Forest Service
Economic Analysis Bureau
Foreign-Trade Zones Board
Industry and Security Bureau
International Trade Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services
Food and Drug Administration
Health Resources and Services Administration
National Institutes of Health
Coast Guard
U.S. Customs and Border Protection
Fish and Wildlife Service
Indian Affairs Bureau
National Park Service
Office of Government Information Services
Federal Aviation Administration
Federal Railroad Administration
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.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Direct final rule; confirmation of effective and compliance dates; technical correction.
The U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”) published a direct final rule to establish new energy conservation standards for dishwashers in the
The technical correction in this document is effective October 17, 2024.
The effective date of August 22, 2024, for the direct final rule published April 24, 2024 (89 FR 31398) is confirmed. Compliance with the standards established in the direct final rule will be required on April 23, 2027.
The docket for this rulemaking, which includes
The docket web page can be found at
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
Dr. Carl Shapiro, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5649. Email:
Ms. Kiana Daw, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email:
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as amended (“EPCA”),
The direct final rule must be published simultaneously with a notice of proposed rulemaking (“NOPR”) that proposes an energy or water conservation standard that is identical to the standard established in the direct final rule, and DOE must provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) Not later than 120 days after issuance of the direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if: (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)) If DOE makes such a determination, DOE must proceed with the NOPR published simultaneously with the direct final rule and publish in the
After review of comments received, DOE has determined that it did receive adverse comments on the direct final rule. However, based on the rulemaking record, the comments did not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule under the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C). As such, DOE did not withdraw this direct final rule and the direct final rule remains effective. Although not required under EPCA, where DOE does not withdraw a direct final rule, DOE customarily publishes a summary of the comments received during the 110-day comment period and its responses to those comments. This document contains such a summary, as well as DOE's responses to the comments.
In a direct final rule published on May 30, 2012 (“May 2012 Direct Final Rule”), DOE adopted the current energy conservation standards for dishwashers manufactured on or after May 30, 2013. 77 FR 31918. These standards are set forth in DOE's regulations at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (“CFR”) section 430.32(f).
The current standards are defined in terms of maximum estimated annual energy use (“EAEU”) in kilowatt hours per year (“kWh/yr”) and maximum per cycle water consumption in gallons per cycle (“gal/cycle”) as measured according to DOE's dishwasher test procedure codified at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C1 (“appendix C1”).
In a final determination published on December 13, 2016 (“December 2016 Final Determination”), DOE concluded that amended energy conservation standards would not be economically justified at any level above the standards established in the May 2012 Direct Final Rule, and therefore determined not to amend the standards. 81 FR 90072.
On January 18, 2023, DOE published a final rule (“January 2023 TP Final Rule”) amending the test procedure at appendix C1 and establishing a new test procedure at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix C2 (“appendix C2”). 88 FR 3234. The new appendix C2 specifies updated annual cycles and low-power mode hours, both of which are used to calculate the EAEU metric, and introduces a minimum cleaning performance threshold to validate the selected test cycle. 88 FR 3234, 3236.
On May 19, 2023, DOE published a NOPR (“May 2023 NOPR”) proposing to amend the current standards for dishwashers, defined in terms of EAEU and per-cycle water consumption as measured according to appendix C2. 88 FR 32514.
On September 25, 2023, DOE received a joint statement (“Joint Agreement”) recommending standards for dishwashers that was submitted by groups representing manufacturers, energy and environmental advocates, consumer groups, and a utility.
After carefully considering the recommended energy conservation standards for dishwashers in the Joint Agreement, DOE determined that these recommendations were in accordance with the statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) for the issuance of a direct final rule and published a direct final rule on April 24, 2024 (“April 2024 Direct Final Rule”). 89 FR 31398. DOE evaluated whether the Joint Agreement satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), as applicable, and found that the recommended standard levels would, among other things, result in significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and economically justified.
The maximum EAEU and maximum water consumption standards adopted in the April 2024 Direct Final Rule apply to product classes listed in Table II.2 and that are manufactured in, or imported into, the United States starting on April 23, 2027. The April 2024 Direct Final Rule provides a detailed discussion of DOE's analysis of the benefits and burdens of the amended standards pursuant to the criteria set forth in EPCA.
As required by EPCA, DOE also simultaneously published a NOPR proposing the identical standard levels contained in the April 2024 Direct Final Rule. 89 FR 31096. DOE considered whether any adverse comment received during the 110-day comment period following the publication of the April 2024 Direct Final Rule provided a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule under the provisions in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C).
As discussed in section I of this document, not later than 120 days after publication of a direct final rule, DOE shall withdraw the direct final rule if: (1) DOE receives one or more adverse public comments relating to the direct final rule or any alternative joint recommendation; and (2) based on the rulemaking record relating to the direct final rule, DOE determines that such adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C)(i))
DOE received comments in response to the April 2024 Direct Final Rule from the interested parties listed in Table III.1.
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.
AHAM and ASAP
AHAM further commented that DOE satisfactorily responded to AHAM's comments and concerns regarding dishwasher performance, the economic value of water, consideration of low-income consumers, new Energy Information Administration's (“EIA's”)
CFA
Clean Future supported the proposed regulations, in particular the detailed outline of new environmental guidelines that demonstrate a forward-looking approach to combating climate change and its effects. (Clean Future, No. 71 at p. 1) Clean Future also commented that the revised standards will yield significant energy savings, are technologically feasible, and are economically justified. (Clean Future, No. 72 at p. 1)
DOE received a comment from one individual commenter who expressed support for the standards promulgated in the April 2024 Direct Final Rule. (Bruno, No. 70 at p. 1)
As discussed in more detail below, DOE has determined that these comments do not provide a reasonable basis to withdraw the April 2024 Direct Final Rule.
DOE received comments regarding DOE's statutory authority to regulate the water use of dishwashers.
Word and Daquin commented that DOE has gone beyond its statutory authority in increasing water efficiency standards of certain consumer appliances without lawful authority. Word and Daquin asserted that DOE lacks the authority to increase the stringency of water use standards for products other than showerheads, faucets, water closets, and urinals. (Word & Daquin, No. 68 at p. 1)
Word and Daquin also commented that based on the history of EPCA and the recent ruling of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, DOE does not have the authority to regulate the water use of dishwashers. Word and Daquin commented the Fifth Circuit recognized that “No part of [EPCA] indicates Congress gave DOE power to regulate water use for energy-using appliances.”
AHAM commented that a dishwasher is a holistic system that is optimized by being able to manipulate both water levels and electricity levels to get the best performance with the least amount of energy, and that DOE's regulation of energy efficiency and water use together supports manufacturers' ability to create high performing and highly efficient wash systems. AHAM stated that it had supported the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which it described as providing DOE with the authority to regulate water use for dishwashers because water use is intricately linked to energy usage. AHAM added that disconnecting these authorities would significantly increase regulatory burden and would make designing products more difficult if authority to set water standards rested with individual states. (AHAM, No. 76 at p. 5)
As discussed in the April 2024 Direct Final Rule, EPCA prescribed energy conservation standards with both energy and water use requirements for dishwashers. 89 FR 31398, 31406. In establishing energy conservation standards with both energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers manufactured after 2010, Congress also directed DOE to “determin[e] whether to amend” those standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B)) Congress's directive, in section 6295(g)(10)(B), to consider whether “to amend the standards for dishwashers” refers to “the standards” established in the immediately preceding section, 6295(g)(10)(A), where Congress established energy conservation standards with
Similarly, DOE's authority under 42 U.S.C. 6295(m) to amend “standards” for covered products includes amending both the energy and water use performance standards for dishwashers. Neither section 6295(g)(10)(B) nor section 6295(m) limit their application to “energy use standards.” Rather, they direct DOE to consider amending “the standards,” 42 U.S.C. 6295(g)(10)(B), or simply “standards,”
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or amended standards for covered products, including dishwashers. Any new or amended standard for a covered product must be designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) In deciding whether a proposed standard is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) DOE must make this determination after receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered products that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy (or as applicable, water) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I)-(VII))
DOE received several comments on its determination of economic justification under the statutory criteria.
AHAM commented that under the standards adopted in the April 2024 Direct Final Rule, only 3 percent of consumers would experience a net cost. (AHAM, No. 76 at p. 4)
ASAP
CFA
DOE did not receive any adverse comments in relation to consumer impacts. DOE reiterates its determination from the April 2024 Direct Final Rule that the standards adopted in the direct final rule are economically justified. 89 FR 31398, 31477-31478.
ASAP
AHAM commented that the recommended standards are economically justified as required by 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(I) and will not result in lessening of utility, reliability, performance, or availability of dishwashers considered under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV). (AHAM, No. 76 at p. 4)
DOE did not receive any adverse comments in relation to product reliability. DOE reiterates its determination from the April 2024 Direct Final Rule that the standards adopted in the direct final rule will not lessen the utility or performance of dishwashers. 89 FR 31398, 31464-31467.
An individual recommended that DOE factor the repairability and maintenance of an appliance into its economic and environmental impact. (Bruno, No. 70 at p. 1)
DOE did take into account the cost of repair associated with each analyzed efficiency level in the April 2024 Direct Final Rule. As discussed in the April 2024 Direct Final Rule, DOE determined that routine maintenance costs would not vary with increased efficiency.
Pursuant to EPCA, any new or amended standard must result in significant conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B))
AHAM noted that DOE's analysis found significant energy and water savings, as required under EPCA. (AHAM, No. 76 at p. 4)
ASAP
In summary, DOE did not receive any adverse comments in relation to the significant conservation of energy. DOE reiterates its determination from the April 2024 Direct Final Rule that the energy savings from the standard levels adopted in this direct final rule are “significant” within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B). 89 FR 31398, 31405, 31413.
EPCA specifies the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
Word and Daquin commented that they are harmed by the April 2024 Direct Final Rule because their choice of preferred dishwasher would be eliminated by the rule. Word and Daquin recommended that DOE repeal the April 2024 Direct Final Rule and withdraw the proposed rule. (Word & Daquin, No. 68 at p. 10)
DOE notes that Word and Daquin did not provide any specifics regarding the dishwasher features that would be eliminated by the April 2024 Direct Final Rule or why these features and products would be eliminated by amended standards.
In contrast, ASAP
ASAP
AHAM commented that the energy conservation standards adopted in the April 2024 Direct Final Rule will not result in significant lessening of utility, reliability, performance, or availability of the covered products as prohibited under the so-called “safe harbor” exception of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(IV). (AHAM, No. 76 at pp. 4-5) AHAM stated that products on the market have demonstrated capability of achieving the standards while retaining consumer satisfaction with a range of performance considerations; and more than 400 dishwasher models are currently certified to the more stringent ENERGY STAR Version 7.0 level. AHAM noted that DOE's test procedure, confirmatory testing data, confidential interviews, and ENERGY STAR's performance requirements reinforce that the amended standards will not negatively impact dishwasher performance. (AHAM, No. 76 at pp. 1-2)
DOE reiterates its determination from the April 2024 Direct Final Rule that the amended standards will not result in the unavailability of products that are substantially the same as those currently available in the United States, and the amended standards will not reduce the utility or performance of dishwashers. 89 FR 31398, 31413, 31464-31468. Therefore, DOE has determined that the comment provided by Word and Daquin do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the April 2024 Direct Final Rule.
Under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by DOE, may submit a joint recommendation to DOE for new or amended energy conservation standards.
AHAM commented that the stakeholders who submitted the Joint Agreement are representative of a wide range of expert and relevant points of view—including manufacturers of various sizes representing nearly 100 percent of the market for dishwashers; consumer, environmental, and efficiency advocacy groups; a utility; and several States that participated in the negotiation discussions and filed comments in support of the agreement. AHAM concluded that the April 2024 Direct Final Rule benefits both the manufacturers and consumers that these organizations represent. (AHAM, No. 76 at p. 3)
DOE did not receive any adverse comments with regard to stakeholder representation. DOE reaffirms its determination that the Joint Agreement was submitted by interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of view.
The test procedures at appendix C1 and appendix C2 contain introductory notes that specify the dates of applicability of each test procedure. Among other details, these introductory notes currently specify the following:
• Since January 23, 2024, manufacturers must use results of testing under appendix C1 to determine compliance with the relevant standard from 10 CFR 430.32(f)(1) as it appeared in the January 1, 2023 edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499.
• Manufacturers must use the results of testing under appendix C2 to determine compliance with any amended standards for dishwashers provided in 10 CFR 430.32(f)(1) that are published after January 1, 2023.
The April 2024 Direct Final Rule codified the amended standards promulgated by the April 2024 Direct Final Rule at 10 CFR 430.32(f)(2).
Accordingly, in this document, DOE updates the introductory notes to both appendices C1 and appendix C2 to specify that use of appendix C2 is required to demonstrate compliance with the amended standards codified at 10 CFR 430.32(f)(2).
EPCA directs DOE to consider any lessening of competition that is likely to result from new or amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)(i) and (C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V)) It also directs the Attorney General of the United States (“Attorney General”) to determine the impact, if any, of any lessening of competition likely to result from a proposed standard and to transmit such determination to the Secretary within 60 days of the publication of a proposed rule, together with an analysis of the nature and extent of the impact. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii)) To assist the Attorney General in making this determination, DOE provided the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) with copies of the April 2024 Direct Final Rule, the corresponding NOPR, and the April 2024 Direct Final Rule Technical Support Document for review. DOE has published DOJ's comments at the end of this document.
In its letter responding to DOE, DOJ concluded that, based on its review, the direct final rule standards for dishwashers are unlikely to have significant adverse impact on competition.
In summary, based on the previous discussion, DOE has determined that the comments received in response to the direct final rule for new energy conservation standards for dishwashers do not provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct final rule. As a result, the energy conservation standards set forth in the direct final rule became effective on August 22, 2024. Compliance with these standards is required on and after April 23, 2027.
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, and Small businesses.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 10, 2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, to read as set forth below:
42 U.S.C. 6291-6309; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
Manufacturers must use the results of testing under appendix C2 to this subpart to determine compliance with the amended standards for dishwashers provided at § 430.32(f)(2). Manufacturers may use appendix C2 to certify compliance with the standards provided at § 430.32(f)(2) prior to the applicable compliance date for those standards.
Any representations related to energy or water consumption of dishwashers must be made in accordance with the appropriate appendix that applies (
The regulation at 10 CFR 429.19(b)(3) provides instructions regarding the combination of detergent and detergent dosing, specified in section 2.5 of this appendix, used for certification.
Any representations related to energy or water consumption of dishwashers must be made in accordance with the appropriate appendix that applies (
The following appendix will not appear in the Code of Federal Regulations.
I am responding to your April 24, 2024 letter seeking the views of the Attorney General about the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards for dishwashers.
Your request was submitted under Section 325(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a), which requires the Attorney General to make a determination of the impact of any lessening of competition that is likely to result from the imposition of proposed energy conservation standards. The Attorney General's responsibility for responding to requests from other departments about the effect of a program on competition has been delegated to the Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division in 28 CFR 0.40(g). The Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division has authorized me, as the Policy Director for the Antitrust Division, to provide the Antitrust Division's views regarding the potential impact on competition of proposed energy conservation standards on his behalf.
In conducting its analysis, the Antitrust Division examines whether a proposed standard may lessen competition, for example, by substantially limiting consumer choice or increasing industry concentration. A lessening of competition could result in higher prices to manufacturers and consumers.
We have studied in detail the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking regarding dishwashers, as well as the Technical Support Document (TSD) that accompanied it, both of which you transmitted to us under cover of your April 24 letter. We also have reviewed the one public comment and reviewed the docket.
Based on this review, our conclusion is that the proposed energy conservation standards for dishwashers are unlikely to have a significant adverse impact on competition.
Sincerely,
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
Final special conditions.
These special conditions are issued for the Boeing Model 787-9 series airplanes. These airplanes, as modified by NAT, will have a novel or unusual design feature when compared to the state of technology envisioned in the airworthiness standards for transport category airplanes. This design feature is the installation of high wall suites in the passenger cabin. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
Effective October 17, 2024.
Artiom Kostiouk, Cabin Safety, AIR-624, Technical Policy Branch, Policy and Standards Division, Aircraft Certification Service, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence Ave. SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone and fax (202) 267-5446; email
NAT has applied for an amended supplemental type certificate for the installation of suites in the passenger cabin in Boeing Model 787-9 series airplanes. The Boeing Model 787-9 airplane, currently approved under Type Certificate No. T00021SE, is a twin-engine transport category airplane, with a maximum seating capacity for 420 passengers, and a maximum take-off weight of 553,000 pounds.
Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, NAT must show that the Boeing Model 787-9 airplane, as changed, continues to meet the applicable provisions of the regulations listed in Type Certificate No. T00021SE or the applicable regulations in effect on the date of application for the change, except for earlier amendments as agreed upon by the FAA.
If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations (
Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would also apply to the other model under § 21.101.
In addition to the applicable airworthiness regulations and special
The FAA issues special conditions, as defined in 14 CFR 11.19, in accordance with § 11.38, and they become part of the type-certification basis under § 21.101.
The Boeing Model 787-9 airplane will incorporate the following novel or unusual design feature:
Single-passenger suites with high walls that diminish occupant's awareness of their surroundings in emergency situations. These suites are considered a novel design for transport category airplanes and were not considered when applicable airworthiness standards were created.
For the Model 787-9 airplane, NAT has proposed a customer option for the installation of six high wall suites (HWS) arranged in two rows of three suites each in a 1-1-1 configuration. The characteristics of this HWS design are unique such that the suite walls are higher than conventional mini-suites with partial height surroundings. While the walls for these suites do not extend fully up from the floor to the ceiling, such as those found in traditional “high wall” suites, their wall height of 60 inches is greater than the eye level of a 5th percentile female, impeding visual awareness and egress. These suites are also not remote from the main cabin (such as overhead crew rests). Additionally, the design of these suites is novel in the inclusion of berths that are accessible to the occupant of the suite during flight, unlike previous high wall suite designs.
Part 25 in its current form does not have regulations that address suite installations in the cabin with walls of height that reduce occupant visibility and situational awareness.
Due to the novel design features of these HWS, suitable passenger alerting, supplemental oxygen, and firefighting equipment and procedures are needed for this configuration to ensure occupant awareness in emergency situations. Furthermore, the proposed suite design necessitates the development of additional special conditions, including, but not limited to crew procedures for managing hazards and suite occupants, as well as maintaining cabin-egress route dimensions after deformation of the walls and seats.
The special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards.
The FAA issued Notice of Proposed Special Conditions No. 25-24-03-SC for the Boeing Model 787-9 series airplane, which was published in the
The FAA received three comments from Boeing.
Boeing requests to change the description of the suites to remove the single criterion of impending visual awareness and egress of a 5th percentile female. Instead, Boeing requests FAA to use multifaceted criteria (
Boeing also proposes to change the discussion section regarding part 25 which states that part 25 does not specifically address suites with walls that reduce occupant visibility and situational awareness. Boeing asserts that commercial aircraft commonly include architectural elements that are addressed by existing regulations that may also potentially reduce visibility and situational awareness. The FAA infers that Boeing is maintaining that existing regulations already address suites with high walls, and the FAA disagrees with Boeing's comment. While current regulations are sufficient to address a high wall architectural element such as a partition, they do not address the safety risk posed by surrounding an occupant with high walls. The discussion section is intended to convey that part 25 did not previously consider safety factors associated with high walls surrounding seats that were previously installed in an open seating environment. Among these factors is the safety risk associated with walls that diminish visibility of emergency exits and awareness of emergency conditions, which must be addressed by special conditions.
Finally, Boeing proposes to remove conditions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7, which are associated with high wall suites, and place condition 5 which relates to berths, in an exemption regarding mini-suites. The FAA disagrees with Boeing's proposal since the suites in question are not mini-suites but high wall suites. Furthermore, incorporating beds into the suites requires conditions specific to decompression alerting and maintaining availability of supplemental oxygen for bed occupants to mitigate the safety risk associated with diminished situational awareness.
The special conditions are adopted as proposed.
As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the Boeing Model 787-9 airplane. Should Northwest Aerospace Technologies, Inc apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on Type Certificate No. T00021SE to incorporate the same novel or unusual design feature, these special conditions would apply to that model as well.
Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the
This action affects only a certain novel or unusual design feature on one model of airplane. It is not a rule of general applicability and affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane.
Aircraft, Aviation safety, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows:
49 U.S.C. 106(f), 106(g), 40113, 44701, 44702, 44704.
▪ Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the type certification basis for Boeing Model 787-9 series airplanes, as modified by NAT.
