Sale Circuit Breaker.
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.190(b) defines a “Market Order” as an order to buy or sell a stated amount of a security that is to be executed at the NBBO or better when the order reaches the Exchange. The Exchange proposes to adopt the following provisions related to Market Orders: (1) a Market Order must have one of the following time in force instructions: DAY, IOC, RHO, or FOK and that Market Order that includes a TIF instruction of FOK will be canceled if not executed in full immediately after entry into the System; (2) Size, Market Orders may be an Odd Lot, Round Lot, or Mixed Lot. A User may attach a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction to a Market Order with a TIF instruction of IOC; (3) Display, a Market Order is not eligible to be displayed on the LTSE Book and will be canceled if not executed by the System; (4) Session, a Market Order is only eligible for execution by the System during the Market Session. The Exchange has denoted subparagraph (5) as “Reserved.”; (6) Execution, the Exchange states that a Market Order shall not trade through a Protected
In proposed paragraph (c)(1), the Exchange states that a Pegged Order may contain the following Time In Force instructions: Day, FOK, IOC, RHO or GTT. Any unexecuted portion of a Pegged Order with a TIF instruction of Day or GTT that is resting on the LTSE Book will receive a new timestamp each time it is re-priced in response to changes in the midpoint of the NBBO. In proposed new paragraph (c)(2), Size, the Exchange states that Pegged Orders may be entered as an Odd Lot, Round Lot or Mixed Lot and a User may include a Minimum Execution Quantity instruction. Proposed new paragraph (c)(3) Display, states that Pegged Orders are not eligible to include a Displayed instruction and new paragraph (c)(4) Session, states that Pegged Orders may be executed during the Pre-Market Session, the Market Session, and the Post-Market Session. Paragraph (c)(5) Posting, states that a Pegged Order may include Post Only instructions.
Proposed paragraphs (c)(6), Locked or Crossed Markets and (c)(7) No Available NBBO, describe the handling of Pegged Orders when the market is locked or crossed or when no NBBO is available. For locked or crossed market, to the extent an incoming Pegged Order would be a Crossing Quotation if displayed at the price at which it would be ranked in the LTSE Book, such order will execute against interest in the LTSE Book at prices up to and including the Locking Price and will then be canceled by the System. A Pegged Order resting on the LTSE Book is not eligible for execution when a Locking or Crossing Quotation exists. In such cases, a Pegged Order would rest on the LTSE Book and would not be eligible for execution in the System until a Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation no longer exists. With respect to no available NBBO, (c)(7) states that a Pegged Order received by the System when the NBBO is not available will be rejected or canceled back to the entering User. A Pegged Order resting on the LTSE Book will be canceled back to the User when the NBB or NBO that the order is pegged to is no longer available.
Additionally, the Exchange proposes to delete the following Supplementary Material to current LTSE Rule 11.190(b): .01, Best Execution; .02, Firm Quote Obligations; and .03, Just and Equitable Principles of Trade. These sections pertain to use of the AGID modifier, which will no longer be offered but its functionality will be replaced by the STP modifier as described below.
The Exchange proposes to delete current LTSE Rule 11.210, Minimum Price Variant in its entirety because it has proposed to adopt a substantially similar definition that conforms to the MEMX definition of the same term
The Exchange next proposes to conform the text of LTSE Rule 11.220 (Priority of Orders) to that of MEMX Exchange Rule 11.9 by deleting the current rule text in its entirety and adopting the text of MEMX Exchange Rule 11.9 (Priority of Orders) in its place. The purpose of this proposed change is to remove rule provisions which, although substantially similar in certain ways to MEMX Exchange Rule 11.9, were written for purposes of the VSM and not for the trading technology that will support the System post-replatforming. The Exchange submits that these changes, which conform with the corresponding MEMX Exchange rule, will contribute to more efficient implementation of the new trading platform.
As proposed, the new text of LTSE Rule 11.220 will be as follows:
In paragraph (a), Ranking, orders of Users shall be ranked and maintained in the LTSE Book based on the following priority: (1) price, in which the highest-priced order to buy (lowest-priced order to sell) shall have priority over all other orders to buy (sell) in all cases; and (2), time. With respect to time, paragraph (2)(A) provides that, subject to the execution process described in LTSE Rule 11.230(a), where orders to buy (sell) are entered into the System at the same price, the order clearly established as the first entered into the System at such particular price shall have precedence at that price, up to the number of shares of stock specified in the order. Except as provided in subparagraphs (B) and (C) of LTSE Rule 11.230(a)(2), the System shall rank equally priced trading interest within the System in time priority in the following order: (i) the portion of a Limit Order with a Displayed instruction; (ii) Limit Orders with a Non-Displayed instruction; (iii) orders with a Primary Peg instruction; (iv) orders with a Midpoint Peg instruction; and (v) Reserve Quantity of Limit Orders.
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.230(a)(2)(B) covers orders priced at the Midpoint of the NBBO. Specifically, where orders to buy (sell) are priced at the midpoint of the NBBO, the order clearly established as the first priced at the midpoint of the NBBO within each sub-paragraph below shall have precedence at the mid-point of the NBBO, up to the number of shares of stock specified in the order. The System shall rank trading interest priced at the midpoint of the NBBO within the System in time priority in the following order: (i) Limit Orders to which the Display-Price Sliding instruction has been applied; (ii) Limit Orders with a Non-Displayed instruction; (iii) orders with a Primary Peg instruction; (iv) orders with a Midpoint Peg instruction; and (v) Reserve Quantity of Limit Orders.
LTSE Rule 11.220(a)(2)(C) will provide that, where buy (sell) orders are using instructions that cause them to be re-ranked by the System upon clearance of a Locking Quotation, the System shall re-rank and display such orders at the Locking Price in time priority in the following order: (i) Limit Orders to which the ISO instruction has been applied that also contain a TIF instruction of Day when such orders establish a new NBBO at the Locked Price; and (ii) Limit Orders to which the Display-Price Sliding instruction has been applied.
LTSE Rule 11.220(a)(2)(D) will provide that, for purposes of paragraphs (A) and (B) above, orders re-ranked subject to the Re-Pricing instruction to comply with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO under LTSE Rule 11.180(j)(2), maintain the same priority as Limit Orders at that price.
LTSE Rule 11.220(a)(3) addresses the impact of STP Modifiers and will
LTSE Rule 11.220(a)(4) will provide that, in the event an order has been canceled or replaced in accordance with LTSE Rule 11.230(e) below, such order only retains time priority if such modification involves a decrease in the size of the order, a change to Max Floor of an order with a Reserve Quantity, the sell long indicator, or Short Sale instruction. Any other modification to an order, including an increase in the size of the order and/or price change, will result in such order losing time priority as compared to other orders in the LTSE Book and the timestamp for such order being revised to reflect the time of the modification.
LTSE Rule 11.220(a)(5) will provide that, in the event that an order is executed against an incoming order in accordance with LTSE Rule 11.230 for less than its full size, the unexecuted size of the order shall retain its original time priority and be ranked in accordance with LTSE Rule 11.220 paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2), above.
LTSE Rule 11.220(a)(6) addresses replenishment from Reserve Quantity and will provide that the displayed quantity of a Limit Order shall have time priority as of the time of display. A new timestamp is created for the displayed portion and Reserve Quantity of the order each time it is replenished from the Reserve Quantity.
Next, in proposed LTSE Rule 11.220(b), Dissemination, the Exchange proposes in paragraph (b)(1) that the best-ranked order(s) to buy and the best-ranked order(s) to sell that are displayable in the LTSE Book and the aggregate displayed size of such orders associated with such prices shall be collected and made available to quotation vendors for dissemination pursuant to the requirements of Rule 602 of Regulation NMS.
In paragraph (b)(2), the Exchange proposes that, pursuant to Rule 602 of Regulation NMS, the Exchange will transmit for display to the appropriate securities information processor for each security: (A) the highest price to buy wherein the aggregate size of all displayed buy interest in the System greater than or equal to that price is one round lot or greater; (B) the aggregate size of all displayed buy interest in the System greater than or equal to the price in (A), rounded down to the nearest round lot; (C) the lowest price to sell wherein the aggregate size of all displayed sell interest in the System less than or equal to that price is one round lot or greater; and (D) the aggregate size of all displayed sell interest in the System less than or equal to the price in (C), rounded down to the nearest round lot.
The Exchange is proposing amendments to LTSE Rule 11.230 (Order Execution) to conform to MEMX Rule 11.10 (Order Execution).
The introduction to LTSE Rule 11.230 and (a) thereof is not proposed to change as it already tracks to MEMX Rule 11.10(a).
In paragraph (a)(1), which addresses compliance with Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, the Exchange is only proposing to update a rule reference contained in the text as the citation to LTSE Rule 11.190(g)(4) is no longer accurate due to the changes proposed in this filing. The Exchange is proposing to delete that reference and replace it with 11.190(a)(9). No other changes are proposed to this paragraph.
The Exchange is not proposing any changes to LTSE Rule 11.230(a)(2)(A) as that language tracks to the same rule text in MEMX Rule 11.10(a)(2) which addresses the Regular Market Session.
The Exchange is proposing to amend (a)(2)(B), Compliance with Reg NMS and Trade-Through Protection, Pre-Market Session and Post-Market Session, to conform to the same provision in MEMX Rule 11.10(a)(2). Such provision addresses executions during the Pre-Market Session or the Post-Market Session and states that for any execution to occur during these trading sessions, the price must be equal to or better than the highest bid or lowest offer in the LTSE Book or disseminated by the responsible single plan processor, unless the order is marked ISO or unless a Protected Bid is crossing a Protected Offer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that a Protected Bid is crossing a Protected Offer, whether during or outside of Regular Trading Hours, unless the order is marked ISO, the Exchange will not execute any portion of a bid at a price more than the greater of 5 cents or 0.5 percent higher than the lowest Protected Offer or any portion of an offer that would execute at a price more than the greater of 5 cents or 0.5 percent lower than the highest Protected Bid. Upon instruction from a User, the Exchange will cancel any incoming order from such User in the event a Protected Bid is crossing a Protected Offer.
The Exchange proposes to delete paragraph (a)(2)(C), Crossed Markets, in its entirety because the substance of the current rule pertains to the Crossed Market Collar, which is functionality that will not be available in the new technology platform.
In LTSE Rule 11.230(a)(3), the Exchange addresses order execution under the National Market System Plan to Address Extraordinary Market Volatility (referred to as the “Limit Up-Limit Down” or “LULD Plan”), the Exchange proposes to delete the current text of the rule and add new text stating as follows: “[c]ompliance with the requirements of the LULD Plan. Except as provided in Section VI of the Plan, for any executions to occur during Regular Trading Hours, such executions must occur at a price that is greater than or equal to the Lower Price Band and less than or equal to the Upper Price Band, when such Price Bands are disseminated.” The Exchange's procedures for handling, executing, re-pricing and displaying orders in connection with the Plan are further described in LTSE Rule 11.281(b)(1)(A)(i). The proposed new text conforms with MEMX Rule 11.10(a)(3).
LTSE Rule 11.230(a)(4) will remain unchanged as will subsections (A) and (B) therein. The Exchange is proposing to adopt new paragraphs (C) and (D) to this LTSE Rule 11.230(a)(4) which will be identical to MEMX Rule 11.10(C) and (D), respectively.
In proposed paragraph (C) the new text states that “[c]onsistent with LTSE Rules 11.180 and 11.190, based on User instructions, certain orders are permitted to post and rest on the LTSE Book at prices that lock contra-side liquidity, provided, however, that the System will never display a locked market. Subject to subparagraph (D) below, if an incoming order, pursuant to subparagraphs (A) or (B) above is on the same side of the market as an order displayed on the LTSE Book and upon entry would execute against contra-side interest at the same price as such displayed order, such incoming order will be canceled or posted to the LTSE Book and ranked in accordance with LTSE Rule 11.220.”
In proposed paragraph (D), the new text states: “[f]or bids or offers equal to or greater than $1.00 per share, in the event that an incoming order described in subparagraphs (A) or (B) above is a Market Order or is a Limit Order priced more aggressively than an order displayed on the LTSE Book, the Exchange will execute the incoming order at, in the case of an incoming sell order, one-half minimum price variation
Paragraph (b) of this LTSE Rule 11.230 had been reserved and the Exchange is now adopting a paragraph addressing the display of automated quotations here, which is identical to MEMX Rule 11.10(b). In this new paragraph, the Exchange proposes to adopt the following rule text: “Display of Automated Quotations. The System will be operated as an “automated trading center” within the meaning of Regulation NMS, and in furtherance thereof, will display “automated quotations” within the meaning of Regulation NMS at all times except in the event that a systems malfunction renders the System incapable of displaying automated quotations, in which case the System will be disabled and will be unable to accept any orders. The Exchange shall promptly communicate to Users the unavailability of the System. All orders will be designated by the System as non-attributable and displayed (price and size) on the LTSE Book Feed on an anonymous basis by the System. This proposed Rule text conforms with MEMX Exchange Rule 11.10(b). The Exchange notes that certain of the rule text proposed in new paragraph (g) is contained in current LTSE Rule 11.240 (Trade Execution, Reporting, and Dissemination of Quotations), paragraph (c) and is being repositioned to proposed new LTSE Rule 11.230(g) for consistency.
Paragraph (c) of this Rule is reserved and the Exchange is now proposing to renumber current paragraph (d) addressing Self-Help as (c). No other changes are being proposed to this paragraph.
Proposed new paragraph (d) addresses the self-trade prevention (“STP”) modifiers that will be available as features in the System after re-platforming and is identical to MEMX Rule 11.10(d). As proposed, any incoming order designated with an STP modifier will be prevented from executing against a resting opposite side order also designated with an STP modifier and originating from the same market participant identifier (“MPID”), Exchange Member identifier or STP Group identifier (any such identifier, a “Unique Identifier”). The STP modifier on the incoming order controls the interaction between two orders marked with STP modifiers. Users will be provided with options to select the STP modifier.
Subparagraph (d)(1), STP Cancel Newest (“CN”) will provide that an incoming order marked with the CN modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier originating from the same Unique Identifier. The incoming order marked with the CN modifier will be canceled back to the originating User(s). The resting order marked with an STP modifier will remain on the LTSE Order Book.
Newly proposed subparagraph (d)(2), STP Cancel Oldest (“CO”), provides that an incoming order marked with the CO modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier originating from the same Unique Identifier. The resting order marked with the STP modifier will be canceled back to the originating User(s). The incoming order marked with the CO modifier will remain on the LTSE Order Book.
Newly proposed subparagraph (d)(3), STP Decrement and Cancel (“DC”), provides that an incoming order marked with the DC modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier originating from the same Unique Identifier. If both orders are equivalent in size, both orders will be canceled back to the originating User(s). If the orders are not equivalent in size, the smaller order will be canceled back to the originating User(s) and the larger order will be decremented by the size of the smaller order, with the balance remaining on the LTSE Order Book.
Newly proposed subparagraph (d)(4), STP Cancel Both (“CB”), provides that an incoming order marked with the CB modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier originating from the same Unique Identifier. The entire size of both orders will be canceled back to the originating User(s).
Finally, proposed subparagraph (d)(5), STP Cancel Smallest (“CS”), provides that an incoming order marked with the CS modifier will not execute against opposite side resting interest marked with any STP modifier originating from the same Unique Identifier. If both orders are equivalent in size, both orders will be canceled back to the originating User(s). If the orders are not equivalent in size, the smaller of the two orders will be canceled back to the originating User and the larger order will remain on the LTSE Order Book.
Proposed new LTSE Rule 11.230(e) addresses Cancel/Replace Messages and will conform to MEMX Rule 11.10(e) except that the Exchange will not adopt (e)(2) but will rather hold that paragraph as “Reserved.” as it addresses routed orders. As proposed, newly adopted (e) will provide that a User may cancel or replace an existing order entered by the User, subject to the limitations described in subparagraphs (e)(1) through (e)(4). In (e)(1), the proposed rule text states orders may only be canceled or replaced if the order has a TIF instruction other than IOC and FOK and if the order has not yet been executed in its entirety.
As stated above, subparagraph (e)(2) will be denoted as a “Reserved” section.
Proposed subparagraph (e)(3) will provide that, other than changing a Limit Order to a Market Order, only the price, the sell long indicator, Short Sale instruction, Max Floor of an order with a Reserve Quantity, and size of the order may be changed by a Replace Message. If a User desires to change any other terms of an existing order, the existing order must be canceled and a new order must be entered.
Proposed subparagraph (e)(4) will provide that, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these LTSE Rules, no cancellation or replacement of an order will be effective until such message has been received and processed by the System.
The Exchange proposes to delete, in its entirety, LTSE Rule 11.231, Regular Market Session Opening Process for Non-LTSE-Primary-Listed Securities and denote that rule as “Reserved.” The deletion of the current rule text is needed because the opening process to be utilized by the System post-replatforming will mirror the opening
The Exchange is proposing to amend LTSE Rule 11.240 Trade Execution, Reporting, and Dissemination of Quotations to conform to MEMX Rule 11.12 Trade Reporting. Accordingly, the Exchange is proposing to amend the title of the rule from “Trade Execution, Reporting, and Dissemination of Quotations” to “Trade Reporting” to match MEMX Rule 11.12. The Exchange is not proposing changes to subparagraphs (a) and (b) as that language is substantially identical to the MEMX Rule 11.12(a) and (b). The Exchange is proposing to delete paragraph (c) from this rule as dissemination of information is now addressed in newly proposed LTSE Rule 11.220(b). The Exchange is not proposing any changes to (d) of this rule.
The Exchange is proposing to delete LTSE Rule 11.271 and mark it as “Reserved” because the substance of the rule is being adopted as part of proposed changes to LTSE 11.281 (Limit UP-Limit Down Plan and Trading Halts on the Exchange), as discussed in more detail below.
The Exchange is proposing to amend LTSE Rule 11.281, currently entitled “Limit Up-Limit Down Mechanism.” The rule will be re-titled to “Limit Up-Limit Down Plan and Trading Halts on the Exchange.” The current text of LTSE Rule 11.281 will be deleted in its entirety and will be replaced by rule text copying MEMX Exchange Rule 11.22.