The suites must have the following features:
1. A supplemental oxygen system with the following:
a. Oxygen masks for each seat and berth installed in the suite that meet the same 14 CFR part 25 regulations as the supplemental oxygen system for the main passenger-cabin occupants.
b. An aural and visual alert system to warn occupants and to indicate the need to don oxygen masks in the event of decompression. The aural alert must activate concurrently with the deployment of the oxygen masks in the main passenger cabin and must be loud enough to be heard and clearly understood from each suite berth and seat location.
c. When an occupant needs to locate and don a deployed oxygen mask, sufficient levels of lighting to perform this task must be automatically activated within the suite.
d. Automatic presentation of oxygen for occupants lying in the berth.
e. If a chemical oxygen generator is used as the oxygen supply source, the suite oxygen installation must meet §§ 25.795(d) and 25.1450 at amendment 25-138 or higher.
2. The design approval holder must provide operating procedures to move suite occupants when smoke is present, or firefighting is occurring near or in the suites, for incorporation into the operator's training programs and appropriate operational manuals:
a. A limitation must be included in the airplane flight manual (AFM) requiring that crewmembers be trained in the operating procedures related to the suites.
3. The design of each suite, and the location of the firefighting equipment where suites are installed, must allow the crewmembers to conduct effective firefighting in the suite. For a manual, hand-held extinguishing system (designed as the sole means to fight a fire) for the suite:
a. A limitation must be included in the AFM requiring that crewmembers be trained in the firefighting procedures.
b. Each suite design must allow crewmembers equipped for firefighting to have unrestricted access to all parts of the suite compartment.
4. Approved procedures describing the methods for searching the suite compartment for fire sources must be established. These procedures should include a drawing or photo clearly indicating the location of the stowage drawer and other potential sources of smoke (
5. If a berth is installed, occupancy of each suite is limited to a single passenger.
a. Each berth installed in the suite must incorporate a safety belt that meets § 25.785(f).
b. Each berth must be placarded to indicate the appropriate orientation of the occupant's head direction.
c. Each berth cushion must meet § 25.853(c).
6. If waste-disposal receptacles are fitted in the suite, the suite must be equipped with an automatic fire-extinguishing system that meets the performance requirements of § 25.854(b).
7. The design of each suite must:
a. Maintain minimum main aisle(s), cross aisle(s), and passageway(s) required by 14 CFR part 25 requirements when subjected to the ultimate inertia forces listed in § 25.561(d).
b. Prevent structural failure or deformation of components that could block access to the available evacuation routes (
8. In addition to the requirements of § 25.562 for seat systems, which are occupiable during taxi, takeoff, and landing, the suite structure must be designed for the additional loads imposed by the seats as a result of the conditions specified in § 25.562(b).
Bureau of Industry and Security, Department of Commerce.
Final rule; correction.
On September 16, 2024, the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule amending administrative and enforcement provisions in the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). The rule contained an error in an amendatory instruction. This document corrects that error.
This correction is effective October 17, 2024.
For general questions, contact Tracy Martin, Office of Export Enforcement, Bureau of Industry and Security, U.S. Department of Commerce at (202) 482-1208 or by email:
BIS published a final rule entitled “Administrative and Enforcement Provisions” in the
In FR Doc. No. 2024-21013, appearing on page 75477 in the
U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland Security.
Announcement of arrival restrictions.
This document announces the decision of the Secretary of Homeland Security to direct all flights to the United States carrying persons who have recently traveled from, or were otherwise present within, Rwanda to arrive at one of the U.S. airports where the U.S. government is focusing public health resources to implement enhanced public health measures. For purposes of this document, a person has recently traveled from Rwanda if that person has departed from, or was otherwise present within, Rwanda within 21 days of the date of the person's entry or attempted entry into the United States. Also, for purposes of this document, crew and flights carrying only cargo (
The arrival restrictions apply to flights departing after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on October 15, 2024. Arrival restrictions continue until cancelled or modified by the Secretary of Homeland Security and notice of such cancellation or modification is published in the
Stephanie Watson, Office of Field Operations, U.S. Customs and Border Protection at 202-255-7018.
Marburg Virus Disease (MVD), caused by the virus family
On September 27, 2024, Rwanda reported cases of MVD in several provinces around the country, largely related to two hospitals. As of October 8, 2024, a total of 58 confirmed cases with 13 confirmed deaths have been reported from Rwanda. At present, most of the people infected are healthcare workers or their contacts. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued a Travel Health Notice—Level 3, Reconsider Nonessential Travel.
In order to assist in preventing or limiting the introduction and spread of this communicable disease into the United States, the Departments of Homeland Security and Health and Human Services (HHS), including CDC, and other agencies charged with protecting the homeland and the American public, are currently implementing enhanced public health measures at three U.S. airports that receive the largest number of travelers originating from Rwanda. To ensure that all travelers with recent presence in Rwanda arrive at one of these airports, DHS is directing all flights to the United States carrying such persons to arrive at the airports where the enhanced public health measures are being implemented. While DHS, in coordination with other applicable Federal agencies, anticipates working with operators of aircraft to identify potential travelers who have recently traveled from, or were otherwise present within, Rwanda prior to boarding, operators of aircraft will remain obligated to comply with the requirements of this document. Department of Defense (DoD) flights, via either military aircraft or contract flights, will be managed by DoD in accordance with HHS guidelines.
Pursuant to 6 U.S.C. 112(a), 19 U.S.C. 1433(c), and 19 CFR 122.32, DHS has the authority to limit the locations at which all flights entering the United States from abroad may land. Under this authority and effective for flights departing after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time on October 15, 2024, I hereby direct all operators of aircraft to ensure that all flights (with the exception of those operated or contracted by DoD) carrying persons who have recently traveled from, or were otherwise present within, Rwanda only land at one of the following airports:
• Chicago O'Hare International Airport (ORD), Illinois;
• John F. Kennedy International Airport (JFK), New York; and
• Washington-Dulles International Airport (IAD), Virginia.
This direction considers a person to have recently traveled from Rwanda if that person departed from, or was otherwise present within, Rwanda within 21 days of the date of the person's entry or attempted entry into the United States. Also, for purposes of this document, crew and flights carrying only cargo (
This list of designated airports may be modified by the Secretary of Homeland Security in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Transportation. This list of designated airports may be modified by an updated publication in the
For purposes of this
Department of Justice.
Interim final rule; reopening of comment period.
This document reopens the comment period for the interim final rule titled “Implementation of HAVANA Act of 2021” that appeared in the April 19, 2024, issue of the
The comment period for the interim final rule published April 19, 2024, at 89 FR 28633, is reopened. Electronic comments must be submitted, and written comments must be postmarked, on or before November 18, 2024. Commenters should be aware that the electronic Federal Docket Management System will not accept comments after 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on the last day of the comment period.
If you wish to provide comments regarding this interim final rule, you must submit comments, referencing RIN 1105-AB71 or JMD Docket No. 157, by one of the two methods below:
•
•
Morton J. Posner, General Counsel, Justice Management Division, (202) 514-3452.
The Department of Justice (“Department”) published an interim final rule titled “Implementation of HAVANA Act of 2021,” which appeared in the
The interim final rule implemented the HAVANA Act of 2021, Public Law 117-46, 135 Stat. 391 (2021) (codified at 22 U.S.C. 2680b(i)). The HAVANA Act authorizes agency heads to provide payments to certain individuals who have incurred qualifying injuries to the brain. The interim final rule covers current and former Department of Justice employees and their dependents. The comment period on the interim final rule closed June 18, 2024.
The Department received no written or electronic comments on the interim final rule during the comment period. Although the Department received no comments about the commenting process, the Department is concerned that the public may have been hindered from submitting electronic comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at “
Coast Guard, DHS.
Notification of enforcement of regulation.
The Coast Guard will enforce a special local regulation for the Manasquan Inlet Intracoastal Tug on October 13, 2024, with a rain date of October 19, 2024, to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District identifies the regulated area for this event in Manasquan, NJ and Point Pleasant Beach, NJ. During the enforcement periods, the operator of any vessel in the regulated area must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
The regulations in 33 CFR100.501 for the Manasquan Inlet Intracoastal Tug will be enforced from noon through 2:30 p.m. October 13, 2024, with a rain date of October 19, 2024, during the same times.
If you have questions about this notification of enforcement, call or email Petty Officer Jonathan Lougheed, U.S. Coast Guard, Sector Delaware Bay, Waterways Management Division, telephone: 215-271-4902, Email:
The Coast Guard will enforce special local regulations in Table 1 to Paragraph (i)(1) of 33 CFR 100.501 for the Manasquan Inlet Intracoastal Tug regulated area from noon to 2:30 p.m. on October 13, 2024, with a rain date of October 19, 2024, during the same times. This action is being taken to provide for the safety of life on navigable waterways during this event. Our regulation for marine events within the Fifth Coast Guard District, § 100.501, specifies the location of the regulated area for the Manasquan Inlet Intracoastal Tug which encompasses portions of the Manasquan Inlet. As reflected in § 100.501(d)(2), during the enforcement periods, if you are the operator of a vessel in the regulated area you must comply with directions from the Patrol Commander or any Official Patrol displaying a Coast Guard ensign.
In addition to this notification of enforcement in the
Forest Service, Agriculture; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule.
Based on requests during joint consultations with Alaska Native Tribes and others, the Departments of the Interior and Agriculture (Departments) revise the regulations concerning the composition of the Federal Subsistence Board (Board), which has authority to administer the subsistence taking and uses of fish and wildlife on public lands in Alaska, subject to the Department's oversight. The Departments add three public members nominated or recommended by federally recognized Tribal governments, require that those nominees have certain knowledge and experience, define requirements used to select the Board Chair, and affirm the Secretaries' authority to replace Board members and the Secretaries' responsibility and oversight regarding Board decisions. These regulatory revisions are responsive to the primary requests made to the Departments during the consultations.
This rule is effective November 18, 2024.
Submitted comments and supporting documents are available for review by going to the
Crystal Leonetti, Acting Director, Office of Subsistence Management; 907-786-3888; or
Under title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) (16 U.S.C. 3111-3126), the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Agriculture (Secretaries) jointly implement the Federal Subsistence Management Program (Program). The Program provides a preference for take of fish and wildlife resources for subsistence uses on Federal public lands and waters in Alaska. The Secretaries published temporary regulations to carry out the Program in the
Consistent with subpart B of these regulations, the Secretaries established a Federal Subsistence Board (Board) to administer the Program. The Board is currently made up of:
• A Chair appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture;
• The Alaska Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service;
• The Alaska Regional Director, National Park Service;
• The Alaska State Director, Bureau of Land Management;
• The Alaska Regional Director, Bureau of Indian Affairs;
• The Alaska Regional Forester, U.S. Forest Service; and
• Two public members appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture.
Through the Board, these agencies and public members participate in the development of regulations for subparts C and D, which, among other things, set forth program eligibility and specific harvest seasons and limits.
In administering the Program, the Secretaries divided Alaska into 10 subsistence resource regions, each of which is represented by a Subsistence Regional Advisory Council (Council). The Councils provide a forum for rural residents with personal knowledge of local conditions and resource requirements to have a meaningful role in the subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Federal public lands in Alaska. The Council members represent varied geographical, cultural, and user interests within each region.
In January 2022, the Departments held joint consultations with approximately 445 individual subsistence users and representatives from federally recognized Tribes of Alaska, Tribal Consortia, Alaska Native Organizations, and Alaska Native Corporations. In October-November 2022, DOI leadership and officials of the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, held joint consultations with various Alaska Tribes regarding fisheries. During all of these consultations, a primary request from commenters was to make changes to the Federal Subsistence Board, including increasing the number of public members to five and adding more voting members who represent Alaska Native villages and have local knowledge and direct subsistence experience.
As a result of this consultation process, the Departments proposed to revise CFR titles 36 (in part 242) and 50 (in part 100) at § __.10 to be responsive to the requests to define the requirements used for the selection of the Board Chair, increase the number of public members of the Board, and include a voice for federally recognized Tribal governments to nominate or recommend a certain number of the public members of the Board (89 FR 14008, February 26, 2024). The proposed rule also included a provision that the Board Chair, like the two current public members, must possess personal knowledge of and direct experience with subsistence uses in rural Alaska. The proposed rule further required the three new public members to possess personal knowledge of and direct experience with subsistence uses in rural Alaska, including Alaska Native
As is currently required in the Program regulations, the Board Chair and all public members were proposed to be appointed by the Secretary of the Interior with the concurrence of the Secretary of Agriculture. The Secretaries were to retain the authority to remove public members from the Board and also would retain their existing authorities to replace agency personnel on the Board. The proposed rule also explained, as is currently the case, that the public members will become special governmental employees for the purpose of serving on the Board.
Lastly, consistent with title VIII of ANILCA, the proposed rule confirmed that the Secretaries retain the authority to modify, disapprove, or stay any action taken by the Board. For temporary special actions, the proposed rule provided that such actions would not become effective until at least 10 calendar days after the date of the action to allow the Secretaries an opportunity to act, if needed. For emergency special actions, the proposed rule provided that the Board action would likewise not become effective for 10 calendar days unless the Board determines that the emergency situation calls for responsive action within 24 hours to protect subsistence resources or public safety.
The February 26, 2024, proposed rule (89 FR 14008) opened a public comment period that closed April 26, 2024. During the public comment period, the Departments received 65 comments from a variety of individuals and entities, including Federally Recognized Tribes of Alaska and Alaska Native Corporations. The public comments and a report detailing the information received during the 2022 joint consultations, “Federal Subsistence Policy Consultation Summary Report,” can be found in Docket No. FWS-R7-SM-2024-0017 at
The February 26, 2024, proposed rule (89 FR 14008) described the regulatory revisions proposed by the Secretaries. The following paragraphs summarize by subject matter the regulatory changes being made in this final rule.
The current Board includes a Chair, two public Board members, and five Federal agency personnel. The Secretaries will add three public members nominated or recommended by federally recognized Tribes in Alaska, while also requiring that they possess personal knowledge of and direct experience with subsistence uses in rural Alaska, including Alaska Native subsistence uses, for the purpose of ensuring adequate representation by members with rural subsistence experience on the Board at any particular meeting.
In addition, the Secretaries will require that the Board Chair possess personal knowledge of and direct experience with subsistence uses in rural Alaska.
The Secretaries may establish term limits for service of Board members in such circumstances as the Secretaries deem appropriate.
For Board actions (
In regard to special actions, we acknowledge that the Board's decisions are often time-sensitive regarding harvest opportunities for rural Alaskans or critical population issues of a species. Therefore, special actions, both emergency and temporary, are valid upon decision by the Board. However, the final rule makes explicit that Secretaries may at any time rescind, modify, disapprove, or stay a special action.
In response to the proposed rule, the Departments received general comments and comments specific to four questions asked in the proposed rule. Of the 65 public comments received, 56 supported the proposed rule, 7 opposed the proposed regulatory revisions or opposed them unless modified, and 2 were outside the scope of the proposed rule.
Many of the comments were specific to how to implement additional public Board membership. These comments were responsive to the questions posed in the proposed rule, and they will be useful as the Departments navigate the nomination and appointment process. Other comments were specific to regulation promulgation and the legality of the proposed rule, and we respond to those comments below.
Questions 1 and 2 are closely tied in the comments received. While they ask two specific questions, the comments received tended to address both questions, and we address both together in this document.
The addition of three public members to be nominated or recommended by federally recognized Tribes reflects the following goals: To add public members so that the Federal Subsistence Board is more balanced between public and Federal agency members; to increase community input into Board recommendations; and to improve Board decisions by adding persons with personal knowledge of and direct experience with subsistence uses in rural Alaska, including Alaska Native subsistence uses. The Secretaries' inclusion of nominations from federally recognized Tribes is consistent with the Secretaries' political relationship with Tribal Nations. The Secretaries' consideration of these nominations/recommendations recognizes Tribes' qualifications to identify individuals who possess personal knowledge of and direct experience with subsistence uses in rural Alaska, both Native and non-Native, and to identify individuals who are best able to present Indigenous Knowledge that can be included in the Board's decision making. Tribal governments are well-situated to make these recommendations in part because of the high proportion of Alaska Natives in the rural areas of the State and particularly in the most remote and roadless regions.
Additionally, most of rural Alaska consists of the Unorganized Borough, which in turn comprises 11 census areas; these areas are for statistical analysis but have no regional governments of their own. Tribal governments are a primary form of local government in much of rural Alaska. The requirement that a nomination or recommendation come from a Tribal government thus functions as a community recommendation that the candidate has the necessary knowledge and expertise. Further, the rule still provides that the Chair and two other public seats are available, outside of this nomination process, to others with the preexisting qualifications.
The Departments gave careful thought to the difficulty in timely assembling the Board to thoughtfully consider and deliberate about emergent situations. Seasonal and regional conservation issues regarding fish and wildlife arise across approximately 230 million acres of Federal public lands and waters under Federal subsistence management and include multiple species of fish and wildlife that are subject to a dynamic and complicated range of partially or fully overlapping Federal and State hunting and fishing regulations. The Departments also considered the short duration of special actions, including that emergency special actions are limited to a maximum of 60 days, and temporary special actions extend no longer than determined by the Board to be necessary and are limited to the end of the current regulatory cycle (maximum of 2 years and a number of which are effective for only a few months). Additionally, the Departments considered the negative impacts of imposing a delay on effective dates of Board special actions and concluded they should be avoided in light of the provision in the proposed rule, carried forward to the final rule, acknowledging that the Secretaries retain authority to (at any time) stay, modify, or disapprove any action taken by the Board. The Departments also considered the exemption in the proposed rule for situations where responsive action is necessary within 24 hours to protect subsistence resources, but the information described above indicates that that proposed exemption may
Ultimately, in light of the comments and concerns noted above, the Departments decided to modify the ratification period to provide the Board with additional flexibility and eliminate the costs that would have been associated with the practical limitations of the proposed rule. As modified, a ratification period of 10 days would apply to emergency and temporary special actions as a general matter, but the Board would have the flexibility to establish a shorter period of time for any given action (including making the action immediately effective). The Departments conclude that this revised approach to the ratification period will provide the benefits of maximizing the opportunity for Secretarial oversight without unduly constraining the Board from taking prompt action when necessary. While Board actions will be deemed automatically ratified if the Secretaries do not modify, disapprove, stay, or expressly ratify the action within the time period specified by the Board in the action, the Secretaries may revisit a prior ratification (express or automatic) at any time.
As expressed in Executive Order 13175, “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments,” the Federal officials that have been delegated authority by the Secretaries are committed to honoring the unique government-to-government political relationship that exists between the Federal Government and Federally Recognized Indian Tribes (Tribes) as listed in 75 FR 60810 (October 1, 2010) and the relationship required by statute for consultation and coordination with Alaska Native Corporations. Consultation with Alaska Native Corporations is based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”
The Departments are committed to efficiently and adequately providing opportunities to Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations for consultation with regard to subsistence rulemaking. In January 2022, officials from DOI and the U.S. Department of Agriculture held joint consultations with federally recognized Tribes of Alaska and various Tribal Consortia. Later during October-November 2022, DOI leadership and the Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, held joint consultations with various Alaska Tribes regarding fisheries. Approximately 445 individual subsistence users and representatives from Alaska Native Tribes, Tribal Consortia, Alaska Native Organizations, and Alaska Native Corporations participated in the consultations, and a majority of the commenters specifically requested increasing the number of public members to five and adding more voting members who represent Alaska Native Villages and have local knowledge and direct subsistence experience.
The Departments considered Tribes' and Alaska Native Corporations' information, input, and recommendations, and addressed their concerns as much as practicable in this rulemaking action.
Based on the public and Tribal comment received, the final rule diverges from the proposed rule in regard to proposed paragraph § __.10(d)(12). While the proposed regulations at that paragraph provided for a 10-day delay in Board actions taking effect to allow the Secretaries the opportunity to modify, disapprove, stay, or expressly ratify actions taken by the Board, in this final rule we have modified the waiting period provision to provide more flexibility to the Board while maximizing the opportunity for Secretarial oversight. This change is based on public and Council input that the waiting period provision in the proposed rule might interfere with the purposes of the order and subsistence management goals. For example, in some circumstances, a waiting period could allow for a fish run to be completed before subsistence users had an opportunity to harvest any fish as described in the preceding section.
The Department also made a change to the quorum at paragraph § __.10(d)(2). Recognizing the timeline involved in nominating, appointing, and onboarding new Board members, the Departments decided to create a sliding scale for its quorum, starting at the current regulatory quorum of five and building to six. This approach keeps the quorum at greater than 50 percent but also avoids unintentionally creating a situation where a quorum may be difficult to achieve before all new Board positions are filled. The Departments made a change in this final rule by electing to set the quorum at five when there are nine or fewer Board members and six when there are 10 or more Board members.
Other than the changes just described, we have made no other revisions to the proposed regulatory text in this final rule.
A draft environmental impact statement that described four alternatives for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. The final environmental impact statement (FEIS) was published on February 28, 1992. The record of decision on Subsistence Management for Federal Public Lands in Alaska was signed April 6, 1992. The selected alternative in the FEIS (alternative IV) defined the administrative framework of an annual regulatory cycle for subsistence regulations.