New paragraph (a), entitled Definitions, will describe definitions that are the same as those in MEMX Exchange Rule 11.22.
Proposed LTSE Rule 11.281(b)(1)(A)(i)-(iv) includes four situations in which the Exchange must halt trading pursuant to a Regulatory Halt: under the Limit Up-Limit Down Plan; pursuant to Extraordinary Market Volatility (Market-Wide Circuit Breakers); when the Primary Listing Market declares a SIP halt, or when the Primary Listing Market declares a trading halt based on Extraordinary Market Activity, as defined in the Nasdaq UTP Plan. Although it has been approved by the Commission to operate a Primary Listing Market and to issue Regulatory Halts pursuant to LTSE Rule 11.280, the Exchange presently has only dual-listed stocks and is not the Primary Listing Market for any issuer; accordingly, it does not have the authority to issue Regulatory Halts with respect to such dual-listed securities.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(A)(i)(a) of LTSE Rule 11.281 contains definitions for purposes of the Limit Up-Limit Down Mechanism. The following definitions are being adopted: (i) LULD Plan; (ii) a statement that all capitalized terms not otherwise defined in this Rule shall have the meanings set forth in the LULD Plan or LTSE Rules, as applicable; (iii) a statement entitled “Exchange Participation in the Plan” and stating that the Exchange is a Participant in, and subject to the applicable requirements of, the LULD Plan, which establishes procedures to address extraordinary volatility in NMS Stocks; provisions mandating Member Compliance and Exchange compliance with the Plan.
The Exchange will adopt (b)(1)(A)(i)(e) Re-pricing and Cancellation of Interest, which is identical to that contained in MEMX Exchange Rule 11.22(b)(1)(A)(i)(e). The following is being proposed, “[d]epending on a User's instructions, the System shall re-price or cancel buy (sell) interest that is priced or could be executed above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band. When re-pricing resting orders because such orders are above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band, the Exchange will provide new timestamps to such orders. When re-priced to less-aggressive price levels such orders will have priority behind resting interest that was originally less aggressively priced but that was not re-priced, as such orders will retain their original timestamps.”
In proposed paragraph (b)(1)(A)(i)(e)(1), the Exchange addresses the handling of Market Orders and Orders with TIF, IOC or FOK and provides that the System will only execute Market Orders or orders with a TIF of IOC or FOK at or within the Price Bands. Market Orders will be handled in accordance with LTSE Rule 11.190. This amendment represents a change by adding the TIF of FOK instruction given that current paragraph (a)(2)(A) addresses only IOC orders.
Proposed new paragraph (b)(1)(A)(i)(e)(2)(A) and (B) will have new provisions that address displayed and non-displayed limit-priced interest. Current LTSE Rule 11.281(a)(5)(B) addresses re-pricing of Limit Orders but does not provide for treatment under the LULD Mechanism for non-displayed Limit Orders since all orders on LTSE are currently display-only. Specifically, the new rule text will state that displayed limit-priced interest will be canceled on entry or when resting if a User has entered instructions not to use the re-pricing process or a User has included a Reserve Quantity and such interest to buy (sell) is priced above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band. As proposed, if re-pricing is permitted based on a User's instructions, displayable incoming limit-priced interest to buy (sell) that is priced above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band shall be re-priced to the Upper (Lower) Price Band. The System shall re-price resting, displayed limit-priced interest to buy (sell) to the Upper (Lower) Price Band if Price Bands move such that the price of resting, displayed limit-priced interest to buy (sell) would be above
In (B), the Exchange proposes that incoming limit-priced interest that is non-displayable will be canceled by the System if such interest to buy (sell) is priced above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band. Resting, non-displayed limit priced interest buy (sell) is priced above (below) the Upper (Lower) Price Band (
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(A)(i)(e)(3) provides that Pegged Orders to buy (sell) shall peg to the specified pegging price or the Upper (Lower) Price Band, whichever is lower (higher).
Proposed paragraph (b)(1)(A)(i)(e)(4) will be denoted as “Reserved” in the Exchange's rule. The corresponding section in MEMX Exchange Rule 11.21(b)(4) addresses the handling of routable orders under the LULD mechanism and is not relevant to LTSE because it does not intend to route orders to away trading centers.
Paragraph (b)(1)(A)(i)(e)(5), Sell Short Orders provides that, during a short sale price test restriction pursuant to Rule 201 of Regulation SHO, orders with a Short Sale instruction priced below the Lower Price Band shall be repriced to the higher of the Lower Price Band or the Permitted Price, as defined in LTSE Rule 11.280(e)(5). This rule text is substantially the same as in current LTSE Rule 11.281(a)(5)(E). The Exchange proposes to reposition the current text of LTSE Rule 11.281(5)(F) into new paragraph (b)(1)(A)(i)(e)(6) to govern Auction Orders. Auction Eligible Orders on the Auction Book are not price slid or canceled due to LULD price bands. This provision is specific to the Exchange's status as a listing exchange and there is no corresponding rule text in MEMX Exchange Rule 11.22.
In proposed LTSE Rule 11.281(b)(1)(A)(ii) through (b)(1)(A)(iv), the Exchange describes the circumstances under which it will implement a trading halt: due to extraordinary market volatility/Market-Wide Circuit Breakers, as set forth in LTSE Rule 11.280; when the Primary Listing Market declares a SIP Halt or a trading halt based on Extraordinary Market Activity, as defined in the Nasdaq UTP Plan; and for any security traded on the Exchange when the Primary Listing Market declares a Regulatory Halt for any such security. The following shall apply when implementing Regulatory Halts initiated by the Primary Listing Market. In subparagraph (b)(1)(A)(iv)(a) (Start Time), the Exchange states that the start time of a Regulatory Halt is when the Primary Listing Market declares the halt, regardless of whether an issue with communications impacts the dissemination of the notice. All of these provisions correspond with the text of MEMX Exchange Rule 11.22(b)(1)(A)(ii) through (iv).
Proposed new paragraph (2), Resumption of Trading After a Regulatory Halt, conforms to MEMX Exchange Rule 11.22(b)(2)(A) and (B). Newly proposed subparagraph (A) will provide, with respect to a resumption of trading after a Regulatory Halt Other Than a SIP Halt that: (i) the Exchange may resume trading after the Exchange receives notification from the Primary Listing Market that the Regulatory Halt has been terminated. In subparagraph (B), with respect to a resumption of trading after a SIP Halt, the Exchange proposes that, for or securities subject to a SIP Halt initiated by another exchange that is the Primary Listing Market, during Regular Trading Hours, the Exchange may resume trading after trading has resumed on the Primary Listing Market or notice has been received from the Primary Listing Market that trading may resume. During Regular Trading Hours, if the Primary Listing Market does not open a security within the amount of time specified by the rules of the Primary Listing Market after the SIP Halt Resume Time, the Exchange may resume trading in that security. Outside Regular Trading Hours, the Exchange may resume trading immediately after the SIP Halt Resume Time. Proposed paragraph (3) corresponds to MEMX Rule 11.22(b)(3) and will provide that, on the occurrence of any Regulatory Halt pursuant to this LTSE Rule all outstanding orders in the System will be canceled and while a security is subject to a Regulatory Halt the Exchange will not accept orders. At the end of the Regulatory Halt the Exchange shall re-open the security and again begin accepting orders.
In proposed LTSE Rule 11.281(c), the Exchange addresses trading halts in UTP Exchange Traded Product and provides that the Exchange may halt trading in UTP Exchange Traded Products on the Exchange and conforms to MEMX Exchange Rule 11.22(c).
Specifically, (A) in the Pre-Market Session, if a UTP Exchange Traded Product begins trading on the Exchange in the Pre-Market Session and subsequently a temporary interruption occurs in the calculation or wide dissemination of the Intraday Indicative Value (“IIV”) or the value of the underlying index, as applicable, to such UTP Exchange Traded Product, by a major market data vendor, the Exchange may continue to trade the UTP Exchange Traded Product for the remainder of the Pre-Market Session.
In proposed subparagraph (B), which addresses Regular Trading Hours, the proposed rule provides that if a temporary interruption occurs during Regular Trading Hours in the calculation or wide dissemination of the applicable IIV or value of the underlying index by a major market data vendor and the Primary Listing Market halts trading in the UTP Exchange Traded Product, the Exchange, upon notification by the Primary Listing Market of such halt due to such temporary interruption, also shall immediately halt trading in the UTP Exchange Traded Product on the Exchange.
In proposed subparagraph (C), the Exchange addresses the Post-Market Session and Next Business Day's Pre-Market Session and provides that: (i) if the IIV or the value of the underlying index continues not to be calculated or widely available after the close of the Regular Trading Hours, the Exchange may trade the UTP Exchange Traded Product in the Post-Market Session only if the Primary Listing Market traded such securities until the close of its regular trading session without a halt; and (ii) if the IIV or the value of the underlying index continues not to be calculated or widely available as of the commencement of the Pre-Market Session on the next business day, the Exchange shall not commence trading of the UTP Exchange Traded Product in the Pre-Market Session that day. If an interruption in the calculation or wide dissemination of the IIV or the value of the underlying index continues, the Exchange may resume trading in the UTP Exchange Traded Product only if calculation and wide dissemination of the IIV or the value of the underlying index resumes or trading in the UTP
In proposed LTSE Rule 11.281(d), the Exchange addresses Operational Halts and permits the Exchange to declare an Operational Halt for any security trading on the Exchange if it is experiencing Extraordinary Market Activity on the Exchange or when otherwise necessary to maintain a fair and orderly market or in the public interest. The proposed amendments conform the rule text with that in MEMX Exchange Rule 11.22(d).