A 1997 environmental assessment dealt with the expansion of Federal jurisdiction over fisheries and is available at the office listed under
Similarly, this rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment. Further, a detailed statement under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA; 42 U.S.C. 4321
An ANILCA section 810 analysis was completed as part of the FEIS process on the Federal Subsistence Management
During the subsequent environmental assessment process for extending fisheries jurisdiction, an evaluation of the effects of the subsistence program regulations was conducted in accordance with section 810. That evaluation also supported the Secretaries' determination that the regulations will not reach the “may significantly restrict” threshold that would require notice and hearings under ANILCA section 810(a).
This rule contains existing information collections. All information collections require approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA, 44 U.S.C. 3501
Executive Order 14094 reaffirms the principles of E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563 and states that regulatory analysis should facilitate agency efforts to develop regulations that serve the public interest, advance statutory objectives, and are consistent with E.O. 12866 and E.O. 13563. Regulatory analysis, as practicable and appropriate, shall recognize distributive impacts and equity, to the extent permitted by law. E.O. 13563 emphasizes further that regulations must be based on the best available science and that the rulemaking process must allow for public participation and an open exchange of ideas. The Secretaries conducted this rulemaking in a manner consistent with these requirements.
E.O. 12866, as reaffirmed by E.O. 13563 and E.O. 14094, provides that the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in OMB will review all significant rules. OIRA has determined that this final rule is not significant.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601
Under the Congressional Review Act (5 U.S.C. 804(2)), this rule is not a major rule. It will not have an effect on the economy of $100 million or more, will not cause a major increase in costs or prices for consumers, and will not have significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or the ability of U.S.-based enterprises to compete with foreign-based enterprises.
Title VIII of ANILCA requires the Secretaries to administer a subsistence priority on public lands. The scope of the Program is limited by definition to certain public lands. Likewise, these regulations have no potential takings of private property implications as defined by Executive Order 12630.
The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502
The Secretaries have determined that these regulations meet the applicable standards provided in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988, regarding civil justice reform.
In accordance with Executive Order 13132, the rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. Title VIII of ANILCA precludes the State from exercising subsistence management authority over fish and wildlife resources on Federal lands unless it meets certain requirements.
Title VIII of ANILCA does not provide specific rights to Tribes for the subsistence taking of wildlife, fish, and shellfish. However, the Departments provided federally recognized Tribes and Alaska Native Corporations opportunities to consult on this rule. Consultation with Alaska Native Corporations are based on Public Law 108-199, div. H, Sec. 161, Jan. 23, 2004, 118 Stat. 452, as amended by Public Law 108-447, div. H, title V, Sec. 518, Dec. 8, 2004, 118 Stat. 3267, which provides that: “The Director of the Office of Management and Budget and all Federal agencies shall hereafter consult with Alaska Native Corporations on the same basis as Indian tribes under Executive Order No. 13175.”
As stated previously under
Executive Order 13211 requires agencies to prepare statements of energy effects when undertaking certain actions. However, this rule is not a significant regulatory action under E.O. 13211, affecting energy supply, distribution, or use, and no statement of energy effects is required.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish and shellfish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish and shellfish, National forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Secretaries amend title 36, part 242, and title 50, part 100, of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below.
16 U.S.C. 3, 472, 551, 668dd, 3101-3126; 18 U.S.C. 3551-3586; 43 U.S.C. 1733.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
(a)
(b)
(2) Public Board members serve at the will of the Secretaries. The Secretaries maintain their authorities for replacement of Federal agency members, public Board members, or any designees.
(d) * * *
(2) A quorum consists of five members when the total number of Board members is nine or fewer and six members when the total number of Board members is 10 or higher.
(11) The Secretary of the Interior, or the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to a unit of the National Forest System, retains authority to (at any time) stay, modify, or disapprove any action taken by the Board.
(12) Special actions of the Board are not effective unless ratified by the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture with respect to a unit of the National Forest System. To allow an opportunity for the Secretaries to modify, disapprove, stay, or expressly ratify any emergency or temporary special action taken by the Board, such Board actions generally will not become effective until 10 calendar days after the date of the action (or any longer period specified by the Board when taking the action), unless the Board determines that the situation calls for responsive action within a shorter period of time. If no action is taken by the Secretary to modify, disapprove, stay, or expressly ratify within 10 days (or the longer or shorter period specified by the Board), the emergency or temporary special action will be deemed automatically ratified for purposes of this subpart. The Secretaries may revisit a prior ratification (express or automatic) of a Board action at any time. For other Board actions (
(13) For Board actions such as cyclic regulation revisions, customary and traditional use determinations, subsistence resource regions, rural determinations, and requests for reconsideration, when the Secretaries deem appropriate, they will exercise their authority to modify or disapprove the actions prior to publication of the actions in the
(14) The Secretaries may establish term limits for service of Board members in such circumstances as the Secretaries deem appropriate.
Federal Communications Commission.
Final rule; correction.
This document corrects an error by deleting an incorrect sentence in the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis section of a final rule that appeared in the
This correction is effective October 17, 2024.
For further information, contact John Evanoff of the Public Safety and Homeland Security Bureau, Policy and Licensing Division, at
The Federal Communications Commission (the Commission) is correcting an error in the
In FR Doc. No. 2024-18603, in the
“For all OSPs, the initial compliance date will be extended based on the effective date of the rules—
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Final rule; correction and technical amendment.
We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, correct and amend a final rule that revised the regulations for the issuance of permits for eagle incidental take and eagle nest take. A provision of the regulations in the final rule specifies eligibility criteria for general permits for wind energy projects based on eagle relative abundance and proximity to eagle nests. We have become aware of confusion on the part of some general permit applicants regarding this provision in the regulations. Accordingly, this document revises the regulatory text of the final rule to ensure clarity. In addition, the final rule inadvertently resulted in errors regarding footnotes to a table. This document corrects those errors. For the convenience of the public, we also provide information to access the Service's online mapping tool for general permit eligibility.
This rule is effective October 17, 2024.
The final rule and supplemental documents, including an environmental assessment, list of references cited, technical appendices, and public comments received, are available at
Jerome Ford, Assistant Director—Migratory Birds Program, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, telephone: (703) 358-2606, email:
On February 12, 2024, under the authority of the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. 668-668d; hereafter, the “Eagle Act”), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service published a final rule to revise the regulations in title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) that govern the issuance of permits for eagle incidental take and eagle nest take (89 FR 9920). That rule created general permits for certain activities under prescribed conditions, including general permit options for qualifying wind energy generation projects. While the rule primarily pertained to the regulations in 50 CFR part 22, Eagle Permits, the rule also included revisions to 50 CFR part 13, General Permit Procedures.
The February 12, 2024, final rule (89 FR 9920) resulted in improper codification of the footnotes to a table at 50 CFR 13.11(d)(4). This rule corrects the errors described below.
Prior to the rule becoming effective on April 12, 2024, the table at 50 CFR 13.11(d)(4) had four footnotes, the first of which was indicated by a superscript 1 in a column heading: “Administration fee.
In the February 12, 2024, final rule, the amendatory instruction for revising the table at 50 CFR 13.11(d)(4) (appearing at 89 FR 9956 as amendatory instruction 3) was written erroneously. The amendatory instruction correctly included an instruction to revise footnote 1; however, it did not include an instruction to revise the column headings to add a superscript for footnote 1 to an additional column heading (
Moreover, the corresponding text below the amendatory instruction erroneously displayed the headings for the table with these column headings: “Permit application fee
In addition to these errors in the final rule, the codification of the final rule's changes to the footnotes to the table at 50 CFR 13.11(d)(4) resulted in errors. As codified in the e-CFR (
Accordingly, this document revises the table at 50 CFR 13.11(d)(4) to indicate that both the column headings for “Permit application fee” and “Administration fee” include a superscript for footnote 1. This document also sets forth correct text for footnote 1 and reinstates footnote 2, which was erroneously removed during the codification process for the final rule. These revisions are procedural in nature and not substantive. The sentences set forth in the rule portion of this document for footnote 1 are verbatim as had been set forth for footnotes 1 and 2 in the final rule; the only change is that, in this document, those sentences are now combined to form a single footnote.
Under the regulations set forth in the final rule at 50 CFR 22.250, the eligibility criteria for the Service to issue a general permit for wind energy generation projects include a combination of eagle relative abundance in the project area and proximity to eagle nests. Relative-abundance thresholds are the basis for our determination that general permits are compatible with the preservation of eagles, as required by the Eagle Act and our implementing regulations. The Service used the best available information to derive relative-abundance thresholds that determine whether wind energy projects are eligible for a general permit. That information consists of the Cornell Lab of Ornithology's Status and Trends definition of “relative abundance” and relative-abundance products derived from eBird data (Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, New York, available at:
Eligibility for general permits must be determined as described in the environmental assessment (EA) that accompanied the final rule. The eagle relative-abundance threshold values published in the final rule were calculated based on the Cornell Lab of Ornithology's eagle relative-abundance data and products. Thresholds are therefore applicable only to relative-abundance estimates from 2020 that consider detection rates, topography, and habitat and represent the coterminous United States at a 3-km
To ensure that all general permits are consistent with the statute's preservation standard, general permit eligibility must be determined using eagle relative-abundance data and products from 2020. While we view this requirement as the logical and clearly expressed intent in the final rule and accompanying EA, we have learned that some members of the public have not understood this requirement. Accordingly, in this rule we revise the regulatory text at § 22.250(c)(1)(ii) by adding text to explicitly communicate the requirement that eagle relative-abundance data and products from 2020 must be used to determine general permit eligibility for wind projects. We are making no change to the second eligibility requirement, the proximity to eagle nests at the time of application, which appears at § 22.250(c)(1)(i). This determination must be based on recent nest survey(s). Project proponents are expected to survey for eagle nests with due diligence and in accordance with any Service guidance for nest surveys.
We encourage applicants to determine project eligibility using a mapping tool produced by the Service. We created an online mapping tool to help project proponents quickly determine eagle relative abundance and permit eligibility. You may access the permit-eligibility map at
Generally, the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires a Federal agency to provide the public with notice and an opportunity to comment on agency rulemakings. 5 U.S.C. 553(b). The APA, however, creates an exception in case where an agency for good cause determines “that notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.”
Furthermore, the APA generally provides that a final rule may not become effective until at least 30 days after its publication in the
Administrative practice and procedure, Exports, Fish, Imports, Plants, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Exports, Imports, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation, Wildlife.
Accordingly, we hereby amend parts 13 and 22 of subchapter B of chapter I, title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
16 U.S.C. 668a, 704, 712, 742j-l, 1374(g), 1382, 1538(d), 1539, 1540(f), 3374, 4901-4916; 18 U.S.C. 42; 19 U.S.C. 1202; 31 U.S.C. 9701.
(d) * * *
(4) * * *
16 U.S.C. 668-668d; 703-712; 1531-1544.
(c) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Located in areas characterized by seasonal relative-abundance values that are less than the relative-abundance values for the date range for each species in tables 1 and 2, as determined by using relative-abundance data from 2020. Eligibility determinations must be based on 2020 relative-abundance estimates that consider detection rates, topography, and habitat and represent the coterminous United States at a 3-km
(A) Cornell Lab of Ornithology relative-abundance data and products for bald eagles and golden eagles from 2020, published in 2021.
(B) [Reserved]
In proposed rule document 2024-22385, appearing on pages 80797 through 80827 in the issue of Friday, October 4, 2024, make the following corrections:
1. On page 80798, in the first column, in the fifth paragraph, on the second through fourth lines, “Final supplemental environmental impact statement relying on Appendix C to Subpart A” should read “Final supplemental environmental impact statement relying on a generic environmental impact statement for licensing new nuclear reactors.”.
2. On page 80808, in the second column, in the fourth paragraph from the bottom of the page, on the first through third lines, “Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement Relying on Appendix C to Subpart A” should read “Final supplemental environmental impact statement relying on a generic environmental impact statement for licensing new nuclear reactors.”.
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 Five). 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 October 8, 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.
Additionally, the Postal Service notes that, as a result of recently approved methodologies relating to rural and city delivery costs, delivery costs reported in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2024 Annual Compliance Report will be substantially different from those reported in FY 2023.
• 0-1 pound
• 1-3 pounds
• 3 pounds and greater
The Commission establishes Docket No. RM2025-1 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. RM2025-1 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 Five), filed October 8, 2024.
2. Comments by interested persons in this proceeding are due no later than November 8, 2024.
3. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 505, the Commission appoints Christopher C. Mohr 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 the publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
Office of Human Resources Management, Departmental Administration.
Notice of Performance Review Board appointments.
This notice announces the members of the Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Senior Executive Service (SES) and Senior Level (SL) and Scientific or Professional (ST) Performance Review Boards. Agriculture has two PRBs with representatives from each USDA Mission Area. The PRB provides a written recommendation to the Secretary for final approval of each executive's performance rating, performance-based pay adjustment, and performance award. The PRBs are advised by the Office of Human Resources Management, Office of General Counsel, and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights to ensure compliance with laws and regulations.
The board membership is applicable beginning on October 18, 2024.
Anita Adkins, Chief Human Capital Officer, Office of Human Resources Management, telephone: (337) 247-1820, or Tonique Washington, Acting Director, Executive Resources Management Division, telephone: (202) 720-0027.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), the USDA PRB members are named below:
Bender, Stuart A.; Bennett, Patricia A.; Bucknall, Janet L.; Coleman, Angela V.; Crockett, John W.; Drennen, Lorna J.; Duncan, C. Natalie L.; Eichhorst, John E.; Erhan, Sevim Z.; Fantinato, Jessica; French, Christopher B.; Glendenning, Roger W.; Heath, Linda S.; Jackson, Kimberly R.; James, Rosalind R.; Lindbo, David; Manzano, Heather L.; McHugh, Tara H.; Morris, Erin; Neal Jr., Arthur L.; Nickerson, Cynthia J.; Parsons, Joseph L.; Ramirez, Lisa; Ripley, Ingrid; Shea, A. Kevin; Slupek, Mark A.; Smith, Gregory C.; Tharp, Melissa A.; Watson, Michael T.; Whitley, Daniel B.; and Williams, Duane.
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 (PRA) 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
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
RECARO Aircraft Seating Americas, LLC submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ Board (the Board) for its facilities in Fort Worth, Texas within FTZ 196. The notification conforming to the requirements of the Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.22) was received on October 9, 2024.
Pursuant to 15 CFR 400.14(b), FTZ production activity would be limited to the specific foreign-status materials/components and specific finished product described in the submitted notification (summarized below) and subsequently authorized by the Board. The benefits that may stem from conducting production activity under FTZ procedures are explained in the background section of the Board's website—accessible via
The proposed finished product is aircraft seats (duty rate is duty-free).
The proposed foreign-status materials/components include: plastic components (logos; placards; coat hooks; attachment tapes; bearing bushings; bezels; table latch plates; bumper panels; bumper strips; rigid cable conduits; cable plates; cable protection plates; cable routing plates; in-arm table compartment inserts; connection plates; seat covers; armrest and tilt finger protection plates; hinge arm cap covers; literature insert pockets; seat panel covers; electronics receptacles; seatbelt limiters; actuator sleeves; backrest sliders; spacers; in-arm table stops; stop plates; stop seatbelt limiters; table backrests; table retainers; cable bags; armrests; attachment table arms; handicap armrests; in-arm table panel covers; armrest inserts; backrest links; armrest reinforcements; seat actuator sliding blocks; wedges); stainless steel leg springs; steel components (screws; front studs; nuts; rings; washers; rivets; bolts; flange bushings; pins; spring pins; spring actuators; springs; in-arm table hinges; anti-twist cable protections; zinc plated retaining clips; seatbelt shackles; armrest sleeves); aluminum components (barrel nuts; attachment sheets for seats; mounting and holding support brackets and hooks; bushings; base plates; clips to attach seat bottoms; seat connectors; in-arm table subassemblies; corner baggage bars; housing lids; limiter stops; backrest attachment bows; stowage attachment brackets; armrest attachment strips; structural seat beams; clamps; seat bottom clampings; seat contour sheets; cover sheets protecting seat cables; seat base frame diagonal bars; disconnect housings; seat footrests; backrest frames; base frame guides; backrest holders; console holding plates; armrest holding straps; horizontal seat base bars; video arm joints; video arm joint halfs; backrest actuator components; leg rests; seat base frame limitation sheets; headrest limiters; locking plates; base seat frame plates; seat dividers; seat spreaders that separate individual airline seats; seat legs; sheet arm cap uppers to protect cables in seat armrests; in-arm table structural sheets; seat side panels; armrest side plates; armrest sliders supporting video arms; aisle-side steps; backrest structures; frames supporting seat backrests; armrest structure sheets; struts; armrest supports; support plates; routing cable support sheets; torsion tubes; traverse profiles; structural armrest web inners and web outers); actuators; static converter power supplies; radio frequency identification tags; uncovered aircraft seats; anti-rattle nuts; fold out tables; assemblies (console; headrest; plastic seatback screen holder; arm cap; steel backrest couple; guide bearing; housing; aluminum in-arm table; release mechanism; plastic table arm; plastic in-arm table; aluminum seat bottom tube; aluminum video arm); latchseat bottoms; life vest containers; plastic and aluminum components (plug baggage bars; structure headrests; armrest structures); stop actuators; polyamide fabric cable bags; dampers; polyester fabric undercover seat backings; backrests; life vest pouches; combed wool woven fabric seat pockets; artificial leather (polyurethane-coated polyester fabric) backrest narrows; flat polyester ribbon life vest container straps; strap life vests; baggage bars; bearings; bolt actuators; connector housings; cross struts; leather and woven combed wool fabric seat dress covers; escutcheons; foam seat cushions; seat kick panels; levers; plain bearing bushings; retaining springs; seat bottoms; slide rings; spring clips; spring cotters; spring stops; tilt mechanisms; and, web link seatbelts (duty rate ranges from duty-free to 8.5%). The request indicates that certain materials/components are subject to duties under section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (section 232) or section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (section 301), depending on the country of origin. The applicable section 232 and section 301 decisions require subject merchandise to be admitted to FTZs in privileged foreign (PF) status (19 CFR 146.41). The request also indicates that certain leg springs, aluminum seat dividers, and seat legs are subject to an antidumping/countervailing duty (AD/CVD) order/investigation if imported from certain countries. The Board's regulations (15 CFR 400.13(c)(2)) require that merchandise subject to AD/CVD orders, or items which would be otherwise subject to suspension of liquidation under AD/CVD procedures if they entered U.S. customs territory, be admitted to the zone in PF status.
Public comment is invited from interested parties. Submissions shall be addressed to the Board's Executive Secretary and sent to:
A copy of the notification will be available for public inspection in the “Online FTZ Information System” section of the Board's website.
For further information, contact Juanita Chen at
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
As a result of the determinations by the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) that revocation of the antidumping duty (AD) order on large residential washers (LRW) from Mexico would likely lead to the continuation or recurrence of dumping and material injury to an industry in the United States, Commerce is publishing a notice of continuation of this AD order.
Applicable October 9, 2024.
Mira Warrier, AD/CVD Operations, Office II, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401
On February 15, 2013, Commerce published in the
On October 9, 2024, the ITC published its determination, pursuant to sections 751(c) and 752(a) of the Act, that revocation of the
The products covered by the
The products are currently classifiable under subheadings 8450.20.0040 and 8450.20.0080 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS).
As a result of the determinations by Commerce and the ITC that revocation of the
The effective date of the continuation of the
This notice also serves as a final reminder to interested parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
This five-year (sunset) review and this notice are in accordance with sections 751(c) and 751(d)(2) of the Act and published in accordance with section 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain truck and bus tires from Thailand are being, or are likely to be, sold in the United States at less than fair value (LTFV).
Applicable October 17, 2024.
Faris Montgomery or Jonathan Schueler, AD/CVD Operations, Office VIII, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-1537 or (202) 482-9175, respectively.
On May 20, 2024, Commerce published the
A summary of the events that occurred since Commerce published the
The products covered by this investigation are truck and bus tires from Thailand. For a full description of the scope of this investigation,
We received no comments from interested parties on the scope of the investigation as it appeared in the
As provided in section 782(i) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), in June and July 2024, we conducted verification of the sales information and cost information submitted by Bridgestone and Prinx for use in our final determination. We used standard verification procedures, including an examination of relevant sales and accounting records, and original source documents provided by Bridgestone and Prinx.
The issues raised in comments that were submitted by parties in this investigation are addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. A list of the issues addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum is attached to this notice at Appendix II.
Commerce preliminarily determined, in accordance with section 733(e)(1) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206(c)(1), that critical circumstances did not exist with respect to imports of truck and bus tires exported by Bridgestone, Prinx, and all other companies.