Upon the initiation of an Operational Halt by the Exchange all outstanding orders in the System will be canceled. The Exchange will notify the SIP if it has concerns about its ability to collect and transmit Quotation Information or Transaction Reports (as those terms are defined in the Nasdaq UTP Plan),
The Exchange is approved to conduct a listings business, including primary listings in which the Exchange would have all of the regulatory obligations attendant to that status, including initiating Trading Halts. The Exchange is proposing amendments to LTSE Rule 11.282 that conform the current text of the rule to the newly proposed changes to LTSE Rule 11.281, by adding a cross-reference to proposed LTSE Rule 11.281, reorganizing remaining text in the rule and deleting inapplicable provisions. Specifically, in paragraph (a)(1), the Exchange retains, with certain modifications, the current rule text providing that, in circumstances in which LTSE deems it necessary to protect investors and the public interest, it may halt trading on LTSE of an LTSE-Primary-Listed Security to permit the dissemination of material news, provided, however, that in the Pre-Market Session LTSE will halt trading for dissemination of news only at the request of an issuer, or where a trading halt has been imposed by another national securities exchange to permit the dissemination of material news. The proposed revisions delete a rule reference that will be obsolete in view of the conforming changes being made to LTSE Rule 11.282 and move the text up from (a)(2) to (a)(1) stating that the Exchange will halt Pre-Market Session at an issuer's request for the dissemination of material news, or if another national securities exchange has halted the same security.
Paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) address a trading halt initiated by another exchange to permit the dissemination of material news or for operational issues impacting a security listed on that exchange. The Exchange proposes to make (a)(2) a “Reserved” section since this text is being moved up to (a)(1) and to amend (a)(3) by deleting (A) and retaining the text of (B) since the latter involves an operational halt initiated with respect to a security listed on LTSE and such security is a derivative or component of a security listed on another exchange and such exchange initiates an operational trading halt. The Exchange is proposing to delete the text of paragraph (a)(6) and denote the section as “Reserved.”
In paragraph (b), procedure for initiating and terminating a Trading Halt, the exchange is proposing to retain the provisions of (b)(1) through (b)(5) since such sections pertain specifically to the Exchange's role as a primary listing exchange. Current Paragraph (b)(6) will be amended to delete the current text, which is substantially covered by the amendments to LTSE Rule 11.281 and will denote the section as “Reserved.”
Paragraphs (b)(7) through (b)(9) of LTSE Rule 11.282 will be retained in their current form since the provisions are directed to the Exchange's activity as a listing Exchange.
The Exchange is proposing the following changes to LTSE Rule 11.310 to conform to MEMX Exchange Rule 11.10(f). In paragraph (b), Prohibition, a ministerial change will be made to update a reference to (c) to (d) to account for the addition of new paragraph (c). In (c), the Exchange proposes to move the current text of the rule to (d) and add provisions regarding manual quotations. Specifically, if a User displays a manual quotation that locks or crosses a quotation previously disseminated pursuant to an effective national market system plan, such User shall promptly either withdraw the manual quotation or route an ISO to execute against the full displayed size of the locked or crossed quotation. The current text of paragraph (c), Exceptions, will be designated as paragraph (d). Paragraphs (1) and (2) will only be changed to update capitalized terms that are newly defined herein. The Exchange proposes to add new rule paragraphs (3) and (4) to match MEMX Rule 11(f)(3)(3) and (4).
In newly proposed (d)(3), the Exchange proposes to add as an exception where the Locking Quotation or Crossing Quotation was an automated quotation, and the User displaying such automated quotation simultaneously routed an ISO to execute against the full
The Exchange is proposing to amend LTSE Rule 11.320 to conform to MEMX Exchange Rule 11.5 (Input of Accurate Information). The Exchange is deleting the numbering of the paragraph as (a) since there are no other paragraphs in the rule, this reference is not necessary. As revised the rule will provide that “[m]embers of the Exchange shall input accurate information into the System, including, but not limited to, whether the Member acted in a Principal, Agent, or Riskless Principal capacity for each order entered. If such capacity is not inputted by the Member for each order it enters, the Member's order will be rejected back by the Exchange.
The Exchange is proposing to amend LTSE Rule 11.330 to conform to MEMX Exchange Rule 13.8 (Data Products). Accordingly the Exchange is proposing to remove the following data product offerings: LTSE Web Platform, which is a data feed that offers aggregated top of book quotations for all orders resting on the Order Book, aggregated depth of book quotations for all orders resting on the Order Book at each price level, execution information (
To conform the Exchange's risk management rules with those of MEMX Exchange, the Exchange proposes to amend its LTSE Rule 11.380 to provide for expanded risk management capabilities for Members by deleting its current rule text in its entirety and replacing it with the risk setting offerings as set forth in the
The Exchange is proposing to adopt (a), which states that it offers certain risk settings applicable to a User's activities on the Exchange. The risk settings offered by the Exchange include: (1) controls related to the size of an order (including restrictions on the maximum notional value per order and maximum shares per order); (2) controls related to the price of an order (including percentage-based and dollar-based controls); (3) controls related to the order types or modifiers that can be utilized (including premarket, post-market, short sales and ISOs); (4) controls to restrict the types of securities transacted (including restricted securities and easy to borrow securities as well as restricting activity to test symbols only); (5) controls to prohibit duplicative orders; (6) controls to restrict the overall rate of orders; (7) controls related to the size of an order as compared to the average daily volume of the security (including the ability to specify the minimum average daily volume of the securities for which such controls will be activated); and (8) credit controls measuring both gross and net exposure that warn when approached and, when breached, prevent submission of either all new orders or Market Orders only.
In proposed (b)(1), the Exchange states that it offers risk functionality that permits Users to block new orders submitted, to cancel all open orders, or to both block new orders and cancel all open orders. Furthermore, the Exchange offers risk functionality that automatically cancels a User's orders to the extent the User loses its connection to the Exchange.
In proposed (b)(2), the Exchange states that it offers batch cancel functionality that permits a User to simultaneously cancel all or a subset of its orders in one or more symbols by requesting the Exchange to effect such cancellation. A User initiating such a request may also request that the Exchange block all or a subset of its new inbound orders in one or more symbols. The block will remain in effect until the User requests the Exchange remove the block.
The Exchange proposes to amend LTSE Rule 11.410 to conform to MEMX Rule 13.4 (Usage of Data Feeds), except with regards to order routing, by amending (a) to add an introductory paragraph explaining that “[t]he Exchange uses the following data feeds for the handling and execution of orders, as well as for surveillance necessary to monitor compliance with applicable securities laws and Exchange rules.” The Exchange is then amending the chart included in (a) to show that the Exchange will utilize CQS/UQDF from all the other markets as its primary source of data and, at this time, there will be no secondary source of data.
LTSE believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with the provisions
The Exchange submits that the proposed rule changes are designed to support the transition of the technology infrastructure System from its current platform to one that will significantly enhance the current System and provide market participants with more opportunities to trade on the Exchange while minimizing any disruptive effect to Members interacting with the current System. The Exchange is not proposing any new or novel rules; in fact, as noted in the Purpose section, above, the proposed changes conform certain of LTSE's trading rules with those of the MEMX Exchange to the extent necessary to accomplish the replatforming of LTSE in a timely and efficient manner, while minimizing the cost and effort required to accomplish the replatforming initiative. The Exchange further submits that its proposed new order types and order handling processes are used by MEMX Exchange and therefore do not present any significant challenges to their existing order handling processes.
Additionally, LTSE is proposing to adopt rules that conform with those of MEMX Exchange and the core functionality in the technology it is licensing. The Exchange believes such changes would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because they will provide market participants with consistency of core functionality, including adopting some new order types and order handling rules, that are already used by MEMX Exchange.
Generally, LTSE believes that the proposed rules would support the transition of the technology supporting the Exchange's System from its current platform to one that will significantly enhance the System and provide market participants with more opportunities to trade on the Exchange while minimizing any disruptive effect to Members interacting with the current System. The Exchange is not proposing any new or novel rules. The proposed rule changes relating to trading would therefore remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because they are based on the rules of other exchanges.
More specifically, the Exchange is proposing to adopt rules to conform System functionality with the core functionality in the technology it is licensing and with similar core functionality as MEMX Exchange, The Exchange believes such changes would remove impediments to and perfect the mechanism of a free and open market and a national market system because they will provide market participants with consistency of core functionality, including adopting some new order types and order handling rules, that are widely used throughout the securities industry. To this extent, the Exchange submits that the proposed changes also operate to promote just and equitable principles of trade and the public interest and the protection of investors by providing for a set of consistent trading rules that are based on rules of another national securities exchange that have already been approved by the Commission and have been operating within the national market system.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposal does not permit unfair discrimination between issuers or to regulate by virtue of any authority conferred by the Act matters not related to the purposes of the Act or the administration of the Exchange. The instant rule proposals do not impact issuers, except to the extent that the replatformed System operating under new trading rules will allow the potential for greater opportunities for issuers' securities to trade on LTSE. The Exchange's regulatory authority over its Members will remain unchanged as a result of the proposed rule amendments.