For the final determination, pursuant to section 735(a)(3)(B) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.206, we continue to find that critical circumstances do not exist for Prinx and all other companies, but that critical circumstances do exist for Bridgestone. For a full description of the methodology and results of Commerce's critical circumstances analysis,
As explained in the Issues and Decision Memorandum, Commerce was unable to verify the accuracy of Bridgestone's reporting with respect to its sales data. As a consequence, we find that Bridgestone's reported sales data are unverified and, thus, cannot serve as a reliable basis for calculating an accurate margin for Bridgestone in this investigation. Furthermore, based on our analysis of the comments received and our findings at verification, we made changes to Prinx's dumping margin. For a discussion of these changes,
Because Bridgestone's submitted data could not be verified, we are unable to use its data to calculate an accurate dumping margin for the company. Therefore, for this final determination we find it appropriate to rely on facts available with an adverse inference (AFA) to assign Bridgestone an estimated weighted-average dumping margin, in accordance with sections 776(a) and (b) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.308, because Bridgestone failed to cooperate by not acting to the best of its ability to comply with our requests for information. In applying AFA, we assigned Bridgestone the margin identified in the Petition,
Additionally, due to findings at verification related to certain of Prinx's reported sales expenses, we find it appropriate to rely on AFA, in part, in the calculation of its dumping margin for the final determination. For further discussion,
Section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act provides that the estimated weighted-average dumping margin for all other producers and exporters not individually examined shall be an amount equal to the weighted average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
For the final determination of this investigation, Prinx was the only individually examined exporter/producer for which Commerce calculated an individual estimated weighted-average dumping margin. Because Prinx's dumping margin is the only individually calculated dumping margin that is not zero,
The final estimated weighted-average dumping margins are as follows:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed in connection
Because the
With respect to Bridgestone, section 733(e)(2) of the Act provides that, given an affirmative determination of critical circumstances, any suspension of liquidation shall apply to unliquidated entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the later of: (a) the date which is 90 days before the date on which the suspension of liquidation was first ordered; or (b) the date on which notice of initiation of the investigation was published. The
Finally, with respect to all other companies, in accordance with section 735(c)(1)(B) of the Act, Commerce will instruct CBP to continue to suspend liquidation of all appropriate entries of subject merchandise from Thailand, as described in Appendix I to this notice, entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after May 20, 2024, the date of publication of
Pursuant to section 735(c)(1)(B)(ii) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.210(d), where appropriate, Commerce will instruct CBP to require a cash deposit equal to the estimated weighted-average dumping margin or the estimated all-others rate, as follows: (1) the cash deposit rate for the respondents listed above will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin determined in this final determination; (2) if the exporter is not a respondent identified above but the producer is, then the cash deposit rate will be equal to the company-specific estimated weighted-average dumping margin established for that producer of the subject merchandise; and (3) the cash deposit rate for all other producers and exporters will be equal to the all-others estimated weighted-average dumping margin.
In accordance with section 735(d) of the Act, we will notify the ITC of the final affirmative determination of sales at LTFV. Because Commerce's final determination is affirmative, in accordance with section 735(b)(2) of the Act, the ITC will make its final determination as to whether the domestic industry in the United States is materially injured, or threatened with material injury, by reason of imports or sales (or the likelihood of sales) for importation of truck and bus tires from Thailand, no later than 45 days after this final determination. If the ITC determines that such injury does not exist, this proceeding will be terminated, and all cash deposits posted will be refunded and suspension of liquidation will be lifted. If the ITC determines that such injury does exist, Commerce will issue an antidumping duty order directing CBP to assess, upon further instruction by Commerce, antidumping duties on all imports of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the effective date of the suspension of liquidation, as discussed above in the “Continuation of Suspension of Liquidation” section.
This notice will serve as a final reminder to the parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3). Timely written notification of return or destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
This determination is issued and published in accordance with sections 735(d) and 777(i)(1) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.210(c).
The scope of the investigation covers truck and bus tires. Truck and bus tires are new pneumatic tires, of rubber, with a truck or bus size designation. Truck and bus tires covered by the scope may be tube-type, tubeless, radial, or non-radial (also known as bias construction or bias-ply). Subject tires have, at the time of importation, the symbol “DOT” on the sidewall, certifying that the tire conforms to applicable motor vehicle safety standards. Subject tires may also have one of the following suffixes in their tire size designation, which also appear on the sidewall of the tire:
TR—Identifies tires for service on trucks or buses to differentiate them from similarly sized passenger car and light truck tires; and
HC—Identifies a 17.5 inch rim diameter code for use on low platform trailers.
All tires with a “TR” or “HC” suffix in their size designations are covered by the scope regardless of their intended use.
In addition, all tires that lack one of the above suffix markings are included in the scope, as well as all tires that include any other prefix or suffix in their sidewall markings, are included in the scope, regardless of their intended use, as long as the tire is of a size that fits trucks or busses. Sizes that fit trucks and busses include, but are not limited to, the numerical size designations listed in the “Truck-Bus” section of the Tire and Rim Association Year Book, as updated annually. The scope includes all tires that are of a size that fits trucks or busses, unless the tire falls within one of the specific exclusions set out below.
Truck and bus tires, whether or not mounted on wheels or rims, are included in the scope. However, if a subject tire is imported mounted on a wheel or rim, only the tire is covered by the scope. Subject merchandise includes truck and bus tires produced in the subject country whether mounted on wheels or rims in the subject country or in a third country. Truck and bus tires are covered whether or not they are accompanied by other parts,
Specifically excluded from the scope are the following types of tires: (1) pneumatic
The subject merchandise is currently classifiable under Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States (HTSUS) subheadings: 4011.20.1015 and 4011.20.5020. Tires meeting the scope description may also enter under the following HTSUS subheadings: 4011.90.1010, 4011.90.1050, 4011.90.2010, 4011.90.2050, 4011.90.8010, 4011.90.8050, 8708.70.4530, 8708.70.4546, 8708.70.4548, 8708.70.4560, 8708.70.6030, 8708.70.6045, 8708.70.6060, and 8716.90.5059.
While HTSUS subheadings are provided for convenience and for customs purposes, the written description of the subject merchandise is dispositive.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) is conducting an administrative review of the antidumping duty order on non-refillable steel cylinders (non-refillable cylinders) from the People's Republic of China (China). We determine that Wuyi Xilinde Machinery Manufacture Co., Ltd. (Wuyi Xilinde) made sales at less than normal value (NV) during the period of review (POR) May 1, 2022, through April 30, 2023. Additionally, Commerce is rescinding this administrative review with respect to Ningbo Eagle Machinery & Technology Co., Ltd. (Ningbo Eagle).
Applicable October 17, 2024.
Alex Cipolla, AD/CVD Operations, Office III, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4956.
On June 6, 2024, Commerce published the
The products covered by this
The issue raised by Wuyi Xilinde in its case brief is listed in the appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on our review and analysis of the comment received from Wuyi Xilinde, we made one change to the
In the
Under Commerce's policy regarding the conditional review of the China-wide entity,
Commerce determines the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period May 1, 2022, through April 30, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose to parties to the proceeding the calculations performed for these preliminary results of review within five days of the date of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b), Commerce has determined, and CBP shall assess, antidumping duties on all appropriate entries of subject merchandise in accordance with these final results of review. Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of these final results. If a timely summons is filed at the U.S. Court of International Trade, the assessment instructions will direct CBP not to liquidate relevant entries until the time for parties to file a request for a statutory injunction has expired (
For Wuyi Xilinde, which has a final weighted-average dumping margin that is not zero or
Pursuant to a refinement in our non-market economy practice, for sales that were not reported in the U.S. sales data submitted by companies individually examined during this review, we will instruction CBP to liquidate entries associated with those sales at the rate for the China-wide entity.
For Ningbo Eagle, for which the administrative review is rescinded, antidumping duties shall be assessed at a rate equal to the cash deposit of estimated antidumping duties required at the time of entry, or withdrawal from warehouse, for consumption, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.212(c)(1)(i).
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective upon publication of the final results of this review for shipments of the subject merchandise from China entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) for Wuyi Xilinde, which has a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be the rate established in these final results of review; (2) for previously investigated or reviewed Chinese and non-Chinese exporters not listed above that received a separate rate in a prior segment of this proceeding, the cash deposit rate will continue to be the existing exporter-specific rate; (3) for all Chinese exporters of subject merchandise that have not been found to be entitled to a separate rate, the cash deposit rate will be that for the China-wide entity (
This notice also serves as a final reminder to importers of their responsibility under 19 CFR 351.402(f)(2) to file a certificate regarding the reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties prior to liquidation of the relevant entries during this POR. Failure to comply with this requirement could result in Commerce's presumption that reimbursement of antidumping and/or countervailing duties has occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
This notice also serves as a reminder to parties subject to an APO of their responsibility concerning the return or destruction of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of the return or destruction of APO materials, or conversion to judicial protective order, is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and terms of an APO is a violation which is subject to sanction.
We are issuing and publishing these final results of administrative review and notice in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.221(b)(5) and 19 CFR 351.213(h)(2).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) determines that certain producers/exporters subject to this administrative review made sales of subject merchandise at less than normal value during the period of review (POR) March 1, 2022, through February 28, 2023.
Applicable October 17, 2024.
Lilit Astvatsatrian, AD/CVD Operations, Office IX, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-6412.
On April 5, 2024, Commerce published the
The merchandise subject to the
All issues raised in the case and rebuttal briefs are listed in the appendix to this notice and addressed in the Issues and Decision Memorandum. The Issues and Decision Memorandum is a public document and is on file electronically via Enforcement and Compliance's Antidumping and Countervailing Duty Centralized Electronic Service System (ACCESS). ACCESS is available to registered users at
Based on a review of the record and comments received from interested parties regarding our
The Act and Commerce's regulations do not address the rate to be applied to companies not selected for individual examination when Commerce limits its examination in an administrative review pursuant to section 777A(c)(2) of the Act. Generally, Commerce looks to section 735(c)(5) of the Act, which provides instructions for calculating the all-others rate in an investigation, for guidance for calculating the rate for companies which were not selected for individual examination in an administrative review. Under section 735(c)(5)(A) of the Act, the all-others rate is normally an amount equal to the weighted-average of the estimated weighted-average dumping margins established for exporters and producers individually investigated, excluding any zero or
In this review, we calculated weighted-average dumping margins of 2.62 percent and 2.76 percent for ATC and ATF, respectively, and we have assigned to the non-selected companies a rate of 2.63 percent, which is the weighted average of ATC and ATF's margins, weighted by their publicly ranged U.S. sales values.
For these final results, we determine the following estimated weighted-average dumping margins exist for the period March 1, 2022, through February 28, 2023:
Commerce intends to disclose the calculations performed for ATC and ATF in connection with these final results to interested parties 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 the
Pursuant to section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act and 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), 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.
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.212(b)(1), because ATC reported the entered value of its U.S. sales, we calculated importer-specific
Commerce's “automatic assessment” practice will apply to entries of subject merchandise during the POR produced by ATC or ATF for which the reviewed companies did not know that the merchandise they sold to the intermediary (
For the companies listed in Appendix II which were not selected for individual review, we will assign an assessment rate based on the review-specific rate, calculated as noted in the “Rate for Companies Not Selected for Individual Examination” section, above. The final results of this review shall be the basis for the assessment of antidumping duties on entries of merchandise covered by the final results of this review and for the future deposits of estimated duties where applicable.
Commerce intends to issue assessment instructions to CBP no earlier than 35 days after the date of publication of the final results of this review in the
The following cash deposit requirements will be effective for all shipments of the subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption on or after the publication date of the final results of this administrative review, as provided by section 751(a)(2)(C) of the Act: (1) the cash deposit rate for the companies covered in this review will be equal to the weighted-average dumping margin that is established in the final results of this review, except if the rate is less than 0.50 percent and, therefore,
This notice serves as the only reminder to parties subject to administrative protective order (APO) of their responsibility concerning the disposition of proprietary information disclosed under APO in accordance with 19 CFR 351.305(a)(3), which continues to govern business proprietary information in this segment of the proceeding. Timely written notification of return/destruction of APO materials or conversion to judicial protective order is hereby requested. Failure to comply with the regulations and the terms of an APO is a sanctionable violation.
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 and/or countervailing 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 and/or countervailing duties occurred and the subsequent assessment of double antidumping duties, and/or an increase in the amount of antidumping duties by the amount of the countervailing duties.
This notice is issued and published in accordance with sections 751(a)(1) and 777(i)(1) of the Act.
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) preliminarily determines that Hyundai Steel Pipe Co., Ltd. (HSP) is the successor-in-interest to Hyundai Steel Company (Hyundai Steel) in the context of the antidumping duty (AD) orders on circular welded non-alloy steel pipe (CWP), certain oil country tubular goods (OCTG), welded line pipe (WLP), and large diameter welded pipe (LDWP) from the Republic of Korea (Korea). Therefore, HSP is entitled to Hyundai Steel's AD cash deposit rate with respect to entries of the subject merchandise in the above-referenced proceedings. Interested parties are invited to comment on these preliminary results.
Applicable October 17, 2024.
George McMahon, AD/CVD Operations, Office VI, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-1167.
On March 11, 2024, HSP requested that, pursuant to section 751(b)(1) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (the Act), 19 CFR 351.216, and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(3), Commerce conduct a changed circumstances review (CCR) to determine that HSP is the successor-in-interest to Hyundai Steel and, accordingly, to assign HSP the cash deposit rates currently applicable to Hyundai Steel pursuant to the
The merchandise covered by these orders is CWP, OCTG, WLP, and LDWP from Korea. For a complete description of the scope of each of these orders,
In determining whether one company is the successor-in-interest to another company as part of an AD proceeding, Commerce examines several factors including, but not limited to: (1) management and ownership; (2) production facilities; (3) supplier relationships; and (4) customer base.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.216, we preliminarily determine that HSP is the successor-in-interest to Hyundai Steel with respect to the subject merchandise and the
For a complete discussion of the information that HSP provided, and the complete successor-in-interest analysis,
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(c)(1)(ii), interested parties may submit case briefs no later than 14 days after the date of publication of this notice. Rebuttal briefs, limited to issues raised in case briefs, may be filed no later than seven days after the case briefs, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.309(d).
Interested parties who submit case or rebuttal briefs must submit: (1) a table of contents listing each issue discussed in the brief; and (2) a table of authorities.
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, within 14 days of publication of this notice. Requests should contain the following information: (1) the party's name, address, and telephone number; (2) the number of participants and whether any participant is a foreign national; and (3) a list of issues to be discussed. If a request for a hearing is made, Commerce will inform parties of the date and time for the hearing.
All submissions are to be filed electronically using ACCESS. An electronically filed document must be received successfully in its entirety by ACCESS by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on the day it is due.
Consistent with 19 CFR 351.216(e), we intend to issue the final results of this CCR no later than 270 days after the date on which this review was initiated, or within 45 days of publication of these preliminary results, if all parties agree to the preliminary findings.
We are issuing these preliminary results notice in accordance with sections 751(b)(1) and 777(i) of the Act, and 19 CFR 351.216(b) and 351.221(b)(1).
Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, Department of Commerce.
The U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce) has received requests to conduct administrative reviews of various antidumping duty (AD) and countervailing duty (CVD) orders with September anniversary dates. In accordance with Commerce's regulations, we are initiating those administrative reviews.
Applicable October 17, 2024.
Brenda E. Brown, AD/CVD Operations, Customs Liaison Unit, Enforcement and Compliance, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20230, telephone: (202) 482-4735.
Commerce has received timely requests, in accordance with 19 CFR 351.213(b), for administrative reviews of various AD and CVD orders with September anniversary dates.
All deadlines for the submission of various types of information, certifications, or comments or actions by Commerce discussed below refer to the number of calendar days from the applicable starting time.
In the event that Commerce limits the number of respondents for individual examination for administrative reviews initiated pursuant to requests made for the orders identified below, Commerce intends to select respondents based either on U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data for U.S. imports during the period of review (POR) or questionnaires in which we request the quantity and value (Q&V) of sales, shipments, or exports during the POR. Where Commerce selects respondents based on CBP data, we intend to place the CBP data on the record within five days of publication of the initiation notice. Where Commerce selects respondents based on Q&V data, Commerce intends to place the Q&V questionnaire on the record of the review within five days of publication of the initiation notice. In either case, we intend to make our decision regarding respondent selection within 35 days of publication of the initiation
In the event that Commerce decides it is necessary to limit individual examination of respondents and conduct respondent selection under section 777A(c)(2) of the Tariff Act of
Parties are requested to (a) identify which companies subject to review previously were collapsed, and (b) provide a citation to the proceeding in which they were collapsed. Further, if companies are requested to complete the Q&V Questionnaire for purposes of respondent selection, in general, each company must report volume and value data separately for itself. Parties should not include data for any other party, even if they believe they should be treated as a single entity with that other party. If a company was collapsed with another company or companies in the most recently completed segment of this proceeding where Commerce considered collapsing that entity, complete Q&V data for that collapsed entity must be submitted.
With respect to AD administrative reviews, we intend to rescind the review where there are no suspended entries for a company or entity under review and/or where there are no suspended entries under the company-specific case number for that company or entity. Where there may be suspended entries, if a producer or exporter named in this notice of initiation had no exports, sales, or entries during the POR, it may notify Commerce of this fact within 30 days of publication of this notice in the
Pursuant to 19 CFR 351.213(d)(1), a party that has requested a review may withdraw that request within 90 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the requested review. The regulation provides that Commerce may extend this time if it is reasonable to do so. Determinations by Commerce to extend the 90-day deadline will be made on a case-by-case basis.
Section 504 of the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 amended the Act by adding the concept of a particular market situation (PMS) for purposes of constructed value under section 773(e) of the Act.
Neither section 773(e) of the Act nor 19 CFR 351.301(c)(2)(v) set a deadline for the submission of PMS allegations and supporting factual information. However, in order to administer section 773(e) of the Act, Commerce must receive PMS allegations and supporting factual information with enough time to consider the submission. Thus, should an interested party wish to submit a PMS allegation and supporting new factual information pursuant to section 773(e) of the Act, it must do so no later than 20 days after submission of initial responses to section D of the questionnaire.
In proceedings involving non-market economy (NME) countries, Commerce begins with a rebuttable presumption that all companies within the country are subject to government control and, thus, should be assigned a single AD deposit rate. It is Commerce's policy to assign all exporters of merchandise subject to an administrative review in an NME country this single rate unless an exporter can demonstrate that it is sufficiently independent so as to be entitled to a separate rate.
To establish whether a firm is sufficiently independent from government control of its export activities to be entitled to a separate rate, Commerce analyzes each entity exporting the subject merchandise. In accordance with the separate rates criteria, Commerce assigns separate rates to companies in NME cases only if respondents can demonstrate the absence of both
All firms listed below that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews involving NME countries must complete, as appropriate, either a Separate Rate Application or Certification, as described below. In addition, all firms that wish to qualify for separate rate status in the administrative reviews of AD orders in which a Q&V Questionnaire is issued must complete, as appropriate, either a Separate Rate Application or Certification, and respond to the Q&V Questionnaire.
For these administrative reviews, in order to demonstrate separate rate eligibility, Commerce requires entities for whom a review was requested, that were assigned a separate rate in the most recent segment of this proceeding in which they participated, to certify that they continue to meet the criteria for obtaining a separate rate. The Separate Rate Certification form will be available on Commerce's website at
Entities that currently do not have a separate rate from a completed segment
Exporters and producers must file a timely Separate Rate Application or Certification if they want to be considered for individual examination. Furthermore, exporters and producers who submit a Separate Rate Application or Certification and subsequently are selected as mandatory respondents will no longer be eligible for separate rate status unless they respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents.
Commerce may establish a certification process for companies whose exports to the United States could contain both subject and non-subject merchandise. Companies under review that were deemed to not be eligible to participate in the certification program of that proceeding may submit a Certification Eligibility Application to establish that they maintain the necessary systems to track their sales to the United States of subject and non-subject goods.
All firms listed below that are not currently eligible to certify but wish to establish certification eligibility are required to submit a Certification Eligibility Application. The Certification Eligibility Application will be available on Commerce's website at
Exporters and producers that are not currently eligible to certify, who submit a Certification Eligibility Application, and are subsequently selected as mandatory respondents must respond to all parts of the questionnaire as mandatory respondents for Commerce to consider their Certification Eligibility Application.
In accordance with 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i), we are initiating administrative reviews of the following AD and CVD orders and findings. We intend to issue the final results of these reviews not later than September 30, 2025.
During any administrative review covering all or part of a period falling between the first and second or third and fourth anniversary of the publication of an AD order under 19 CFR 351.211 or a determination under 19 CFR 351.218(f)(4) to continue an order or suspended investigation (after sunset review), Commerce, if requested by a domestic interested party within 30 days of the date of publication of the notice of initiation of the review, will determine whether ADs have been absorbed by an exporter or producer subject to the review if the subject merchandise is sold in the United States through an importer that is affiliated with such exporter or producer. The request must include the name(s) of the exporter or producer for which the inquiry is requested.
For the first administrative review of any order, there will be no assessment of antidumping or countervailing duties on entries of subject merchandise entered, or withdrawn from warehouse, for consumption during the relevant “gap” period of the order (
Interested parties must submit applications for disclosure under administrative protective orders in accordance with the procedures outlined in Commerce's regulations at 19 CFR 351.305. Those procedures apply to administrative reviews included in this notice of initiation. Parties wishing to participate in any of these administrative reviews should ensure that they meet the requirements of these procedures (
Commerce's regulations identify five categories of factual information in 19 CFR 351.102(b)(21), which are summarized as follows: (i) evidence submitted in response to questionnaires; (ii) evidence submitted in support of allegations; (iii) publicly available information to value factors under 19 CFR 351.408(c) or to measure the adequacy of remuneration under 19 CFR 351.511(a)(2); (iv) evidence placed on the record by Commerce; and (v) evidence other than factual information described in (i)-(iv). These regulations require any party, when submitting
Any party submitting factual information in an AD or CVD proceeding must certify to the accuracy and completeness of that information using the formats provided at the end of the
Parties may request an extension of time limits before a time limit established under Part 351 expires, or as otherwise specified by Commerce.
These initiations and this notice are in accordance with section 751(a) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(a)) and 19 CFR 351.221(c)(1)(i).
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 Community Offshore Wind, LLC (COSW) to incidentally harass marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys offshore from New Jersey and New York in the New York Bight, specifically within 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 0539 (Lease Area) and associated Export Cable Route (ECR) survey area (ECR Area). There are no changes from the proposed authorization to this final authorization.
This authorization is effective from October 9, 2024 through June 30, 2025.
Electronic copies of the original application, renewal request, and supporting documents (including NMFS
Rachel Hilt, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, (301) 427-8401.
The Marine Mammal Protection Act (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
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 of an 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 June 30, 2023, NMFS issued an IHA to COSW to take marine mammals incidental to Marine Site Characterization Surveys in the New York Bight, specifically within the BOEM Commercial Lease of Submerged Lands for Renewable Energy Development on the OCS Lease Area and associated ECR Area (88 FR 42322), effective from July 1, 2023, through June 30, 2024. On June 14, 2024, NMFS received an application for the renewal of that initial IHA. COSW has met all the conditions for a renewal. As described in the application for renewal IHA, the activities for which incidental take is requested consist of activities that are covered by the initial authorization but were not completed prior to its expiration. As required, the COSW 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. NMFS has decided to waive the 60 days renewal requirement, recognizing that the renewal IHA, if issued, will expire one year from the expiration date of the initial IHA, on June 30, 2025, and having ensured that COSW understands that there is a lapse in MMPA authorization coverage between the expiration of the initial IHA and the issuance of any renewal. The notice of the proposed renewal IHA was published for public comment on August 21, 2024 (89 FR 67592). There are no changes from the proposed authorization in this final authorization.
COSW's 2023 IHA authorized take of marine mammals incidental to marine site characterization surveys, including high-resolution geophysical (HRG) surveys, offshore from New Jersey and New York in the New York Bight, which is within the BOEM Lease Area OCS-A 0539 and associated ECR Area. Hereafter, both the areas are referred to as the Survey Area. The purpose of these surveys is to provide sufficient data to meet BOEM guidelines and support the development of offshore wind facilities in the survey area. Specifically, data collected would support site characterization, siting, and engineering design of offshore wind facilities including turbine generators, offshore substations, submarine cables and data necessary for project review requirements. COSW's 2023 survey plan included 30,467 kilometers (km) of trackline. Of note, the trackline was broken down by Lease Area survey and ECR survey area. Approximately 28,290 km was planned for the Lease Area and 2,177 km for the ECR Area. The effort for bottlenose dolphins was differentiated to account for the two stocks present in the Survey Area. In the ECR Area trackline, 400 km is in waters <20 meters (m) deep where the Western North Atlantic Migratory Coastal Stock (Coastal Stock) of bottlenose dolphins may be present, whereas the remaining 1,777 km is in waters >20 m deep where the Western North Atlantic Offshore Stock (Offshore Stock) of bottlenose dolphins may be present. In the Lease Area, all 28,290 km of trackline are in waters >20 m deep. COSW actually only completed 11,775 km (120 km of trackline in waters <20 m deep) of trackline prior to the request for the renewal, representing approximately 63 percent. As noted above, the effort for bottlenose dolphins was differentiated to account for the two stocks present in the Survey Area. Tracklines in the Survey Area in waters <20 m and >20 m deep were differentiated to account for differences in density between the two stocks of bottlenose dolphins, and the appropriate percentages of tracklines (70 and 62, respectively).
Under the renewal IHA, COSW plans to continue to conduct survey activities over the remaining approximately 19,092 km of trackline that was not completed in 2023. As a result of a miscommunication, COSW's initial IHA authorized 400 km less trackline than they intended (
The potential impacts of COSW's planned activities on marine mammals involve acoustic stressors and are unchanged from the impacts described in the
This renewal IHA is for the remainder of work that was not completed by the expiration date of the 2023 IHA. The renewal IHA authorizes incidental take, by Level B harassment, only of 15 species (16 stocks) of marine mammals for a subset of marine site characterization survey activities to be completed, in the same area, using survey methods identical to those conducted under the 2023 IHA. Neither COSW nor NMFS expect serious injury or mortality to result from this activity and, therefore, an IHA is appropriate. Take by Level A harassment (injury) is unlikely, even absent mitigation, based on the characteristics of the signals produced by the acoustic sources planned for use. Therefore, the anticipated effects on marine mammals and the affected stocks also remain the same. All mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures would remain exactly as described in the
A detailed description of the surveys for which incidental take is proposed here may be found in the
A notice of NMFS' proposal to issue a renewal IHA to COSW was published in the
We reiterate that NMFS' proposed action concerns only the authorization of marine mammal take incidental to the planned surveys—NMFS' authority under the MMPA does not extend to the surveys themselves or to wind energy development more generally. Some comments requested that NMFS fully study the implications of the Vineyard Wind blade failure on marine mammals before moving forward with offshore wind development, oppose take from offshore wind until the U.S. Coast Guard has finished establishing shipping safety fairways to balance offshore wind development with navigational safety, criticize NMFS and BOEM for improperly segmenting offshore wind activities in the Atlantic Ocean, and criticize BOEM's underdeveloped understanding of marine mammal species' current status such that the agency cannot accurately plan for future protections and mitigation of potential impacts. We do not specifically address these comments because they are out of scope of the proposed Renewal IHA (89 FR 67592, August 21, 2024). All substantive comments, and NMFS' responses, are provided below. The comments and recommendations are available online at:
While the NMFS website recommends that applicants seek an LOA if specified activity has the potential to result in harassment only and is planned for multiple years, it is not dispositive. On our website and in various
Upon review of the COSW's request for renewal, the status of the affected species or stocks, the preliminary monitoring report, and other pertinent information, NMFS finds: (1) COSW's renewal request is a subset of the activities covered by the initial IHA; (2) there are no more than minor changes in the survey activities (
The relevant NOAA CE associated with issuance of incidental take authorizations is CE B4, “Issuance of incidental harassment authorizations under section 101(a)(5)(A) and (D) of the MMPA for the incidental, but not intentional, take by harassment of marine mammals during specified activities and for which no serious injury or mortality is anticipated.” This action falls within CE B4. In determining whether a CE is appropriate for a given incidental take authorization, NMFS considers the applicant's specified activity and the potential extent and magnitude of takes of marine mammals associated with that activity along with the extraordinary circumstances listed in the Companion Manual for NOAA Administrative Order (NAO) 216-6A and summarized above.
The evaluation of whether extraordinary circumstances (if present) have the potential for significant environmental effects is limited to the decision NMFS is responsible for, which is issuance of the incidental take authorization. Potential effects of NMFS' action are limited to those that would occur due to the authorization of incidental take of marine mammals. NMFS prepared numerous EAs analyzing the environmental impacts of the categories of activities encompassed by CE B4, which resulted in Findings of No Significant Impacts (FONSIs) and, in particular, numerous EAs prepared in support of issuance of IHAs related to similar survey actions are part of NMFS' administrative record supporting CE B4. These EAs demonstrate the issuance of a given incidental harassment
Specifically for this action, NMFS independently evaluated the use of the CE for issuance of COSW's IHA, which included consideration of extraordinary circumstances. As part of that analysis, NMFS considered whether this IHA issuance would result in cumulative impacts that could be significant. In particular, the issuance of an IHA to COSW is expected to result in minor, short-term behavioral effects on marine mammal species due to exposure to underwater sound from site characterization survey activities. Behavioral disturbance is possible to occur intermittently in the vicinity of COSW's survey area during the 1-year timeframe. Level B harassment will be reduced through use of mitigation measures described herein. Additionally, as discussed elsewhere, NMFS has determined that COSW's activities fall within the scope of activities analyzed in GARFO's programmatic consultation regarding geophysical surveys along the U.S. Atlantic coast in the three Atlantic Renewable Energy Regions (completed June 29, 2021; revised September 2021), which concluded surveys such as those planned by COSW are not likely to adversely affect ESA-listed species or adversely modify or destroy critical habitat. Accordingly, NMFS has determined that the issuance of this IHA will result in no more than negligible (as that term is defined by the Companion Manual for NAO 216-6A) adverse effects on species protected by the ESA and the MMPA.
Further, the issuance of this IHA will not result in highly controversial environmental effects or result in environmental effects that are uncertain, unique, or unknown because numerous entities have been engaged in site characterization surveys that result in Level B harassment of marine mammals in the United States. This type of activity is well documented; prior authorizations and analysis demonstrates issuance of an IHA for this type of action only affects the marine mammals that are the subject of the specific authorization and, thus, no potential for significant cumulative impacts are expected, regardless of past, present, or reasonably foreseeable actions, even though the impacts of the action may not be significant by itself. Based on this evaluation, we concluded that the issuance of the IHA qualifies to be categorically excluded from further NEPA review.
NMFS recognizes and appreciates the importance of the NARW as an integral part of traditional lifeways and cultural practices. But, NMFS emphasizes that there is no credible scientific evidence available suggesting that mortality and/or serious injury or Level A harassment is a potential outcome of the planned survey activity. NMFS notes there have never been reports of any serious injuries or mortalities of any marine mammal associated with any marine site characterization surveys. And, the commenter did not provide any compelling scientific evidence to support their claim that the proposed IHA and specific activities would lead to mortality or serious injury of NARWs.
The best available science indicates that Level B harassment, or disruption of behavioral patterns, may occur as a result of COSW's specified activities. This point has been well supported by other agencies, including the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management and the Marine Mammal Commission (Marine Mammal Commission Newsletter, Spring 2023). A recent study by Thorne and Wiley (2024) reviewed spatio-temporal patterns of strandings, mortalities, and serious injuries of humpback whales along the U.S. East Coast from 2016-2022 and found vessel strikes to be the major driver in the increase of humpback whale strandings, mortalities, and serious injuries. Based upon the spatio-temporal analysis, no evidence was found that offshore wind development contributed to the increased number of strandings, serious injuries or mortalities; for example, spatio-temporal patterns between strandings and site assessment surveys did not seem associated. In fact, the potential for vessel strike increased from 2016-2022 in association with increased container vessel traffic that overlapped with whales in new and shallow foraging areas. This potential for vessel strike also seemed to increase with the increased presence of juvenile humpback whales foraging off the Mid-Atlantic States.
Under the IHA, NMFS requires COSW to abide by vessel speed restrictions and maintain separation distances between vessels and marine mammals that are intended to minimize the risk of any potential vessel strikes. NMFS is not suggesting the study by Thorne and Wiley (2024) presents any final resolution of the issue and generically agrees with the need for continued investigation on offshore wind effects on marine mammals. However, that does not impact our findings here for this IHA, or our determination that the specified activities will have a negligible impact on marine mammals.
There is an ongoing unusual mortality event (UME) for humpback whales along the Atlantic coast from Maine to Florida, which includes animals stranded since 2016. Partial or full necropsy examinations were conducted on approximately half of the whales. Necropsies were not conducted on other
We also refer to the GARFO 2021 Programmatic Consultation, which finds that these survey activities are in general not likely to adversely affect marine mammal species listed under the ESA (
NMFS also notes the cumulative effects of substantially similar activities in the northwest Atlantic Ocean have been analyzed in the past under section 7 of the ESA when NMFS engaged in formal intra-agency consultation, such as the 2013 programmatic Biological Opinion for Bureau of Ocean Energy Management Lease and Site Assessment Rhode Island, Massachusetts, New York, and New Jersey Wind Energy Areas (
For NMFS' response on cumulative impacts, please see our response to
While “nearly identical” is not explicitly defined, NMFS believes the plain language definition is adequate. The IHA renewal process guidance on our website indicates that the applicant must clearly describe any minor change in the activity and why the change will have either no effect on the impacts to marine mammals, or will decrease the type and/or amount of expected take. An example of an applicant that is qualified for a renewal is an applicant conducting bird research at three sites (resulting in behavioral harassment of pinnipeds) as covered by the initial IHA. Sixty days prior to expiration of the initial IHA, the applicant requests a renewal to authorize take incidental to a second year conducting the same research, at the same three sites, for the same duration, in the same seasons—with no other known changes. An example of an applicant that is not qualified for renewal is an applicant conducting bird research at three sites (resulting in behavioral harassment of pinnipeds) as covered by the initial IHA. Two months prior to the expiration of the initial IHA, the applicant requests a renewal to authorize take incidental to a second year conducting the same research, at the same three sites, for the same duration, in the same seasons—but wishes to add one new site to the research activity, which is associated with the need for additional take authorization (
NMFS appreciates the suggestion to commission a study that would cross-reference PSO data with coordinates of marine mammal strandings to investigate a correlation between the two, but notes that correlation is not equivalent to causation, especially if all potential factors are not considered. The data collected by PSOs, and subsequent analysis, provide the necessary information to inform an estimate of the amount of take that occurred during the activity, better understand the impacts of the activity on marine mammals, address the effectiveness of monitoring and mitigation measures, and to adaptively manage activities and mitigation in the future. Data reported includes information on marine mammal sightings, activity occurring at time of sighting, monitoring conditions, and if mitigation was employed. NMFS has considered the best available science regarding the effect of wind surveying activities and marine mammal strandings and has determined there is no evidence that noise arising from offshore wind development-related site characterization surveys could potentially cause marine mammal stranding, mortality, or serious injury. There is no evidence linking recent large whale mortalities to past or ongoing site characterization surveys. The commenters offer no such evidence. NMFS will continue to gather data to help us determine the cause of death for stranded whales on the East Coast of the United States. We further note the Marine Mammal Commission's recent statement: “There continues to be no evidence to link these large whale strandings to offshore wind energy development, including no evidence to link them to sound emitted during wind development-related site characterization surveys, known as HRG surveys. Although HRG surveys have been occurring off New England and the mid-Atlantic coast, HRG devices have never been implicated or causatively-associated with baleen whale strandings.” (Marine Mammal Commission Newsletter, Spring 2023).
Of the strandings documented to date worldwide, NMFS is not aware of any being attributed to the types of HRG equipment proposed for use during COSW's surveys. Recently, there has been heightened interest in HRG surveys relative to recent marine mammals strandings along the U.S. East Coast. HRG surveys involve the use of certain sources to image the ocean bottom, which are very different from seismic airguns used in oil and gas surveys or tactical military sonar, in that they produce much smaller impact zones. Marine mammals may respond to exposure to these sources by, for example, avoiding the immediate area, which is why offshore wind developers, like COSW, seek authorization for Level B (behavioral) harassment. However, because of the combination of lower source levels, higher frequency, narrower beam-width (for some sources), and other factors, the area within which a marine mammal might be expected to be behaviorally disturbed by HRG sources is much smaller (by orders of magnitude) than the impact areas for seismic airguns or the military sonar with which a small number of marine mammal have been causally associated. Specifically, estimated harassment zones for HRG surveys are typically less than 200 m (such as those associated with the project), while the harassment zones for military mid-frequency active sonar or seismic airgun surveys typically extend for several kms ranging up to 10s of km. Further, because of this much smaller ensonified area, any marine mammal exposure to HRG sources is reasonably expected to be at significantly lower levels and shorter duration (associated with less severe responses), and there is no evidence suggesting that marine mammals exposed to HRG survey noise are likely to be injured, much less strand, as a result. Of note, NMFS has performed a thorough review of a report submitted by Rand (2023), that includes measurements of the Geo-Marine Geo-Source 400 sparker, and suggests that NMFS is assuming lower source and received levels than is appropriate in its assessments of HRG impacts. NMFS has determined that the values in this IHA are appropriate, based on the model methodology (
Also of note, in an assessment of monitoring reports for HRG surveys received from 2021 and later, as compared to the takes of marine mammals authorized, an average of fewer than 15 percent of all species with authorized take have been detected within harassment zones, with no more than 27 percent for any species
Additionally, a recent paper by Thorne and Wiley (2024) reviewed spatio-temporal patterns of strandings, mortalities, and serious injuries of humpback whales along the U.S. East Coast from 2016-2022. Humpback whales were chosen as a case study for this analysis because of its ongoing UME and since Humpback whales strand more often than other large whale species. Thorne and Wiley (2024) found vessel strikes to be a major driver in the increase of humpback whale strandings, mortalities, and serious injury along the U.S. East Coast. The potential for vessel strike increased during the study period due to increased vessel traffic in new foraging areas, the increased presence of juvenile humpback whales, and humpback whale foraging in shallow areas that overlap with vessel traffic. Based upon the spatio-temporal analysis, no evidence was found that offshore wind development contributed to the increased number of strandings over time. Future studies should focus on gaining a greater understanding of spatial and seasonal habitat use patterns of large whales, spatio-temporal changes in prey abundance and distribution, and how habitat use and foraging behavior affect the risk of vessel strike. Recently, NMFS was made aware of a media article wherein a member of the public conducted a statistical analysis on the correlation between offshore wind vessel use and whale deaths along the U.S. East Coast (Climate Change Dispatch, 2024). NMFS has long recognized that marine mammals strandings have increased over the years, including increases in strandings of three large whale species resulting in the declaration of UMEs for minke, humpback, and NARW in 2018, 2017, and 2017 respectively. Offshore wind development has increased over the same time period. However, NMFS does not ascribe much weight to the analysis. The analysis presented in the Climate Change Dispatch article was not peer-reviewed, and does not appear to separate other vessel movement from offshore wind-related survey activities, did not consider other known factors that are increasing ship strike risk in general (
Furthermore, NMFS does not expect that the generally short-term, intermittent, and transitory marine site characterization survey activities planned by COSW will create conditions of acute or chronic acoustic exposure leading to long-term physiological impacts in whales. The best available science indicates that Level B harassment (
NMFS does not use PSO data to `predict and potentially prevent impacts to marine mammals', but has reviewed the best available scientific information about the occurrence of marine mammals, including current density data and other relevant information, to understand marine mammal densities in the planned survey area, calculate take estimates, and develop mitigation measures. Habitat-based density models produced by the Duke University Marine Geospatial Ecology Laboratory (Roberts et al., 2016, Roberts et al., 2023) represent the best available information regarding marine mammal densities in the planned survey area. These density data incorporate aerial and shipboard line-transect survey data from NMFS and other organizations and incorporate data from numerous physiographic and dynamic oceanographic and biological covariates, and controls for the influence of sea state, group size, availability bias, and perception bias on the probability of making a sighting. These density models were originally developed for all cetacean taxa in the U.S. Atlantic in 2016 and models for all taxa were updated in 2022 (Roberts et al., 2016, Roberts et al., 2023). More information is available online at
Marine mammal density estimates in the survey area (animals/km
A description of the marine mammals in the area of the activities for which take is authorized here, including information on abundance, status, distribution, and hearing, may be found in the
The population estimates (N
A description of the potential effects of the specified activity on marine mammals and their habitat for the activities for which take is authorized may be found in the Notices of the Proposed (88 FR 24574, April 21, 2023) and Final IHAs (88 FR 42322, June 30, 2023) for the initial IHA. NMFS has reviewed the monitoring data from the initial IHA, recent draft stock assessment reports, information on relevant UMEs and other scientific literature and determined that there is no new information that affects our initial analysis of impacts on marine mammals and their habitat.
A detailed description of the methods and inputs used to estimate take for the specified activity are found in the
The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this IHA are identical to those included in the
The mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures included as requirements in this authorization are identical to those included in the
COSW must 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
During survey operations (
Visual PSOs shall coordinate to ensure 360° visual coverage around the vessel from the most appropriate observation posts and shall conduct visual observations using binoculars and the naked eye while free from distractions and in a consistent, systematic, and diligent manner. PSOs shall establish and monitor applicable shutdown zones (see below). These zones shall be based upon the radial distance from the sparker source (rather than being based around the vessel itself).
Two shutdown zones are defined, depending on the species and context. Here, an extended shutdown zone encompassing the area at and below the sea surface out to a radius of 500 m from the sparker source (0-500 m) is defined for NARW. For all other marine mammals, the shutdown zone encompasses a standard distance of 100 m (0-100 m) during the use of the sparker. Any observations of marine mammals by crew members aboard any vessel associated with the survey shall be relayed to the PSO team.