Finally, the Exchange submits that the licensing of a technology platform from an unaffiliated third party currently in use by another registered national securities exchange
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 proposed rule changes are designed to facilitate the efficient transition of the System from the current VSM model to a trading model that will provide for new order types and order handling processes that are already commonly used by market participants across a range of trading venues. The fact that the System will operate using a technology platform provided by an affiliate of another national securities exchange will not place an unnecessary burden on competition because neither the LTSE nor the technology affiliate of another exchange will gain any advantage in terms of connectivity, speed or any other factor otherwise impacting the national market system. Each exchange will continue to function independently of the other and interact to the same extent and in the same manner as they do today.
The Exchange operates in a highly competitive environment and as noted in the Purpose section of this rule proposal, the VSM has not provided the Exchange with a System in which it can serve the needs of long-term investors while competing with other exchanges on a more level playing field. To achieve a greater competitive posture, the Exchange believes that its proposal to adopt rules that better align with the instance of the trading platform that it is licensing will be more efficient, require less development time and costs, and will offer market participants order types and order handling processes with which they are familiar. In addition, 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 because it is only proposing to amend those trading rules necessary to assure a smooth transition of the System to the new technology platform, and will retain rules governing membership, member conduct, and listings, without changes. Given these factors, the Exchange does not believe that its proposed changes raise any substantial competitive issues and will impose no burden on competition.
Written comments were neither solicited nor received.
Within 45 days of the date of publication of this notice in the
(A) by order approve or disapprove the proposed rule change, or
(B) institute proceedings to determine whether the proposed rule change should be disapproved.
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change 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 March 22, 2024, The Nasdaq Stock Market LLC (“Nasdaq” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
The Exchange states that the purpose of the proposed rule change is to reward firms that meet a minimum average daily displayed volume with lower fees for Non-Display Usage and the Exchange's 40Gb and 10Gb Ultra high-speed connection to the Exchange.
Nasdaq states that it offers customers the opportunity to co-locate their servers and equipment within the Nasdaq Data Center,
Nasdaq currently charges members an ongoing monthly fee of $21,100 for the 40Gb fiber connection and $15,825 for the 10Gb Ultra connection to the Nasdaq exchanges.
The Proposal introduces the new term “Minimum ADV,” which will mean the introduction by a member of at least one million shares of added executed displayed liquidity on average per trading day in all securities through one or more of the member's market participant identifiers (“MPIDs”) on the Nasdaq Market Center.
Nasdaq states that it does not expect any member to be disadvantaged by the Proposal. Nasdaq is a maker-taker platform and offers rebates to members that offer displayed liquidity.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(C) of the Act,
In support of the Proposal, the Exchange states that exchanges, like all trading venues, compete as platforms.
The Exchange states that reliance on competitive solutions is fundamental to the Act.
The Exchange states that Congress directed the Commission to “rely on `competition, whenever possible, in meeting its regulatory responsibilities for overseeing the SROs and the national market system,' ”
The Exchange states that, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and recognized that regulation of the national market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
The Exchange states that the Act mandates the “equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among members and issuers and other persons using its facilities,”
The Exchange states that the fact that the market for order flow is competitive has long been recognized by the courts—citing specifically, the
The Exchange states that competition is not limited to order flow and that data shows that the combination of explicit all-in costs to trade and other implicit costs has largely equalized the cost to trade across venues.
The Exchange states that this conclusion is particularly striking given that different exchanges engage in a variety of business models and offer an array of pricing options to appeal to different customer types; specifically, that the largest exchanges operate maker-taker platforms, offering rebates to attract trading liquidity, which allows them to maintain actionable quotes with high liquidity and offer high-quality market data.
The Exchange states that inverted venues, in contrast, have the opposite price structure—liquidity providers pay to add liquidity, while liquidity takers earn a rebate—these platforms offer less liquidity, but better queue priority, faster fills, and lower effective spreads for investors.
In assessing competition for exchange services, the Exchange explains that “we must consider not only explicit costs, such as fees for trading, market data, and connectivity, but also the
The Exchange states that platform competition has resulted in a competitive environment in the market for exchange services, in which trading platforms are constrained by other platforms' offerings, taking into consideration the all-in cost of interacting with the platform.
The Exchange states that its customers are differentiated in the value they place on the different products offered by exchanges and in their willingness to pay for those products.
The Exchange believes that exchanges compete by offering differentiated packages of pricing and products to attract different categories of customer, and that, as in any competitive market, consumers will “vote with their feet,” incentivizing platforms to supply an array of pricing and product offerings that suit diverse consumer needs far more effectively than a uniform, one-size-fits-some rigid product offering.
The Exchange states that, as the SEC recently noted in its market infrastructure proposal,
The Exchange states that allowing exchanges to compete effectively as platforms has other positive network effects: larger trading platforms offer lower average trading costs; and as trading platforms attract more liquidity, bid-ask spreads tighten, search costs fall (by limiting the number of venues that a customer needs to check to assess the market), and connection costs decrease, as customers have no need to connect to all venues.
The Exchange states that this is not to say that smaller established trading platforms do not have a role to play as they provide specialized services that cater to individual customer needs, but that these specialized services help the smaller exchanges grow by driving liquidity to their platforms, and, if they are successful, achieve the economies of scale that benefit the larger enterprises.
The Exchange states that intent of the Proposal offering member firms an incentive to display liquidity through lower non-display and connectivity fees is to generate a “virtuous cycle,” in which the proposed fee structure will attract more liquidity to the Exchange, making it a more attractive trading venue, and thereby attracting more liquidity.
The Exchange states that the competition among exchanges as trading
The Exchange states that the Proposal is not unfairly discriminatory and that Non-Display Usage and the Exchange's 40Gb and 10Gb Ultra high-speed connections will be offered to all members and non-members on like terms.
The Exchange states that the Proposal is not unfairly discriminatory with respect to non-member broker-dealers, which include brokers routing trades through members and off-exchange trading platforms that use exchange data to execute trades, because they have the option of becoming members to obtain lower fees under the Proposal, and because they realize the benefits of higher liquidity—including tighter spreads and better prices—and it is not unfair discrimination to charge a higher fee for that benefit.
To date, the Commission has received one comment letter on the proposed rule change, and the letter opposes the proposed rule change.
When exchanges file their proposed rule changes with the Commission, including fee filings like the Exchange's present Proposal, they are required to provide a statement supporting the proposal's basis under the Act and the rules and regulations thereunder applicable to the exchange.
Section 6 of the Act, including Sections 6(b)(4), (5), and (8), require the rules of an exchange to: (1) provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using the exchange's facilities;
In temporarily suspending the Exchange's proposed rule change, the Commission intends to further consider whether the Proposal to increase market data and connectivity fees for participants who do not maintain the minimum average daily displayed volume threshold is consistent with the statutory requirements applicable to a national securities exchange under the Act. In particular, the Commission will consider whether the proposed rule change satisfies the standards under the Act and the rules thereunder requiring, among other things, that an exchange's rules provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable fees among members, issuers, and other persons using its facilities; not permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers or dealers; and do not impose any burden on competition not
Therefore, the Commission finds that it is appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, and otherwise in furtherance of the purposes of the Act, to temporarily suspend the proposed rule change.
In addition to temporarily suspending the Proposal, the Commission also hereby institutes proceedings pursuant to Sections 19(b)(3)(C)
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Act,
• Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(4) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange “provide for the equitable allocation of reasonable dues, fees, and other charges among its members and issuers and other persons using its facilities”;
• Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Act, which requires, among other things, that the rules of a national securities exchange not be “designed to permit unfair discrimination between customers, issuers, brokers, or dealers”;
• Whether the Exchange has demonstrated how the proposed fees are consistent with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act, which requires that the rules of a national securities exchange “not impose any burden on competition not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of [the Act].”
As discussed in Section III above, the Exchange made various arguments in support of the Proposal. There are questions as to whether the Exchange has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the proposed fees are consistent with the Act and the rules thereunder. The Commission will specifically consider, among other things, whether the Exchange has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces when setting the proposed market data and connectivity fees in order to justify that those fees are fair and reasonable. The Commission will also consider whether the Exchange has provided sufficient information to demonstrate that tying the proposed market data and connectivity fees to a minimum average daily display volume threshold is not an undue burden on competition or is not unfairly discriminatory.
Under the Commission's Rules of Practice, the “burden to demonstrate that a proposed rule change is consistent with the [Act] and the rules and regulations issued thereunder . . . is on the [SRO] that proposed the rule change.”
The Commission is instituting proceedings to allow for additional consideration and comment on the issues raised herein, including as to whether the proposed fees are consistent with the Act, and specifically, with its requirements that exchange fees be reasonable and equitably allocated, not be unfairly discriminatory, and not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act.