Visual PSOs may be on watch for a maximum of 4 consecutive hours followed by a break of at least 1 hour between watches and may conduct a maximum of 12 hours of observation per 24-hr period.
A ramp-up procedure, involving a gradual increase in source level output, is required at all times as part of the activation of the sparker sources when technically feasible. Operators should ramp up sparker to half power for 5 min and then proceed to full power. A 30 min pre-start clearance observation period of the shutdown zones must occur prior to the start of ramp-up. The intent of the pre-start clearance observation period (30 min) is to ensure no marine mammals are within the shutdown zones prior to the beginning of ramp-up. The intent of the ramp-up is to warn marine mammals of pending operations and to allow sufficient time for those animals to leave the immediate vicinity. All operators must adhere to the following pre-start clearance and ramp-up requirements:
• The operator must notify a designated PSO of the planned start of ramp-up as agreed upon with the lead PSO; the notification time should not be less than 60 min prior to the planned ramp-up in order to allow the PSOs time to monitor the shutdown zones for 30 min prior to the initiation of ramp-up (pre-start clearance). During this 30 min pre-start clearance period the entire shutdown zone must be visible, except as indicated below;
• Ramp-ups shall be scheduled so as to minimize the time spent with the source activated;
• A visual PSO conducting pre-start clearance observations must be notified again immediately prior to initiating ramp-up procedures and the operator must receive confirmation from the PSO to proceed;
• Any PSO on duty has the authority to delay the start of survey operations if a marine mammal is detected within the applicable pre-start clearance zone; and
• The operator must establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew controlling the acoustic source to ensure that mitigation commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch.
The pre-start clearance requirement is waived for small delphinids and pinnipeds. Detection of a small delphinid (individual belonging to the following genera of the Family Delphinidae:
If there is uncertainty regarding identification of a marine mammal species (
• Ramp-up may not be initiated if any marine mammal to which the pre-start clearance requirement applies is within the shutdown zone. If a marine mammal is observed within the shutdown zone during the 30 min pre-start clearance period, ramp-up may not begin until the animal(s) has been observed exiting the zones or until an additional time period has elapsed with no further sightings (30 min for all baleen whale species and sperm whales, 15 min for all other species).
• PSOs must monitor the shutdown zones 30 min before and during ramp-up, and ramp-up must cease and the source must be shut down upon observation of a marine mammal within the applicable shutdown zone.
• 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 min prior to beginning ramp-up. Sparker activation may only occur at night where operational planning cannot reasonably avoid such circumstances.
If the acoustic source is shut down for brief periods (
All operators must adhere to the following shutdown requirements:
• Any PSO on duty has the authority to call for shutdown of the sparker source if a marine mammal is detected within the applicable shutdown zone;
• The operator must establish and maintain clear lines of communication directly between PSOs on duty and crew controlling the source to ensure that shutdown commands are conveyed swiftly while allowing PSOs to maintain watch;
• When the sparker source is active and a marine mammal appears within or enters the applicable shutdown zone, the source must be shut down. When shutdown is instructed by a PSO, the sparker source must be immediately deactivated and any dispute resolved only following deactivation; and
• Two shutdown zones are defined, depending on the species and context.
The shutdown requirement is waived for small delphinids and pinnipeds. If a small delphinid (individual belonging to the following genera of the Family Delphinidae:
If there is uncertainty regarding identification of a marine mammal species (
Upon implementation of shutdown, the source may be reactivated after the marine mammal has been observed exiting the applicable shutdown zone or following a clearance period (30 min for all baleen whale species and sperm whales, 15 min for all other species) with no further detection of the marine mammal.
If a species for which authorization has not been granted, or a species for which authorization has been granted but the authorized number of takes have been met, approaches or is observed within the Level B harassment zone (158 m), shutdown must occur.
Crew and supply vessel personnel must use an appropriate reference guide that includes identifying information on all marine mammals that may be encountered. Vessel operators must comply with the below measures except under extraordinary circumstances when the safety of the vessel or crew is in doubt or the safety of life at sea is in question. These requirements do not apply in any case where compliance would 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(s), or alter course, as appropriate and regardless of vessel size, to avoid striking any marine mammals. A single marine mammal at the surface may indicate the presence of submerged animals in the vicinity of the vessel; therefore, precautionary measures should always be exercised. A visual observer aboard the vessel must monitor a vessel strike avoidance zone around the vessel (species-specific distances are detailed below). Visual observers monitoring the vessel strike avoidance zone may be third-party observers (
All survey vessels, regardless of size, must observe a 10-knots (kn) (18.52-km/h) speed restriction in specific areas designated by NMFS for the protection of NARWs from vessel strikes. These include all SMAs established under 50 CFR 224.105 (when in effect), any DMAs (when in effect), and Slow Zones. See
• All vessels must reduce speed to 10 kn (18.52 km/h) 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 NARWs, baleen whales (except humpback and minke), sperm whales, and any unidentified large whales. If a NARW, baleen whale (except humpback and minke), sperm whale, and any unidentified large whale is sighted within the relevant separation distance, the vessel must steer a course away at 10 kn (18.52 km/h) or less until the 500-m separation distance has been established. If a whale is observed but cannot be confirmed as a species other than a NARW, the vessel operator must assume that it is a NARW and take appropriate action.
• All vessels must maintain a minimum separation distance of 100 m from all humpback and minke 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 must take action as necessary to avoid violating the relevant separation distance (
• Members of the PSO team will 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 DMAs and/or Slow Zones. It is COSW's responsibility to maintain awareness of the establishment and location of any such areas and to abide by these requirements accordingly.
As described above, a section of the survey area partially overlaps with a portion of a NARW SMA off the port of New York/New Jersey. This SMA is active from November 1 through April 30 of each year. The survey vessel, regardless of length, would be required to adhere to vessel speed restrictions (<10 kn (18.52 km/h)) when operating within the SMA during times when the SMA is active (see table 4 of the initial IHA (88 FR 42322, June 30, 2023). Based on our evaluation of the applicant's planned measures, as well as other measures considered by NMFS, NMFS has determined that the planned mitigation measures provide the means of effecting the least practicable impact on the affected species or stocks and their habitat, paying particular attention to rookeries, mating grounds, and areas of similar significance.
In order to issue an IHA for an activity, section 101(a)(5)(D) of the MMPA states that NMFS must set forth requirements pertaining to the monitoring and reporting of such taking. The MMPA implementing regulations at 50 CFR 216.104(a)(13) indicate that requests for authorizations must include the suggested means of accomplishing the necessary monitoring and reporting that will result in increased knowledge of the species and of the level of taking or impacts on populations of marine mammals that are expected to be present while conducting the activities. Effective reporting is critical both to compliance as well as ensuring that the most value is obtained from the required monitoring.
Monitoring and reporting requirements prescribed by NMFS should contribute to improved
• Occurrence of marine mammal species or stocks in the area in which take is anticipated (
• Nature, scope, or context of likely marine mammal exposure to potential stressors/impacts (individual or cumulative, acute or chronic), through better understanding of: (1) action or environment (
• Individual marine mammal responses (behavioral or physiological) to acoustic stressors (acute, chronic, or cumulative), other stressors, or cumulative impacts from multiple stressors;
• How anticipated responses to stressors impact either: (1) long-term fitness and survival of individual marine mammals; or (2) populations, species, or stocks;
• Effects on marine mammal habitat (
• Mitigation and monitoring effectiveness.
Visual monitoring must be performed by qualified, NMFS-approved PSOs. COSW must submit PSO resumes for NMFS review and approval prior to commencement of the survey. Resumes should include dates of training and any prior NMFS approval, as well as dates and description of last experience, and must be accompanied by information documenting successful completion of an acceptable training course.
For prospective PSOs not previously approved, or for PSOs whose approval is not current, NMFS must review and approve PSO qualifications. Resumes should include information related to relevant education, experience, and training, including dates, duration, location, and description of prior PSO experience. Resumes must be accompanied by relevant documentation of successful completion of necessary training.
NMFS may approve PSOs as conditional or unconditional. A conditionally-approved PSO may be one who is trained but has not yet attained the requisite experience. An unconditionally-approved PSO is one who has attained the necessary experience. For unconditional approval, the PSO must have a minimum of 90 days at sea performing the role during a geophysical survey, with the conclusion of the most recent relevant experience not more than 18 months previous.
At least one of the visual PSOs aboard the vessel must be unconditionally-approved. One unconditionally-approved visual PSO shall be designated as the lead for the entire PSO team. This lead should typically be the PSO with the most experience, who would coordinate duty schedules and roles for the PSO team and serve as primary point of contact for the vessel operator. To the maximum extent practicable, the duty schedule shall be planned such that unconditionally-approved PSOs are on duty with conditionally-approved PSOs.
A “trained lookout” may be used on a space-limited nearshore vessel (generally operating in water less than 20 m depth for no more than 12 hours/day) during required breaks for the approved PSO on duty. Project-specific training must be conducted for all vessel crew with “lookout” responsibilities prior to the start of a survey and during any changes in crew such that all relevant survey personnel are fully aware and understand the mitigation, monitoring, and reporting requirements. All vessel crew members operating as a trained lookout must be briefed in the identification of protected species that may occur in the survey area and in relevant mitigation requirements. Reference materials must be available aboard all project vessels for identification of protected species. Should a mitigation action be taken, the Trained Lookout will immediately notify the off-watch PSO to ensure that the appropriate response was taken and sightings and mitigation measures are properly documented (
At least one PSO aboard each acoustic source vessel must have a minimum of 90 days at-sea experience working in the role, with no more than 18 months elapsed since the conclusion of the at-sea experience. One PSO with such experience must be designated as the lead for the entire PSO team and serve as the primary point of contact for the vessel operator. (Note that the responsibility of coordinating duty schedules and roles may instead be assigned to a shore-based, third-party monitoring coordinator.) To the maximum extent practicable, the lead PSO must devise the duty schedule such that experienced PSOs are on duty with those PSOs with appropriate training but who have not yet gained relevant experience.
PSOs must successfully complete relevant training, including completion of all required coursework and passing (80 percent or more) a written and/or oral examination developed for the training program.
PSOs must have successfully attained a bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with a major in one of the natural sciences, a minimum of 30 semester hours or equivalent in the biological sciences, and at least one undergraduate course in math or statistics. The educational requirements may be waived if the PSO has acquired the relevant skills through alternate experience. Requests for such a waiver shall be submitted to NMFS and must include written justification. Alternate experience that may be considered includes, but is not limited to (1) secondary education and/or experience comparable to PSO duties; (2) previous work experience conducting academic, commercial, or government-sponsored marine mammal surveys; and (3) previous work experience as a PSO (PSO must be in good standing and demonstrate good performance of PSO duties).
COSW must work with the selected third-party PSO provider to ensure PSOs have all equipment (including backup equipment) needed to adequately perform necessary tasks, including accurate determination of distance and bearing to observed marine mammals, and to ensure that PSOs are capable of calibrating equipment as necessary for accurate distance estimates and species identification. Such equipment, at a minimum, shall include:
• At least one thermal (infrared) imagine device suited for the marine environment;
• Reticle binoculars (
• Global Positioning Units (GPSs) (at least one plus backups);
• Digital cameras with a telephoto lens that is at least 300-mm or equivalent on a full-frame single lens reflex, also known as an SLR (at least one plus backups). The camera or lens should also have an image stabilization system;
• Equipment necessary for accurate measurement of distances to marine mammal;
• Compasses (at least one plus backups);
• Means of communication among vessel crew and PSOs; and
• Any other tools deemed necessary to adequately and effectively perform PSO tasks.
The equipment specified above may be provided by an individual PSO, the third-party PSO provider, or the operator, but COSW is responsible for ensuring PSOs have the proper equipment required to perform the duties specified in the IHA.
The PSOs will be responsible for monitoring the waters surrounding the survey vessel to the farthest extent permitted by sighting conditions, including Shutdown Zones, during all HRG survey operations. PSOs will visually monitor and identify marine mammals, including those approaching or entering the established Shutdown Zones during survey activities. It will be the responsibility of the PSO(s) 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.
PSOs must be equipped with binoculars and have the ability to estimate distance and bearing to detect marine mammals, particularly in proximity to Shutdown Zones. 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, appropriate night-vision devices (
During good conditions (
COSW shall submit a draft comprehensive report to NMFS on all activities and monitoring results within 90 days of the completion of the survey or expiration of the IHA, whichever comes sooner. The report must describe all activities conducted and sightings of marine mammals, must provide full documentation of methods, results, and interpretation pertaining to all monitoring, and must summarize the dates and locations of survey operations and all marine mammals sightings (dates, times, locations, activities, associated survey activities). The draft report shall also include geo-referenced, time-stamped vessel tracklines for all time periods during which acoustic sources were operating. Tracklines should include points recording any change in acoustic source status (
PSOs must use standardized electronic data forms to record data. PSOs shall record detailed information about any implementation of mitigation requirements, including the distance of marine mammal to the acoustic source and description of specific actions that ensued, the behavior of the animal(s), any observed changes in behavior before and after implementation of mitigation, and if shutdown was implemented, the length of time before any subsequent ramp-up of the acoustic source. If required mitigation was not implemented, PSOs should record a description of the circumstances. At a minimum, the following information must be recorded:
1. Vessel names (source vessel), vessel size and type, maximum speed capability of vessel;
2. Dates of departures and returns to port with port name;
3. PSO names and affiliations;
4. Date and participants of PSO briefings;
5. Visual monitoring equipment used;
6. PSO location on vessel and height of observation location above water surface;
7. Dates and times (Greenwich Mean Time (GMT)) of survey on/off effort and times corresponding with PSO on/off effort;
8. Vessel location (decimal degrees) when survey effort begins and ends and vessel location at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts;
9. Vessel location at 30-second intervals if obtainable from data collection software, otherwise at practical regular interval;
10. Vessel heading and speed at beginning and end of visual PSO duty shifts and upon any change;
11. Water depth (if obtainable from data collection software);
12. Environmental conditions while on visual survey (at beginning and end of PSO shift and whenever conditions change significantly), including BSS and any other relevant weather conditions including cloud cover, fog, sun glare, and overall visibility to the horizon;
13. Factors that may contribute to impaired observations during each PSO shift change or as needed as environmental conditions change (
14. Survey activity information (and changes thereof), such as acoustic source power output while in operation, number and volume of airguns operating in an array, tow depth of an acoustic source, and any other notes of significance (
15. Upon visual observation of any marine mammal, the following information must be recorded:
a. Watch status (sighting made by PSO on/off effort, opportunistic, crew, alternate vessel/platform);
b. Vessel/survey activity at time of sighting (
c. PSO who sighted the animal;
d. Time of sighting;
e. Initial detection method;
f. Sightings cue;
g. Vessel location at time of sighting (decimal degrees);
h. Direction of vessel's travel (compass direction);
i. Speed of the vessel(s) from which the observation was made;
j. Identification of the animal (
k. Species reliability (an indicator of confidence in identification);
l. Estimated distance to the animal and method of estimating distance;
m. Estimated number of animals (high/low/best);
n. Estimated number of animals by cohort (adults, yearlings, juveniles, calves, group composition,
o. 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);
p. Detailed behavior observations (
q. Mitigation actions; description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting (
r. Equipment operating during sighting;
s. Animal's closest point of approach and/or closest distance from the center point of the acoustic source; and,
t. Description of any actions implemented in response to the sighting (
If a NARW is observed at any time by PSOs or personnel on the project vessel, during surveys or during vessel transit, COSW 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 Whale Alert app (
In the event that personnel involved in the survey activities discover an injured or dead marine mammal, the incident must be reported to NMFS as soon as feasible by phone (866-755-6622) and by email (
1. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the first discovery (and updated location information if known and applicable);
2. Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
3. Condition of the animal(s) (including carcass condition if the animal is dead);
4. Observed behaviors of the animal(s), if alive;
5. If available, photographs or video footage of the animal(s); and
6. General circumstances under which the animal was discovered.
In the event of a vessel strike of a marine mammal by any vessel involved in the activities, COSW must report the incident to NMFS by phone (866-755-6622) and by email (
1. Time, date, and location (latitude/longitude) of the incident;
2. Species identification (if known) or description of the animal(s) involved;
3. Vessel's speed during and leading up to the incident;
4. Vessel's course/heading and what operations were being conducted (if applicable);
5. Status of all sound sources in use;
6. 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;
7. Environmental conditions (
8. Estimated size and length of animal that was struck;
9. Description of the behavior of the marine mammal immediately preceding and/or following the strike;
10. If available, description of the presence and behavior of any other marine mammals immediately preceding the strike;
11. Estimated fate of the animal (
12. To the extent practicable, photographs or video footage of the animal(s).
COSW's HRG survey activities are a subset but otherwise unchanged from those analyzed in support of the 2023 IHA. The effects of the activity, taking into consideration the required mitigation and related monitoring measures, remain unchanged from those evaluated in support of the 2023 IHA. NMFS expects that all potential takes would be short-term Level B harassment in the form of temporary avoidance of the area or decreased foraging, reactions that are considered to be of low severity and with no lasting biological consequences (
NMFS authorizes incidental take of small numbers of marine mammals from specified activities that are a subset of, but otherwise identical to, those analyzed in the initial IHA and to require mitigation, monitoring, and reporting measures that are also identical to those in the initial IHA. The number of takes by Level B harassment is less than that authorized in the initial IHA. In the initial IHA, NMFS determined that COSW's specified activities would have a negligible impact on the affected species and/or stocks and the authorized take for each stock would be small relative to individual stock abundance (less than one third).
NMFS has concluded that there is no new information suggesting that our analysis or findings should change from those reached for the initial IHA. This includes consideration of the estimated abundance of one stock increasing slightly. Specifically, NMFS is authorizing 15 takes of NARW by Level B harassment only, and the impacts resulting from the project's activities are neither reasonably expected nor reasonably likely to adversely affect the stock through effects on annual rates of recruitment or survival. 15 takes of NARW equates to approximately 4.4 percent of the stock abundance, if each incident of take is assumed to accrue to a separate individual whale.
Based on the information and analysis contained here and in the referenced documents, NMFS has determined the following: (1) the required mitigation
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 NOAA Administrative Order 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 preliminarily 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 (16 U.S.C. 1531
NMFS' Office of Protected Resources is proposing to authorize take of four species of marine mammals that are listed under the ESA (
NMFS has issued a renewal IHA to COSW for the take of marine mammals incidental to conducting marine site characterization with HRG surveys off the coast of New Jersey and New York in the New York Bight from July 1, 2024, through June 30, 2025.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of hybrid meeting open to the public offering both in-person and virtual options for participation.
The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold a four-day meeting to consider actions affecting the Gulf of Mexico fisheries in the exclusive economic zone (EEZ).
The meeting will convene Monday, November 4 through Thursday, November 7, 2024. Daily schedule will be 8:30 a.m.-5 p.m., EST.
The meeting will take place at the Hilton St. Petersburg Bayfront Hotel, located at 333-1st Street South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701. If you prefer to “listen in”, you may access the log-in information by visiting our website at
Dr. Carrie Simmons, Executive Director, Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: (813) 348-1630.
The meeting will begin in Full Council with review and adoption of Proposed Council Committee Assignments for November 2024 through August 2025 and Current Council Committee Assignments.
Committee Sessions will follow beginning with the Habitat Protection & Restoration Committee's review of the Final Essential Fish Habitat Contract Report. The Law Enforcement Committee will convene to receive a report from the October 2024 Law Enforcement Technical Committee meeting.
Sustainable Fisheries Committee will gather to discuss Research and Monitoring Priorities for 2025-2028 including Scientific and Statistical Committees (SSC) Recommendations, review and discuss SSC Recommendations for the following items: Southeast Data, Assessment, and Review (SEDAR) Process Changes and Assessment Approaches; Consideration of Carryover and Phase-in for Gulf Stocks in Proposed Acceptable Biological Catch (ABC) Control Rule Management Strategy Evaluation (MSE) Simulations; and receive a presentation for Consideration of
Following lunch, the
The
The Council will receive a Litigation update. Following, the
The Committee will also review draft options for Federal For-hire Fishing Season for
The Data Collection Committee will receive a presentation on
The Council will reconvene at approximately 11 a.m., EST with a Call to Order, Announcements and Introductions, Adoption of Agenda and Approval of Minutes.
The Council will present the 2023 Law Enforcement Team of the Year Award and receive presentation updates for the National Seafood Strategy, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) Wind Energy Development in Gulf of Mexico and Exempted Fishing Permit from Texas SeaGrant. Following lunch, the Council will hold public testimony beginning at 1:45 p.m. to 5 p.m., EST for comments for open testimony on other fishery issues or concerns. Public comment may begin earlier than 1:45 p.m. EST but will not conclude before that time. Persons wishing to give public testimony in-person must register at the registration kiosk in the meeting room. Persons wishing to give public testimony virtually must sign up on the Council website during the Council meeting. Registration for virtual testimony closes one hour (12:45 p.m. EST) before public testimony begins.
The Council will receive Committee reports from Habitat Protection & Restoration, Law Enforcement, Sustainable Fisheries,
Lastly, the Council will hold a discussion on Council Planning and Primary Activities, and any Other Business items.
The meeting will be a hybrid meeting; both in-person and virtual participation available. You may register for the webinar to listen-in only by visiting
The timing and order in which agenda items are addressed may change as required to effectively address the issue, and the latest version along with other meeting materials will be posted on the website as they become available.
Although other non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act), those issues may not be the subject of formal action during these meeting. Actions will be restricted to those issues specifically listed in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under Section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Act, provided that the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
These meetings are physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aid or accommodations should be directed to Kathy Pereira, (813) 348-1630, at least 15 days prior to the meeting date.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
Notice of a public meeting.
The South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC; Council) will hold a meeting via webinar of its Snapper Grouper Private Angler Advisory Panel (AP) to discuss permitting and education alternatives for the private recreational component of the snapper grouper fishery.
The AP meeting will be held Monday, November 4, 2024 from 9 a.m. until 11:30 a.m.
The meeting will be held via webinar. Webinar registration is required. Details are included in
Kim Iverson, Public Information Officer, SAFMC; phone: (843) 302-8440 or toll free: (866) SAFMC-10; fax: (843) 769-4520; email:
Meeting information, including the webinar registration link, online public comment form, agenda, and briefing book materials will be posted on the Council's website at:
At this meeting, the AP will review guidance from the June 2024 Council meeting and further address a series of permit and education topics posed by the Council.
Although non-emergency issues not contained in this agenda may come before this group for discussion, those issues may not be the subject of formal action during this meeting. Action will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in this notice and any issues arising after publication of this notice that require emergency action under section 305(c) of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, provided the public has been notified of the Council's intent to take final action to address the emergency.
The meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. Requests for auxiliary aids should be directed to the Council office (see
The times and sequence specified in this agenda are subject to change.
Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.
Notice and request for comment.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA), the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) requests the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB's) extension of the existing information collection titled “Mortgage Assistance Relief Services (Regulation O)” approved under OMB Number 3170-0007.
Written comments are encouraged and must be received on or before November 18, 2024 to be assured of consideration.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Requests for additional information should be directed to Anthony May, Paperwork Reduction Act Officer, at (202) 435-7278, or email:
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), 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 December 16, 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 Sala Green, 202-900-8558.
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 might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on the respondents, including through the use of information technology. Please note that written comments received in response to this notice will be considered public records.
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.
Notice.
In this notice, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is forecasting the representative average unit costs of five residential energy sources for the year 2024 pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (Act). The five sources are electricity, natural gas, No. 2 heating oil, propane, and kerosene.
The representative average unit costs of energy contained in this notice will become effective November 18, 2024 and will remain in effect until further notice.
Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121, Telephone: (202) 287-1692, Email:
Ms. Emma Shahabi, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0103, Telephone: (202) 586-4789, Email:
Section 323 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act requires that DOE prescribe test procedures for the measurement of the estimated annual operating costs or other measures of energy consumption for certain consumer products specified in the Act. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3)) These test procedures are found in title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 430, subpart B.
Section 323(b)(3) of the Act requires that the estimated annual operating costs of a covered product be calculated from measurements of energy use in a representative average use cycle or period of use and from representative average unit costs of the energy needed to operate such product during such cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(3) and (b)(4)) The section further requires that DOE provide information to manufacturers regarding the representative average unit costs of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6293(b)(4)) This cost information should be used by manufacturers to meet their obligations under section 323(c) of the Act. Most notably, these costs are used to comply with Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requirements for labeling. Manufacturers are required to use the revised DOE representative average unit costs when the FTC publishes new ranges of comparability for specific covered products, 16 CFR part 305. Interested parties can also find information covering the FTC labeling requirements at
DOE last published representative average unit costs of residential energy in a
On November 18, 2024, the cost figures published in this notice will become effective and supersede those cost figures published on August 28, 2023. The cost figures set forth in this notice will be effective until further notice.
DOE's Energy Information Administration (EIA) has developed the 2024 representative average unit after-tax residential costs found in this notice. These costs for electricity, natural gas, and No. 2 heating oil are based on simulations used to produce the July 2024, EIA
The 2024 representative average unit costs under section 323(b)(4) of the Act are set forth in Table 1, and will become effective November 18, 2024. They will remain in effect until further notice.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on October 10, 2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
From the impoundment, water flows through the intake structure to a 1,607-foot-long conduit with a surge tank, and two 207-foot-long penstocks. From the penstocks, water is conveyed to a 52-foot-long, 30-foot-wide powerhouse that contains two 750-kilowatt (kW) horizontal turbine-generator units, for a total installed capacity of 1,500 kW. Water is discharged from the
Project recreation facilities include a boat ramp on the southern shoreline of the impoundment approximately 180 feet upstream of the dam. Northern States also maintains the following non-project recreation facilities in the project boundary: (1) a hand-carry boat access site on the southern shore of the impoundment, adjacent to the dam; (2) a parking area that provides access to the impoundment boat access site and the project boat ramp; (3) a hand-carry boat access site (tailwater access site) and parking area on the southern shoreline of the Montreal River, approximately 1,900 feet downstream of the dam; and (4) a scenic overlook on the southern shoreline of the bypassed reach, upstream of the tailwater access site.
Electricity generated at the powerhouse is transmitted to the electric grid via a 2.4-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line and a 2.4/34.5-kV step-up transformer. The minimum and maximum hydraulic capacities of the powerhouse are 48 and 170 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively. The average annual energy production of the project from 2017 through 2021 was 10,015.3 megawatt-hours.
Northern States operates the project in run-of-river mode, such that project outflow approximates inflow to the impoundment. The current license requires Northern States to: (1) minimize fluctuations of the impoundment surface elevation; (2) maintain a minimum impoundment elevation of 997.0 feet NGVD 29 from ice-out through June 1; (3) maintain an impoundment elevation between a minimum of 996.5 and a maximum of 997.0 feet NGVD 29 from June 2 through ice-out; (4) release a minimum flow of 5 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, to the bypassed reach from ice-out through October 31 (ice-free season) each year; (5) limit impoundment drawdowns for maintenance and repair to the period of June 1 through December 31, and limit the rate of any such drawdowns to a maximum of 1 foot per 24 hours for the first 2 feet and 0.5 foot per 24 hours thereafter; (6) implement a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan to protect cultural resources; and (7) operate and maintain the project recreation facilities.
Northern States proposes to revise the project boundary around the impoundment to follow a contour elevation of 997.0 feet NGVD 29, which would result in a reduction in the total acreage of the project boundary upstream of the project dam, from 159 acres to 71.7 acres. Additionally, Northern States proposes to add 2.7 acres of land to the project boundary near the dam and remove 20 acres of land from the project boundary along the bypassed reach and river downstream of the powerhouse.
Northern States proposes to continue to operate the project in run-of-river mode and maintain water surface elevations as described above. In addition, Northern States proposes to release a minimum aesthetic flow of 5 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, from the Saturday before Memorial Day to October 15, except on weekends and holidays, when a minimum aesthetic flow of 10 cfs or inflow, whichever is less, would be released from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Northern States also proposes the following measures: (1) develop an operation compliance monitoring plan; (2) develop an invasive species management plan that includes biennial surveys for invasive species; (3) protect bald eagles by scheduling any ground-disturbing activities at recreation sites to occur between August 1 and January 15 for any work within 660 feet of any eagle nest; (4) avoid the removal of trees greater than 3 inches in diameter from June 1 through July 31, and follow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's guidance to protect the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat; (5) continue to maintain the boat ramp as a project recreation facility and improve the boat ramp via grading and/or adding gravel; (6) discontinue maintenance of the non-project hand-carry boat access site that is on the shoreline of the impoundment, adjacent to the dam; (7) provide impoundment access for hand-carry boaters at the project boat ramp and install directional and safety signage for hand-carry boaters at the boat ramp; (8) maintain the parking area for the boat ramp as a project recreation facility; (9) maintain the scenic overlook of the bypassed reach as a project recreation facility and install safety signage at the overlook; (10) maintain the tailwater access site and associated parking area as project recreation facilities; (11) develop a whitewater recreation plan that includes provisions for two, 3-hour whitewater flow releases between May and September, generator ramping rates for whitewater flow releases, publishing river flow information on the internet, and improving access to the tailwater access site by installing an electronic card reader that opens a locked gate; and (12) develop a historic properties management plan that includes shoreline erosion surveys every 5 years.
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, 385.211, and 385.214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST,” “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and
You may also register online at
o.
p.
q. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric corporate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric rate filings:
Take notice that the Commission received the following electric securities filings:
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
This notice requests applications from those interested in being listed as potential panel members to assist in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) study dispute resolution process for the integrated licensing process (ILP) of hydropower projects.
The Commission's ILP regulations pertaining to hydroelectric licensing under the Federal Power Act encourages informal resolution of study disagreements. In cases where this is not successful, a formal study dispute resolution process is available for state and federal agencies or Indian tribes with mandatory conditioning authority.
The ILP provides that the disputed study must be submitted to a dispute resolution panel consisting of a person from Commission staff, a person from the agency or Indian tribe referring the
The role of the panel members is to make a finding, with respect to each disputed study request, on the extent to which each study criteria set forth in the regulations is or is not met,
TPMs can only be selected from a list of qualified persons (TPM list) that is developed and maintained by the Commission. This notice seeks additional members for the TPM list, which was originally compiled in 2004, 2010, and 2015. Current members of the TPM list do not need to reapply but are encouraged to update their qualifications and contact information, if not current. Each qualified panel member will be listed by area(s) and sub-area(s) of technical expertise, for example Aquatic Resources—instream flows. The TPM list and qualifications will be available to the public on the Commission's website. All individuals submitting their applications to the Commission for consideration must meet the Commission's qualifications.
The applicant should describe in detail his/her qualifications in items 1-4 listed below.
1. Technical expertise, including education and experience in each resource area and sub-area for which the applicant wishes to be considered:
2. Knowledge of the effects of construction and operation of hydroelectric projects.
3. Working knowledge of laws relevant to the expertise, such as: the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Clean Water Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, the Federal Power Act, or other applicable laws.
4. Ability to promote constructive communication about a disputed study.
Applicants must submit their applications along with the names and contact information of three references. Applications will be evaluated as they are received, and each applicant will be individually notified of the Commission's decision.
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, DOE.
Notice of information collection and request for comments.
In compliance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission or FERC) is soliciting public comment on the currently approved information collection FERC-516G, Electric Rates Schedules and Tariff Filings. There are no changes to the information collection. The Commission published a 60-day notice on August 9, 2024 and did not receive any comments.
Comments on the collection of information are due November 18, 2024.
Send written comments on FERC-516G to OMB through
Please submit copies of your comments to the Commission. You may submit copies of your comments (identified by Docket No. IC24-27-000) by one of the following methods:
Electronic filing through
•
• For those unable to file electronically, comments may be filed by USPS mail or by other delivery methods:
○
○
Kayla Williams may be reached by email at
(1) On a monthly basis, total uplift payments for each transmission zone, broken out by day and uplift category;
(2) On a monthly basis, total uplift payments for each resource; and
(3) On a monthly basis, each operator-initiated commitment, the size of the commitment, transmission zone, commitment reason, and commitment start time.
The Commission has determined that these information collection activities provide for transparency that is necessary for just and reasonable rates.
Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:
Any person desiring to intervene, to protest, or to answer a complaint in any of the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211, 214, or 206 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214, or 385.206) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
Any person desiring to protest in any the above proceedings must file in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211) on or before 5 p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date.
The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system (
eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying facilities filings can be found at:
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection:
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
k.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file comments, motions to intervene, and protests using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person whose name appears on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
l.
m.
n. Individuals desiring to be included on the Commission's mailing list should so indicate by writing to the Secretary of the Commission.
o.
p.
q. The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, terms and conditions, and prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
From the impoundment, water flows through the intake structure to a 1,697-foot-long conduit with a surge tank, and then to two 207-foot-long penstocks. From the penstocks, water is conveyed to a 32-foot-long, 62-foot-wide powerhouse that contains two 825-kilowatt (kW) horizontal Francis turbine-generator units, for a total installed capacity of 1,650 kW. Water is discharged from the powerhouse to an approximately 80-foot-long tailrace. The project creates an approximately 1,900-foot-long bypassed reach of the Montreal River.
Project recreation facilities include: (1) a hand-carry boat take-out site and an associated 5-vehicle parking area on the western shoreline of the impoundment, approximately 1,050 feet upstream of the dam; (2) a scenic overlook site on the eastern shoreline of the bypassed reach, approximately 1,400 feet downstream of the dam; (3) a
Electricity generated at the powerhouse is transmitted to the electric grid via a 200-foot-long, 2.4-kilovolt (kV) overhead transmission line and a 2.4/34.5-kV step-up transformer. The minimum and maximum hydraulic capacities of the powerhouse are 25 and 220 cubic feet per second (cfs), respectively. The average annual energy production of the project from 2017 through 2021 was 11,436.4 megawatt-hours.
The current license requires Northern States to: (1) operate in a run-of-river mode, such that outflow from the project approximates inflow; (2) maintain a minimum impoundment surface elevation of 739.7 feet NGVD 29; (2) limit non-emergency impoundment drawdown rates to a maximum of 1 foot per 24 hours for the first 48 hours and 0.5 foot per 24 hours thereafter, with the rate being evenly spread across the time period; (3) release an aesthetic flow of 8 cfs to the bypassed reach from the Saturday before Memorial Day to October 15, except on weekends and holidays, when an aesthetic flow of 20 cfs is released from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. The current license also requires Northern States to implement a plan to monitor flows in the bypassed reach, a recreation plan to operate and maintain the recreation facilities, a wildlife management plan to protect any federally and state listed species, and a plan to avoid or minimize disturbances to the quality of the existing visual resources of the project area.
Northern States proposes to revise the project boundary around the impoundment to follow a contour elevation of 740.2 feet NGVD 29, and include approximately 4 acres of land east of the impoundment. The proposed changes would result in a reduction in the total acreage of the project boundary upstream of the project dam, from 296.4 acres to 22.2 acres. Downstream of the project dam, Northern States proposes to: (1) add 3.9 acres of land and water near the powerhouse; (2) remove 35 acres of land east of State Highway 122; and (4) remove 11.1 acres of land on the western shoreline of the bypassed reach.
Northern States proposes to: (1) continue to operate the projects in run-of-river mode, maintain a minimum impoundment elevation of 739.7 feet NGVD 29, and release minimum aesthetic flows; (2) develop an operation compliance monitoring plan; (3) develop an invasive species management plan that includes biennial surveys for invasive species; (4) protect bald eagles by scheduling any ground-disturbing activities at recreation sites to occur between August 1 and January 15 for any work within 660 feet of any eagle nest; (5) avoid the removal of trees greater than 3 inches in diameter from June 1 through July 31, and follow the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's guidance to protect the northern long-eared bat and tricolored bat; (6) continue to maintain project recreation facilities, but relocate the existing hand-carry boat take-out site and parking area on the western shoreline of the impoundment to the eastern shoreline of the impoundment, approximately 300 feet upstream of the dam; (7) install new directional signage for the new boat take-out site and update recreation and safety signage to comply with Part 8 of the Commission's regulations; and (8) develop a historic properties management plan that includes shoreline erosion surveys every 5 years.
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST,” “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
You may also register online at
o.
p.
q. Final amendments to the application must be filed with the Commission no later than 30 days from the issuance date of this notice.
Take notice that the following hydroelectric application has been filed with the Commission and is available for public inspection.
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
i.
j.
The Commission strongly encourages electronic filing. Please file motions to intervene and protests, comments, recommendations, preliminary terms and conditions, and preliminary fishway prescriptions using the Commission's eFiling system at
The Commission's Rules of Practice require all intervenors filing documents with the Commission to serve a copy of that document on each person on the official service list for the project. Further, if an intervenor files comments or documents with the Commission relating to the merits of an issue that may affect the responsibilities of a particular resource agency, they must also serve a copy of the document on that resource agency.
k. This application has been accepted for filing and is now ready for environmental analysis.
l.
From the reservoir, water flows through the sluice gate to a 35-foot-long concrete conduit, and through the Tainter gate to a 16-foot-long Ogee spillway. From the conduit and spillway, water flows to an approximately 53-foot-long concrete apron that discharges to the West Fork of the Montreal River. The project does not contain any generating facilities.
The proposed project includes the following existing recreation facilities: (1) a hand-carry boat take-out site on the shoreline of the reservoir, at the east earthen embankment; (2) an approximately 100-foot-long hand-carry boat portage route; and (3) a hand carry boat put-in site located on the east shore of the West Fork of the Montreal River, immediately downstream of the project dam.
The proposed project boundary encompasses approximately 3,457.5 acres, including the reservoir, islands in the reservoir owned by Northern States, and land associated with project facilities.
Northern States proposes to: (1) continue to operate the reservoir as a water storage facility where water is stored and used to augment flow for hydroelectric generation at the downstream Saxon Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2610 (Saxon Project) and Superior Falls Hydroelectric Project No. 2587 (Superior Project); (2) continue to maintain the reservoir levels between 1,475 feet and 1,490 feet NGVD 29; (3) continue to release a minimum flow of 10 cubic feet per second (cfs) through the sluice gate to the West Fork of the Montreal River downstream of the dam; (4) continue to limit the reservoir drawdown rate to no more than 0.2 foot per day; (5) develop an operation compliance monitoring plan; (6) develop an invasive species plan and conduct biennial invasive species surveys; (7) conduct shoreline erosion surveys every five years of all shorelines in the project boundary, including the tailrace, and file a report with recommendations for actions on any erosion in the project boundary; (8) develop a historic properties management plan to protect historic properties; (9) develop an operation compliance monitoring plan; (10) publish flow releases and reservoir storage elevation data on the internet; (11) develop a land management plan to for recreation use, signage, maintenance, and trash removal on islands owned by Northern States in the reservoir; (12) develop a whitewater recreation plan that includes provisions for whitewater flow releases of 1,200 cfs in the morning on two days each year; (13) maintain existing recreation facilities as project facilities, and update directional and safety signage; (14) implement the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' (Wisconsin DNR) Broad Incidental Take Permit for Wisconsin Cave Bats during routine recreation site maintenance; (15) implement the current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's guidance for northern long-eared bat when removing trees greater than 3 inches in diameter; (16) protect wood turtles by implementing the Wisconsin DNR's Broad Incidental Take Permit for Wood Turtles, including but not limited to restrictions on herbicide use.
m. A copy of the application can be viewed on the Commission's website at
n. Anyone may submit comments, a protest, or a motion to intervene in accordance with the requirements of Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.210, .211, and .214. In determining the appropriate action to take, the Commission will consider all protests or other comments filed, but only those who file a motion to intervene in accordance with the Commission's Rules may become a party to the proceeding. Any comments, protests, or motions to intervene must be received on or before the specified comment date for the particular application.
All filings must (1) bear in all capital letters the title “PROTEST,” “MOTION TO INTERVENE,” “COMMENTS,” “REPLY COMMENTS,” “RECOMMENDATIONS,” “PRELIMINARY TERMS AND CONDITIONS,” or “PRELIMINARY FISHWAY PRESCRIPTIONS;” (2) set forth in the heading the name of the applicant and the project number of the application to which the filing responds; (3) furnish the name of the person submitting the filing; and (4) otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 385.2001 through 385.2005. All comments, recommendations, terms and conditions or prescriptions must set forth their evidentiary basis and otherwise comply with the requirements of 18 CFR 4.34(b). Agencies may obtain copies of the application directly from the applicant. A copy of any protest or motion to intervene must be served upon each representative of the applicant specified in the particular application. A copy of all other filings in reference to this application must be accompanied by proof of service on all persons listed on the service list prepared by the Commission in this proceeding, in accordance with 18 CFR 4.34(b) and 385.2010.
The Commission's Office of Public Participation (OPP) supports meaningful public engagement and participation in Commission proceedings. OPP can help members of the public, including landowners, environmental justice communities, Tribal members and others, access publicly available information and navigate Commission processes. For public inquiries and assistance with making filings such as interventions, comments, or requests for rehearing, the public is encouraged to contact OPP at (202) 502-6595 or
You may also register online at
o. The applicant must file no later than 60 days following the date of issuance of this notice: (1) a copy of the water quality certification; (2) a copy of the request for certification, including proof of the date on which the certifying agency received the request; or (3) evidence of waiver of water quality certification.
p.
q. Any qualified applicant desiring to file a competing application must submit to the Commission, on or before the specified intervention deadline date, a competing development application, or a notice of intent to file such an application. Submission of a timely notice of intent allows an interested person to file the competing development application no later than 120 days after the specified intervention deadline date. Applications for preliminary permits will not be accepted in response to this notice.