The Commission requests written views, data, and arguments with respect to the concerns identified above as well as any other relevant concerns. Such comments should be submitted by June 18, 2024. Rebuttal comments should be submitted by July 2, 2024. Although there do not appear to be any issues relevant to approval or disapproval that would be facilitated by an oral presentation of views, data, and arguments, the Commission will consider, pursuant to Rule 19b-4, any request for an opportunity to make an oral presentation.
The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency and merit of the Exchange's statements in support of the Proposal, in addition to any other comments they may wish to submit about the proposed rule change.
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.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of Hawaii dated 05/21/2024.
Issued on 05/21/2024.
Alan Escobar, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 202766 and for economic injury is 202770.
The State which received an EIDL Declaration is Hawaii.
Small Business Administration.
30-day notice.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) is seeking approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the information collection described below. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act and OMB procedures, SBA is publishing this notice to allow all interested member of the public an additional 30 days to provide comments on the proposed collection of information.
Submit comments on or before June 27, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for this information collection request should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
You may obtain a copy of the information collection and supporting documents from the Agency Clearance Office at
SBA Form 1149, Lenders Transcript of Account is completed by Lenders when requesting SBA to purchase the guaranty portion of a loan. At that time, Lenders are required to supply the Agency with a certified transcript of the loan account. SBA Form 1149 is a uniform and convenient means for lenders to report and certify loan accounts to purchase by SBA. The Agency uses the information to determine date of loan default and whether Lender disbursed and serviced the loan according to Loan Guaranty agreement.
SBA has determined that the current information does not adequately meet its needs at the time of guaranty purchase review since the form does not collect enough details about the type of loan payments. Accordingly, SBA changed the column titled “DEFERMENT” to “TYPE OF PAYMENT.”
SBA also plans to revise and clarify the instructions for the Form 1149 to ensure the lenders will be aware of the information to be reported. Lastly, the Form 1149 may undergo additional formatting changes to make it easier to address mandatory Federal government 508 accessibility compliance.
This non-substantive change will likely not have a significant impact on the burden. SBA is requesting a 3-year renewal.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of New York dated 05/16/2024.
Issued on 05/16/2024.
Vanessa Morgan, Office of Disaster Recovery & Resilience, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street SW, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416, (202) 205-6734.
Notice is hereby given that as a result of the Administrator's disaster declaration, applications for disaster loans may be submitted online using the MySBA Loan Portal
The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster:
The Interest Rates are:
The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 203356 and for economic injury is 203360.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration are New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania.
Notice.
A determination has been made that a number of foreign persons have engaged in activities that warrant the imposition of measures pursuant to the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (INKSNA).
These measures are effective May 20, 2024.
On general issues: Pam Durham, Office of Missile, Biological, and Chemical Nonproliferation, Bureau of International Security and Nonproliferation, Department of State, Telephone (202) 647-4930. For U.S. Government procurement ban issues: Eric Moore, Office of the Procurement Executive, Department of State, Telephone: (703) 875-4079. Email:
The INKSNA provides for sanctions on foreign entities and individuals for the transfer to or acquisition from Iran since January 1, 1999; the transfer to or acquisition from Syria since January 1, 2005; or the transfer to or acquisition from the DPRK since January 1, 2006, of goods, services, or technology controlled under multilateral control lists (Australia Group, Chemical Weapons Convention, Missile Technology Control Regime, Nuclear Suppliers Group, Wassenaar Arrangement) or otherwise having the potential to make a material contribution to the development of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) or cruise or ballistic missile systems. The latter category includes: items of the same kind as those on multilateral lists but falling below the control list parameters when it is determined that such items have the potential of making a material contribution to WMD or cruise or ballistic missile systems; items on U.S. national control lists for WMD/missile reasons that are not on multilateral lists; and other items with
On May 20, 2024, the U.S. Government applied the measures authorized in Section 3 of the Iran, North Korea, and Syria Nonproliferation Act (Pub. L. 109-353) against the following foreign persons identified in the report submitted pursuant to Section 2(a) of the Act:
Aleksey Budnev (Russian individual);
Ch'oe Ch'o'l-min (a.k.a Choe Chol Min) (DPRK individual);
Han Dejian (PRC individual);
Shanghai Growth International Logistics Ltd and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof;
Yidatong (Tianjin) Metal Materials Co., Ltd; and any successor, sub-unit, or subsidiary thereof.
Accordingly, pursuant to Section 3 of the Act, the following measures are imposed on these persons:
1. No department or agency of the U.S. Government may procure or enter into any contract for the procurement of any goods, technology, or services from these foreign persons, except to the extent that the Secretary of State otherwise may determine;
2. No department or agency of the U.S. Government may provide any assistance to these foreign persons, and these persons shall not be eligible to participate in any assistance program of the U.S. Government, except to the extent that the Secretary of State otherwise may determine;
3. No U.S. Government sales to these foreign persons of any item on the United States Munitions List are permitted, and all sales to these persons of any defense articles, defense services, or design and construction services under the Arms Export Control Act are terminated; and
4. No new individual licenses shall be granted for the transfer to these foreign persons of items the export of which is controlled under the Export Control Reform Act of 2018 or the Export Administration Regulations, and any existing such licenses are suspended.
These measures shall be implemented by the responsible departments and agencies of the U.S. Government and will remain in place for two years from the effective date, except to the extent that the Secretary of State may subsequently determine otherwise. These measures are independent of and in addition to any other sanctions imposed on such entities and/or individuals by other Federal agencies under separate legal authorities.
The Department of State will conduct a public meeting at 10:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 18, 2024, both in-person at Coast Guard Headquarters in Washington, DC, and via teleconference. The primary purpose of the meeting is to prepare for the 74th session of the International Maritime Organization's (IMO) Technical Cooperation Committee (TC 74) to be held at the IMO Headquarters in London, United Kingdom from Monday, June 24, to Friday, June 28, 2024.
Members of the public may participate up to the capacity of the teleconference phone line, which can handle 500 participants or up to the seating capacity of the room if attending in-person. The meeting location will be the United States Coast Guard Headquarters, 5PS Conference Room, and the teleconference line will be provided to those who RSVP. To RSVP, participants should contact the meeting coordinator, LT Emily Rowan, by email at
The agenda items to be considered at this meeting mirror those to be considered at TC 74, and include:
Those who plan to participate may contact the meeting coordinator, LT Emily Rowan, by email at
Additional information regarding this and other IMO public meetings may be found at:
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Request for comments.
In a notice published on September 8, 2022, USTR announced that the July 6, 2018 and August 23, 2018 actions, as modified, in the section 301 investigation of China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation did not terminate on their four-year anniversary dates and would continue. The notice also announced that the U.S. Trade Representative would conduct a review
You must submit all comments through the online portal:
Philip Butler and Megan Grimball, Chairs of the Section 301 Committee, (202) 395-5725.
On August 24, 2017, the U.S. Trade Representative initiated an investigation into certain acts, policies, and practices of the Government of China related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation under section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended (Trade Act) (19 U.S.C. 2411).
Following a notice and comment process on the proposed action to be taken in the investigation, the U.S. Trade Representative took two actions under section 301 of the Trade Act: the July 6, 2018 action, covering an approximate annual trade value of $34 billion (List 1), and the August 23, 2018 action, covering an approximate annual trade value of $16 billion (List 2).
On May 5, 2022, USTR announced that under section 307(c)(2) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2417(c)(2)), the July 6, 2018 and August 23, 2018 actions, as modified, were subject to possible termination on their respective four-year anniversary dates (
On September 8, 2022, USTR announced that the July 6, 2018 and August 23, 2018 actions, as modified, would remain in effect because at least one representative of a domestic industry that benefits from each action submitted to the U.S. Trade Representative a request for continuation of the actions.
To aid in this review, on November 15, 2022, USTR opened a docket for interested persons to submit comments with respect to a number of considerations concerning the review.
Pursuant to section 307(c)(3) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2417(c)(3)), and based on information obtained during the review, including the written submissions, USTR, in consultation with the Section 301 Committee, prepared a comprehensive report that included findings on the effectiveness of the July 6, 2018 and August 23, 2018 actions, as modified, in achieving the objectives of the investigation, other actions that could be taken, and the effects of such actions on the United States economy, including consumers. The report,
As detailed in the Report, the U.S. Trade Representative has found that:
The section 301 actions have been effective in encouraging China to take steps toward eliminating some of its technology transfer-related acts, policies, and practices, and have reduced some of the exposure of U.S. persons and businesses to these technology transfer-related acts, policies, and practices.
China has not eliminated many of its technology transfer-related acts, policies, and practices, which continue to impose a burden or restriction on U.S. commerce. Instead of pursuing fundamental reform, China has persisted, and even become more aggressive, particularly through cyber intrusions and cybertheft, in its attempts to acquire and absorb foreign technology, which further burden or restrict U.S. commerce.
Economic analyses generally find that the duties have had small negative effects on U.S. aggregate economic welfare, positive impacts on U.S. production in the ten sectors most directly affected by the duties, and minimal impacts on economy-wide prices and employment.
Economic analyses, including the principal U.S. Government analysis published by the U.S. International Trade Commission, generally find that the Section 301 tariffs have contributed to reducing U.S. imports of goods from China and increasing imports from alternate sources, including U.S. allies and partners, thereby potentially supporting U.S. supply chain diversification and resilience.
Based on these findings, the U.S. Trade Representative recommended to the President that section 301 tariffs on covered products be maintained. To further encourage China to eliminate the investigated acts, policies, and practices, the U.S. Trade Representative recommended enhancing the effectiveness of the tariff actions by adding or increasing section 301 tariffs on certain products in strategic sectors. The proposed modification includes products targeted by China for dominance, or are products in sectors where the United States has recently made significant investments.
Taking into consideration the U.S. Trade Representative's findings and recommendations, on May 14, 2024, the President issued a Memorandum that directed the U.S. Trade Representative to: “maintain, as appropriate and consistent with this memorandum, the
The President also directed the U.S. Trade Representative to establish a process by which interested persons may request that particular machinery used in domestic manufacturing classified within a subheading under Chapters 84 and 85 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) be temporarily excluded from section 301 tariffs, and that the U.S. Trade Representative prioritize, in particular, exclusions for certain solar manufacturing equipment.
Pursuant to sections 307(c) and 307(a)(1) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2417(c), (a)(1)), the U.S. Trade Representative may modify or terminate any action, subject to the specific direction, if any, of the President with respect to such action, that is being taken under Section 301 if the burden or restriction on United States commerce of the acts, policies, and practices that are the subject of such action has increased or decreased, or such action is being taken under section 301(b) and no longer is appropriate. Section 301(c)(3)(B) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2411(c)(3)(B)) authorizes the U.S. Trade Representative to take action against any goods or economic sector of the foreign country concerned regardless of whether or not such goods or economic sector are involved in the act, policy, or practice subject to investigation. In accordance with sections 307(c) and 307(a)(1)(B) and (C) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2417(c), (a)(1)(B) and (C)), and in accordance with the specific direction of the President, the U.S. Trade Representative is proposing certain modifications to the actions.
Consistent with the President's direction to increase section 301 tariff rates on certain categories of products, included in Annex A to this notice are 382 HTSUS subheadings and 5 statistical reporting numbers of the HTSUS, with an approximate annual trade value of $18 billion (2023). The President has directed that increases for certain products take effect in 2024, 2025, and 2026. The U.S. Trade Representative is proposing that increases in 2024 be effective August 1, 2024, and that increases in 2025 and 2026 be effective January 1 of the corresponding year.
In addition to the proposed modifications in Annex A, consistent with the President's direction, the U.S. Trade Representative is establishing an exclusion process by which interested persons may request that particular machinery used in domestic manufacturing and classified within certain subheadings under Chapters 84 and 85 of HTSUS be temporarily excluded from section 301 tariffs. The HTSUS subheadings eligible for consideration of temporary exclusion are set forth in Annex B to this notice. Procedures for requesting exclusions under this process will be published in a separate notice. Exclusions granted through this process will be effective through May 31, 2025.
Finally, to support domestic production and decrease reliance on China in a strategic sector, the U.S. Trade Representative is proposing 19 temporary exclusions for solar manufacturing equipment. The proposed temporary exclusions are set forth in Annex C to this notice. The proposed exclusions will be effective the date of this notice and through May 31, 2025.
In accordance with section 307(a)(2) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2417(a)(2)), USTR invites comments from interested persons with respect to the proposed modifications. To be assured of consideration, you must submit written comments by June 28, 2024.
With respect to USTR's proposed modifications to Section 301 tariff rates on certain products from China listed in Annex A, interested persons are invited to comment on:
The effectiveness of the proposed modification in obtaining the elimination of, or in counteracting, China's acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation.
The effects of the proposed modification on the U.S. economy, including consumers.
The scope of the product description to cover ship-to-shore cranes under subheading 8426.19.00 (transporter cranes, gantry cranes and bridge cranes).
With respect to facemasks, medical gloves, syringes and needles, whether the tariff rates should be higher than the proposed rates.
With respect to facemasks, whether additional statistical reporting codes under tariff subheading 6307.90.98 should be included.
Whether the tariff subheadings identified for each product and sector adequately cover the products and sectors included in the President's direction to the U.S. Trade Representative.
With respect to the exclusion process, USTR seeks comments on whether the subheadings listed in Annex B should or should not be eligible for consideration in the machinery exclusion process and whether Annex B omits certain subheadings under Chapters 84 and 85 that cover machinery used in domestic manufacturing that should be included.
With respect to the proposed solar manufacturing machinery exclusions in Annex C, USTR requests comments on the scope of each exclusion, including any suggested amendments to the product description.
In order to facilitate preparation of comments prior to the May 29 opening of the web portal, USTR intends to post a copy of questions for the docket by May 24, 2024. The questions will be posted at
You must submit written comments using the appropriate docket on the portal at
You do not need to establish an account to submit comments. The first screen of the docket allows you to enter identification and contact information. Third party organizations such as law firms, trade associations, or customs brokers, should identify the full legal name of the organization they represent,
Fields with a gray Business Confidential Information (BCI) notation are for BCI that will not be made publicly available. Fields with a green (Public) notation will be viewable by the public.
After entering the identification and contact information, you can complete the remainder of the comment, or any portion of it by clicking `Next.' You may upload documents at the end of the form and indicate whether USTR should treat the documents as business confidential or public information.
Any page containing BCI must be clearly marked `BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL' on the top of that page and the submission should clearly indicate, via brackets, highlighting, or other means, the specific information that is BCI. If you request business confidential treatment, you must certify in writing that the information would not customarily be released to the public.
Parties uploading attachments containing BCI also must submit a public version of their comments. If these procedures are not sufficient to protect BCI or otherwise protect business interests, please contact the USTR Section 301 support line at (202) 395-5725 to discuss whether alternative arrangements are possible.
USTR will post attachments uploaded to the docket for public inspection, except for properly designated BCI. You can view submissions on USTR's electronic portal at
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Notice and request for comments.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information collection. The collection involves applying for a repair station certificate, requesting amendments to the certificate, developing required programs and manuals, and maintaining employee qualification and training records. Additionally, repair stations located outside of the United States must apply to renew their FAA air agency certificate every two years. The information to be collected will be used to ensure applicants and certificate holders of FAA-issued repair station certificates use appropriate facilities and equipment, have sufficient processes and procedures, and use qualified personnel with appropriate training to perform maintenance, preventive maintenance, or alterations of aircraft, airframes, aircraft engines, propellers, appliances, or component parts.
Written comments should be submitted by July 29, 2024.
Please send written comments:
Henry H. Trammel by email at:
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for reinstatement of a previously approved information collection.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to reinstate an information collection. We are required to publish this notice in the
Please submit comments by June 27, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 0041 by any of the following methods:
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Jeff Purdy, 202-366-6993, Office of Freight Management & Operations (HOFM-1), Office of Operations, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, Southeast, Washington, DC 20590. Office hours are from 7:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The comments and FHWA's responses to the 60-day notice published on February 12, 2024, at [89 FR 9903] are below:
There were no comments received.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
Notice of request for renewal of currently approved information collection.
The FHWA has forwarded the information collection request described in this notice to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for a renewal of a currently approved information collection. We are required to publish this notice in the
Please submit comments by June 27, 2024.
You may submit comments identified by DOT Docket ID Number 0042 by any of the following methods:
Follow the online instructions for submitting comments.
Kenneth Petty, 202-366-6654, Office of Planning, Environment, and Realty, Federal Highway Administration, Department of Transportation, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC 20590, between 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
We published a
There were no comments received.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified in the ICR.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 29, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR should be submitted on
Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60 days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
Additionally, railroads must maintain testing and training records on noise and hearing conservation. Further, railroads must make exposure measurement records for specific locations available to regional or national labor representatives upon request.
In this 60-day notice, FRA has made minor adjustments to correct rounding from the previous submission, resulting in a decrease in burden of 6 hours. The estimated paperwork burden for this submission is 3,974 hours.
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified in the ICR.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 29, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR should be submitted on
Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60 days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal statutes and regulations mandate. In summary, comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
FRA collects information to ensure that railroads and their employees fully comply with all the requirements of part 242, including a conductor certification/recertification program, fitness requirements, initial and periodic testing, and territorial qualifications.
In this 60-day notice, FRA made adjustments that decreased the previously approved burden hours from 49,761 hours to 46,858 hours. The decrease in burden is a result of the reduced amount of time per response for § 242.115(e) certification review for prior alcohol/drug conduct. The average time was reduced from 10 minutes to 5 minutes, providing a more accurate analysis of the time needed to complete the review.
Additionally, upon a detailed review of part 242, FRA made several adjustments to its estimated paperwork burdens in this ICR extension.
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of Transportation (DOT).
Notice of information collection; request for comment.
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, FRA seeks approval of the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below. Before submitting this ICR to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for approval, FRA is soliciting public comment on specific aspects of the activities identified in the ICR.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before July 29, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR should be submitted on
Ms. Arlette Mussington, Information Collection Clearance Officer, at email:
The PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, and its implementing regulations, 5 CFR part 1320, require Federal agencies to provide 60 days' notice to the public to allow comment on information collection activities before seeking OMB approval of the activities.
FRA believes that soliciting public comment may reduce the administrative and paperwork burdens associated with the collection of information that Federal regulations mandate. In summary, comments received will advance three objectives: (1) reduce reporting burdens; (2) organize information collection requirements in a “user-friendly” format to improve the use of such information; and (3) accurately assess the resources expended to retrieve and produce information requested.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
The form allows FRA to collect information necessary to investigate the alleged violation, complaint, or inquiry, and to follow up with the submitting party. FRA may share the information collected with partnering States under its State Safety Participation Program and with law enforcement agencies.
In this 60-day notice FRA has made adjustments that increase the overall burden from 70 to 120 hours. The increase in burden hours is a result of an increase in the estimated number of responses for the three-year information collection period. After a thorough review, FRA has estimated that responses will increase from 600 to 1000.
FRA will use the information collected under the form to identify problem areas and take necessary action to prevent potential accidents of the type indicated by the information submitted from occurring.
FRA informs all interested parties that it may not conduct or sponsor, and a respondent is not required to respond to, a collection of information that does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the revision to its information collection titled, “Registration of Mortgage Loan Originators.”
Comments must be received by July 29, 2024.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if possible. You may submit comments by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Following the close of this notice's 60-day comment period, the OCC will publish a second notice with a 30-day comment period. You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection beginning on the date of publication of the second notice for this collection by the method set forth in the next bullet.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street, SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
Among other things, the Registry is intended to aggregate and improve the flow of information to and between regulators; provide increased accountability and tracking of mortgage loan originators; enhance consumer protections; reduce fraud in the residential mortgage loan origination process; and provide consumers with easily accessible information at no charge regarding the employment history of, and the publicly adjudicated disciplinary and enforcement actions against, MLOs.
Along with the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and the Farm Credit Administration, the OCC issued a final rule implementing the S.A.F.E. Act.
Except in situations where the de minimis exception applies, 12 CFR 1007.103 requires an employee of an institution who acts as an MLO to register with the Registry, obtain a unique identifier, and maintain and update such registration. This section also requires institutions to require their MLO employees to comply with these requirements. Section 1007.103(d) sets forth the categories of information that an institution must require each MLO employee to submit to the Registry or submit on the employee's behalf. This section also requires each MLO employee to submit to the Registry an attestation as to the correctness of the information submitted and an authorization for the Registry and the employing institution to obtain certain additional information related to the employee.
Section 1007(b) requires MLOs to provide their unique identifier to a consumer upon request, before acting as an MLO, and through the originator's initial written communication with a consumer, if any, whether on paper or electronically.
Section 1007.103(e) specifies the institution-related and employee information an institution must submit to the Registry in connection with the initial registration of one or more MLOs and annually thereafter. The institution also must update this information within 30 days of the date that this information becomes inaccurate. Employees of the institution who submit information to the Registry on behalf of the institution must verify their identity and attest that they have the authority to enter data on behalf of the institution, that the information submitted is correct, and that the covered financial institution will keep the required information current and will file accurate supplementary information on a timely basis.
Section 1007.105(a) requires the institution to make the unique identifiers of its MLO employees available to consumers in a manner and method practicable to the institution.
Section 1007.104 requires that an institution that employs one or more MLOs to adopt and follow written policies and procedures to, at a minimum, address certain specified areas related to MLO registration. These policies must be appropriate to the nature, size, and complexity of the institution's mortgage lending activities and that apply only to those employees acting within the scope of their employment at the institution.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), Treasury.
Notice and request for comment.
The OCC, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, invites comment on a continuing information collection, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). In accordance with the requirements of the PRA, the OCC may not conduct or sponsor, and the respondent is not required to respond to, an information collection unless it displays a currently valid Office of Management and Budget (OMB) control number. The OCC is soliciting comment concerning the renewal of its information collection titled, “Procedures to Enhance the Accuracy and Integrity of Information Furnished to Consumer Reporting Agencies under Section 312 of the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act of 2003.” DATES: Comments must be received by July 29, 2024.
Commenters are encouraged to submit comments by email, if
•
•
•
•
Following the close of this notice's 60-day comment period, the OCC will publish a second notice with a 30-day comment period. You may review comments and other related materials that pertain to this information collection beginning on the date of publication of the second notice for this collection by the method set forth in the next bullet.
•
• For assistance in navigating
Shaquita Merritt, Clearance Officer, (202) 649-5490, Chief Counsel's Office, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, 400 7th Street SW, Washington, DC 20219. If you are deaf, hard of hearing, or have a speech disability, please dial 7-1-1 to access telecommunications relay services.
Under the PRA (44 U.S.C. 3501
Pursuant to 12 CFR 1022.42(a), furnishers are required to establish and implement reasonable written policies and procedures regarding the accuracy and integrity of consumer information that they provide to a consumer reporting agency (CRA).
Pursuant to 12 CFR 1022.43(a), a furnisher is required to conduct a reasonable investigation of a dispute initiated directly by a consumer in certain circumstances. Furnishers are required to have procedures to ensure that disputes received directly from consumers are handled in a substantially similar manner to those complaints received through CRAs.
Pursuant to 12 CFR 1022.43(f)(2), the statutory requirement is incorporated that a furnisher must notify a consumer by mail or other means (if authorized by the consumer) not later than five business days after making a determination that a dispute is frivolous or irrelevant. Pursuant to 12 CFR 1022.43(f)(3) the statute's content requirements are incorporated for the notices.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the request for OMB approval. All comments will become a matter of public record. Comments are invited on:
(a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the OCC, including whether the information has practical utility;
(b) The accuracy of the OCC's estimate of the burden of the collection of information;
(c) Ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected;
(d) Ways to minimize the burden of the collection on respondents, including through the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology; and
(e) Estimates of capital or start-up costs and costs of operation, maintenance, and purchase of services to provide information.
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
Notice and request for comments.
The Internal Revenue Service, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
Written comments should be received on or before July 29, 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 Sara Covington, (202) 317-5744, at Internal Revenue Service, Room 6526, 1111 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20224, or through the internet at
The IRS is currently seeking comments concerning the following information collection tools, reporting, and record-keeping requirements:
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.
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. ch. 10, that the Advisory Committee on Disability Compensation (hereinafter the Committee) will hold virtual meeting sessions on Monday, June 24, 2024, through Wednesday, June 26, 2024. The meeting sessions will begin, and end as follows:
The meeting sessions are open to the public.
The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on the maintenance and periodic readjustment of the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD). The Committee is to assemble and review relevant information relating to the nature and character of disabilities arising during service in the Armed Forces, provide an ongoing assessment of the effectiveness of the VASRD, and give advice on the most appropriate means of responding to the needs of Veterans relating to disability compensation in the future.
On Monday, June 24, 2024, through Wednesday, June 26, 2024, the agenda will include overview presentations, updates from various staffs on new and ongoing VA initiatives and priorities, and a review and discussions of the 2022 Biennial Report.
In addition, on Wednesday, June 26, 2024, the public comment period will be open for 30-minutes from 11:00 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. EST. The public can also submit one-page summaries of their written statements for the Committee's review. Public comments may be received no later than June 14, 2024, for inclusion in the official meeting record. Please send these comments to Jadine Piper of the Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation Service, at
Members of the public who wish to obtain a copy of the agenda should
The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. Ch.10, that a meeting of the Joint Biomedical Laboratory Research and Development and Clinical Science Research and Development Services Scientific Merit Review Board will be held July 9, 2024, via Webex. The meeting will be held between 3 p.m. and 5 p.m. EDT. The meeting will be closed to the public from 3:30-5 p.m. EDT for scientific review and the discussion, examination, and reference to the research applications. Discussions will involve reference to staff and consultant critiques of research proposals. Discussions will deal with scientific merit of each proposal and qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Additionally, premature disclosure of research information could significantly obstruct implementation of proposed agency action regarding the research proposals. As provided by Public Law 92-463 subsection 10(d), as amended by Public Law 94-409, closing the committee meeting is in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B).
The objective of the Board is to provide for the fair and equitable selection of the most meritorious research projects for support by VA research funds and to offer advice for research program officials on program priorities and policies. The ultimate objective of the Board is to ensure the high quality and mission relevance of VA's legislatively mandated Biomedical Laboratory and Clinical Science Research and Development programs.
Board members advise the Directors of the Biomedical Laboratory and Clinical Sciences Research Services and the Chief Research and Development Officer on the scientific and technical merit, the mission relevance, and the protection of human subjects of Biomedical Laboratory and Clinical Sciences Research and Development proposals. The Board does not consider grants, contracts, or other forms of extramural research.
Members of the public may attend the open portion of the meeting. To attend the open portion of the meeting (3-3:30 p.m. EDT), the public may join by dialing the phone number 1-404-397-1596 and entering the meeting number (access code): 2820 097 2881. Public comments accepted during the open portion of the meeting and Public stakeholders who want to speak to the committee will be afforded 3 minutes during the public comment period. These stakeholders must notify the DFO of their intention to speak to the Committee.
Written public comments must be sent to Michael R. Burgio, Ph.D., Designated Federal Officer, Advisory Committee Management Office, 811 Vermont Avenue NW, Room 4342A, Washington, DC 20006, or to