A notice of intent must specify the exact name, business address, and telephone number of the prospective applicant, and must include an unequivocal statement of intent to submit a development application. A notice of intent must be served on the applicant(s) named in this public notice.
The Commission hereby gives notice of filing of the following agreement under the Shipping Act of 1984. Interested parties may submit comments, relevant information, or documents regarding the agreement to the Secretary by email at
In notice document 2024-22635 beginning on page 80242 in the issue of Wednesday, October 2, 2024, make the following correction:
On page 80242, in the third column, in the 23rd and 24th lines, “[insert date 60 days after publication in the
The notificants listed below have applied under the Change in Bank Control Act (Act) (12 U.S.C. 1817(j)) and § 225.41 of the Board's Regulation Y (12 CFR 225.41) to acquire shares of a bank or bank holding company. The factors
The public portions of the applications listed below, as well as other related filings required by the Board, if any, are available for immediate inspection at the Federal Reserve Bank(s) indicated below and at the offices of the Board of Governors. This information may also be obtained on an expedited basis, upon request, by contacting the appropriate Federal Reserve Bank and from the Board's Freedom of Information Office at
Comments received are subject to public disclosure. In general, comments received will be made available without change and will not be modified to remove personal or business information including confidential, contact, or other identifying information. Comments should not include any information such as confidential information that would not be appropriate for public disclosure.
Comments regarding each of these applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the offices of the Board of Governors, Ann E. Misback, Secretary of the Board, 20th Street and Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20551-0001, not later than November 1, 2024.
1.
1.
Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, HHS.
Notice.
This notice announces the intention of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) to request that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approve extension without change of the currently approved information collection “Surveys on Patient Safety Culture (SOPS) Ambulatory Surgery Center (ASC) Survey Database,” OMB No. 0935-0242. This proposed information collection was previously published in the
Comments on this notice must be received by November 18, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Doris Lefkowitz, AHRQ Reports Clearance Officer, (301) 427-1477, or by email
In 1999, the Institute of Medicine called for healthcare organizations to develop a “culture of safety” such that their workforce and processes focus on improving the reliability and safety of care for patients (IOM, 1999; “To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System”). To respond to the need for tools to assess patient safety culture in healthcare, AHRQ developed and pilot tested the Surveys on Patient Safety Culture® (SOPS®) Ambulatory Surgery Centers (ASC) Survey with OMB approval (OMB No. 0935-0216; approved October 31, 2013).
The SOPS-ASC is designed to enable ASCs to assess provider and staff perspectives about patient safety issues, medical error, and error reporting. The survey includes 27 items that measure 8 composites of patient safety culture. In addition to the composite items, the survey includes one item measuring how often ASCs document near-misses; one item asking whether the respondent is in the room during surgeries, procedures, or treatments; and three items about communication before and after surgeries, procedures, or treatments. The survey also includes an overall rating item on patient safety, two items about respondent characteristics, and a section for open-ended comments. AHRQ made the survey publicly available along with a Survey User's Guide and other toolkit materials in May 2015 on the AHRQ website.
The AHRQ SOPS-ASC Database consists of data from the AHRQ ASC Survey on Patient Safety Culture. Ambulatory surgery centers in the U.S. can voluntarily submit data from the
The SOPS ASC Survey and the SOPS ASC Database support AHRQ's goals of promoting improvements in the quality and safety of healthcare in ASCs. The survey, toolkit materials, and database results are all made publicly available on AHRQ's website. Technical assistance is provided by AHRQ through its contractor at no charge to ASCs, to facilitate the use of these materials for ASC patient safety and quality improvement.
The goals of the SOPS-ASC database are:
(1) Presents results from ASCs that voluntarily submit their data;
(2) Provides data to ASCs to facilitate internal assessment and learning in the patient safety improvement process; and
(3) Provides supplemental information to help ASCs identify their strengths and areas with potential for improvement in patient safety culture.
To achieve these goals, the following activities and data collections will be implemented:
(1) Eligibility and Registration Form—The point-of-contact (POC), often the manager of the ASC, completes a number of data submission steps and forms, beginning with completion of an online Eligibility and Registration Form. The purpose of this form is to collect basic demographic information about the ASC and initiate the registration process.
(2) ASC Site Information—The purpose of the site information form, completed by the ASC POC, is to collect background characteristics of the ASC. This information will be used to analyze data collected with the SOPS ASC Survey.
(3) Data Use Agreement—The purpose of the data use agreement, completed by the ASC manager, is to state how data submitted by ASCs will be used and provides confidentiality assurances.
(4) SOPS ASC Survey Data File(s) Submission—POCs upload their data file(s), using the SOPS ASC Survey data file specifications, to ensure that users submit their data in a standardized way (
This study is being conducted by AHRQ through its contractor, Westat, pursuant to AHRQ's statutory authority to conduct and support research on healthcare and on systems for the delivery of such care, including activities with respect to: the quality, effectiveness, efficiency, appropriateness and value of healthcare services; quality measurement and improvement; and database development. 42 U.S.C. 299a(a)(1), (2), and (8).
All information collection for the SOPS ASC Database is done electronically, except the Data Use Agreement (DUA), which ASCs will print, sign, and return (either via fax, by scanning and emailing or uploading to a secure website, or by mailing back). Registration, submission of ASC information, and data upload is handled online through a secure website. Customized feedback reports will be delivered electronically (the person submitting the data will enter a username and password and will have access to a secure website from which to download their reports).
Exhibit 1 shows the estimated annualized burden hours for the respondents' time to participate in the database. The total burden is estimated to be 86 hours.
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Exhibit 2 shows the estimated annualized cost burden based on the respondents' time to submit their data. The cost burden is estimated to be $4,386 annually.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501-3520, comments on AHRQ's information collection are requested with regard to any of the following: (a) whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of AHRQ's health care research and health care information dissemination functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of AHRQ's estimate of burden (including hours and costs) of the proposed collection(s) of information; (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 upon the respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
Comments submitted in response to this notice will be summarized and included in the Agency's subsequent request for OMB approval of the proposed information collection. All comments will become a matter of public record.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ).
Notice of public meeting.
This notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality.
The meeting will be held on Wednesday, November 20, 2024, from 11:00 a.m. to 3:30 p.m.
The meeting will be held in-person.
Jaime Zimmerman, Designated Federal Official, at the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Mail Stop 06E37A, Rockville, Maryland, 20857, (301) 427-1456. For press-related information, please contact Bruce Seeman at (301) 427-1998 or
Closed captioning will be provided during the meeting. If another reasonable accommodation for a disability is needed, please contact the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Equal Employment Opportunity and Diversity Management on (301) 827-4840, no later than Friday, November 1, 2024. The agenda, roster, and minutes will be available from Jenny Griffith, Committee Management Officer, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, Maryland, 20857. Jenny Griffith's phone number is (240) 446-6799.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, this notice announces a meeting of the National Advisory Council for Healthcare Research and Quality (the Council). 5 U.S.C. 1009. The Council is authorized by Section 941 of the Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. 299c. In accordance with its statutory mandate, the Council is to advise the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services and the Director of AHRQ on matters related to AHRQ's conduct of its mission including providing guidance on (A) priorities for health care research, (B) the field of health care research including training needs and information dissemination on health care quality and (C) the role of the Agency in light of private sector activity and opportunities for public private partnerships. The Council is composed of members of the public, appointed by the Secretary, and Federal ex-officio members specified in the authorizing legislation.
On Wednesday, November 20, 2024, NAC members will meet to conduct preparatory work prior to convening the Council meeting at 9:30 a.m., with the call to order by the Council Chair, an introduction of NAC members, and approval of previous Council summary notes. The NAC members will then receive an update from the AHRQ Director. The agenda will also include an update on the AHRQ's Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Trust Fund (PCORTF) Healthcare Extension Service, as well as an update on the Subcommittee of the National Advisory Council (SNAC) on National Action Alliance to Advance Patient Safety. The meeting will also include a discussion about the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and System (CAHPS) and opportunities for modernizing the measurement of consumer experience. The meeting is open to the public and will adjourn at 3:30 p.m. For information regarding how to access the meeting as well as other meeting details, including information on how to make a public comment, please go to
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announces the following meeting for the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC). This virtual meeting is open to the public.
The meeting will be held on November 14, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., EST, and November 15, 2024, 9 a.m. to 12 p.m., EST.
The meeting will be webcast live via the World Wide Web. The webcast link can be found on the HICPAC website.
Sydnee Byrd, M.P.A., Program Analyst, HICPAC, Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion, NCEZID, CDC, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop H16-3, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027, Telephone: (404) 718-8039; Email:
The Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting of the Advisory Council for the Elimination of Tuberculosis (ACET). This meeting is open to the public, limited only by the number of audio and web conference lines (1,000 lines are available). Time will be available for public comment (registration is required to provide oral comment; see the Oral Public Comment section below).
The meeting will be held on December 3, 2024, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., EST, and December 4, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 12 p.m., EST.
Written comments must be submitted by November 26, 2024. Registration to make oral comments must also be submitted by November 26, 2024.
The public meeting will be held virtually through Zoom. Registration in advance is required to attend. Please visit
Marah Condit, M.S., Committee Management Lead, Office of Policy, Planning, and Partnerships, National Center for HIV, Viral Hepatitis, STD, and TB Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop US8-6, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027. Telephone: (404) 639-3423; Email:
The Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Notice of meeting.
In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) announces the following meeting for the Board of Scientific Counselors, Office of Readiness and Response (BSC, ORR). This is a virtual meeting and is open to the public, limited only by the number of web conference lines available (500 lines). Time will be available for public comment.
The meeting will be held on November 20, 2024, from 9:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., EST, and November 21, 2024, from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., EST.
Zoom virtual meeting. If you wish to attend the meeting, please register in advance by accessing the link at
Dometa Ouisley, Public Health Analyst, Office of Science and Laboratory Readiness, Office of Readiness and Response, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 1600 Clifton Road NE, Mailstop H21-6, Atlanta, Georgia 30329-4027. Telephone: (404) 639-7450; Email:
The Director, Office of Strategic Business Initiatives, Office of the Chief Operating Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, has been delegated the authority to sign
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS.
Notice with request for comment.
This notice acknowledges the receipt of an application from the American Association for Accreditation of Ambulatory Surgery Facilities, dba QUAD A, for continued recognition as a national accrediting organization for outpatient physical therapy providers that wish to participate in the Medicare or Medicaid programs.
To be assured consideration, comments must be received at one of the addresses provided below, no later than 5 p.m. on November 18, 2024.
In commenting, refer to file code CMS-3466-PN. Because of staff and resource limitations, we cannot accept comments by facsimile (FAX) transmission.
Comments, including mass comment submissions, must be submitted in one of the following three ways (please choose only one of the ways listed):
1.
2.
Please allow sufficient time for mailed comments to be received before the close of the comment period.
3.
For information on viewing public comments, see the beginning of the
Caecilia Andrews, (410) 786-2190. Joy Webb, (410) 786-1667.
A healthcare provider may enter into an agreement with Medicare to participate in the program as a provider of outpatient physical therapy (OPT) provided certain requirements are met. Section 1861(p)(4) of the Social Security Act (the Act), establishes distinct criteria for facilities seeking designation as an OPT. Regulations concerning Medicare provider agreements in general are at 42 CFR part 489 and those pertaining to the survey and certification for Medicare participation of providers and certain types of suppliers are at part 488. The regulations at part 485, subpart H specify the conditions that a provider must meet to participate in the Medicare program as an OPT.
Generally, to enter into an agreement, an OPT must first be certified by a state survey agency (SA) as complying with the conditions or requirements set forth in part 485 of our Medicare regulations. Thereafter, the OPT is subject to regular surveys by an SA to determine whether it continues to meet these requirements. Section 1865(a)(1) of the Act provides that, if a provider entity demonstrates through accreditation by a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved national accrediting organization (AO) that all applicable Medicare conditions are met or exceeded, we may deem that provider entity as having met the requirements. Accreditation by an AO is voluntary and is not required for Medicare participation.
If an AO is recognized by the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services as having standards for accreditation that meet or exceed Medicare requirements, any provider entity accredited by the national accrediting body's approved program may be deemed to meet the Medicare conditions. The AO applying for approval of its accreditation program under part 488, subpart A, must provide CMS with reasonable assurance that the AO requires the accredited provider entities to meet requirements that are at least as stringent as the Medicare conditions. Our regulations concerning the approval of AOs are set forth at § 488.5.
The QUAD A's current term of approval for its OPT program expires April 4, 2025.
Section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and our regulations at § 488.5 require that our findings concerning review and approval of an AO's requirements consider, among other factors, the applying AO's requirements for accreditation; survey procedures; resources for conducting required surveys; capacity to furnish information for use in enforcement activities; monitoring procedures for provider entities found not in compliance with the conditions or requirements; and ability to provide CMS with the necessary data for validation.
Section 1865(a)(3)(A) of the Act further requires that we publish, within 60 days of receipt of an organization's complete application, a notice that identifies the national accrediting body making the request, describes the nature of the request, and provides at least a 30-day public comment period. We have 210 days from the receipt of a complete application to publish notice of approval or denial of the application.
The purpose of this proposed notice is to inform the public of QUAD A's request for continued CMS-approval of its OPT accreditation program. This notice also solicits public comment on whether QUAD A's requirements meet or exceed the Medicare conditions for participation (CoPs) for OPTs.
QUAD A submitted all the necessary materials to enable us to make a determination concerning its request for continued CMS-approval of its OPT accreditation program. This application was determined to be complete on September 9, 2024. Under section 1865(a)(2) of the Act and § 488.5, our review and evaluation of QUAD A will be conducted in accordance with, but not necessarily limited to, the following factors:
• The equivalency of QUAD A's standards for OPTs as compared with Medicare's CoPs for OPTs.
• QUAD A's survey process to determine the following:
++ The composition of the survey team, surveyor qualifications, and the ability of the organization to provide continuing surveyor training.
++ The comparability of QUAD A's processes to those of State agencies, including survey frequency, and the ability to investigate and respond appropriately to complaints against accredited facilities.
++ QUAD A's processes and procedures for monitoring an OPT found out of compliance with QUAD A's program requirements. These monitoring procedures are used only when QUAD A identifies noncompliance. If noncompliance is identified through validation reviews or complaint surveys, the State survey agency monitors corrections as specified at § 488.9(c)(1).
++ QUAD A's capacity to report deficiencies to the surveyed facilities and respond to the facility's plan of correction in a timely manner.
++ QUAD A's capacity to provide CMS with electronic data and reports necessary for the effective validation and assessment of the organization's survey process.
++ The adequacy of QUAD A's staff and other resources, and its financial viability.
++ QUAD A's capacity to adequately fund required surveys.
++ QUAD A's policies with respect to whether surveys are announced or unannounced, to ensure that surveys are unannounced.
++ QUAD A's policies and procedures to avoid conflicts of interest, including the appearance of conflicts of interest, involving individuals who conduct surveys or participate in accreditation decisions.
++ QUAD A's agreement to provide CMS with a copy of the most current accreditation survey together with any other information related to the survey as CMS may require (including corrective action plans).
This document does not impose information collection requirements, that is, reporting, recordkeeping or third-party disclosure requirements. Consequently, there is no need for review by the Office of Management and Budget under the authority of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
Because of the large number of public comments we normally receive on
The Administrator of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS), Chiquita Brooks-LaSure, having reviewed and approved this document, authorizes Vanessa Garcia, who is the Federal Register Liaison, to electronically sign this document for purposes of publication in the
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or we) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Temporary Policies for Compounding Certain Parenteral Drug Products.” As of October 10, 2024, pursuant to the Public Health Service Act (PHS Act), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Becerra has determined that public health emergencies (PHEs) exist as a result of the consequences of Hurricane Helene in the States of North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina, and as a result of the consequences of Hurricane Milton in the State of Florida. In late September 2024, Hurricane Helene had a devastating impact on one of the largest manufacturers of certain intravenous and peritoneal dialysis solutions in the United States. This guidance describes the FDA's regulatory and enforcement priorities regarding the compounding of certain parenteral drug products by outsourcing facilities and by State-licensed pharmacies and Federal facilities that are not registered with FDA as outsourcing facilities.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of the guidance to the Office of Communications, Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Bldg., 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send two self-addressed adhesive labels to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
Gabrielle Cosel, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002, 301-796-3100.
As of October 10, 2024, pursuant to section 319(a) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 247d) (PHS Act), HHS Secretary Becerra has determined that public health emergencies (PHEs) exist as a result of the consequences of Hurricane Helene in the States of North Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Tennessee, and South Carolina, and as a result of the consequences of Hurricane Milton in the State of Florida. FDA is aware of reports from hospitals, health systems, and State-licensed pharmacies that they have experienced difficulties obtaining certain intravenous solutions. FDA is closely monitoring this situation and using all of its applicable authorities to work with the manufacturers of intravenous solutions to increase supply. For example, FDA has facilitated the temporary importation of intravenous solution products from certain foreign facilities, detailed at:
However, we recognize that hospitals, health systems, State-licensed pharmacies, and applicable Federal facilities have concerns about assuring access to intravenous solutions as the impacts of the hurricanes continue. Therefore, FDA is issuing this policy to describe the FDA's regulatory and enforcement priorities regarding the compounding of certain parenteral drug products for hospitals by outsourcing facilities and by State-licensed pharmacies and Federal facilities that are not registered with FDA as outsourcing facilities.
We are announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Temporary Policies for Compounding Certain Parenteral Drug Products.” We are issuing this guidance consistent with our good guidance practices (GGP) regulation (§ 10.115 (21 CFR 10.115)). We are implementing this guidance without prior public comment because we have determined that prior public participation is not feasible or appropriate (§ 10.115(g)(2)). This guidance document is being implemented immediately to help ensure patient access to certain parenteral drug products, such as intravenous fluids, which are essential in the care of patients, including those who are critically ill and those undergoing surgery. Although this guidance document is immediately in effect, it remains subject to comment in accordance with FDA's GGP regulation.
The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Temporary Policies for Compounding Certain Large Volume Parenteral Drug Products for Hospitals.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information for current good manufacturing practice requirements have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0139. The collections of information for registration of human drug compounding outsourcing facilities under section 503B of the FD&C Act and associated fees under section 744K of the FD&C Act (21 U.S.C. 379j-62) have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0776. The collections of information for human drug compounding and adverse event reporting under sections 503A and 503B (21 U.S.C. 353a and 353b) of the FD&C Act have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0800. The collections of information for adverse event and product experience reporting under the MedWatch System has been approved under OMB control number 0910-0291.
To the extent this guidance also contains a new collection of information not approved under a current collection, a PHE waiver from the PRA has been granted by HHS on October 11, 2024, under section 319(f) of the Public Health Service Act. Information concerning the PHE PRA waiver can be found on the HHS website at
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the document at
Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
Notice of availability.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA or Agency) is announcing the availability of a final guidance for industry entitled “Requests for Reconsideration at the Division Level Under GDUFA.” This guidance provides recommendations on the procedures for applicants of abbreviated new drug applications (ANDAs) that wish to pursue a request for reconsideration within the review discipline at the division level or original signatory authority. This guidance reflects the most recent reauthorization of the Generic Drug User Fee Amendments (GDUFA III) and clarifies what matters are appropriate for requests for reconsideration. This guidance finalizes the draft guidance for industry of the same title issued on January 11, 2024.
The announcement of the guidance is published in the
You may submit either electronic or written comments on Agency guidances at any time as follows:
Submit electronic comments in the following way:
•
• If you want to submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made available to the public, submit the comment as a written/paper submission and in the manner detailed (see “Written/Paper Submissions” and “Instructions”).
Submit written/paper submissions as follows:
•
• For written/paper comments submitted to the Dockets Management Staff, FDA will post your comment, as well as any attachments, except for information submitted, marked and identified, as confidential, if submitted as detailed in “Instructions.”
• Confidential Submissions—To submit a comment with confidential information that you do not wish to be made publicly available, submit your comments only as a written/paper submission. You should submit two copies total. One copy will include the information you claim to be confidential with a heading or cover note that states “THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION.” The Agency will review this copy, including the claimed confidential information, in its consideration of comments. The second copy, which will have the claimed confidential information redacted/blacked out, will be available for public viewing and posted on
You may submit comments on any guidance at any time (see 21 CFR 10.115(g)(5)).
Submit written requests for single copies of this guidance to the Division of Drug Information, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10001 New Hampshire Ave., Hillandale Building, 4th Floor, Silver Spring, MD 20993-0002. Send one self-addressed adhesive label to assist that office in processing your requests. See the
David Coppersmith, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 75, Rm. 1673, Silver Spring, MD 20903, 301-796-9193,
FDA is announcing the availability of a guidance for industry entitled “Requests for Reconsideration at the Division Level Under GDUFA.” This guidance provides recommendations on the procedures for applicants of ANDAs that wish to pursue a request for reconsideration within the review discipline at the division level or original signatory authority. Requests within the scope of this guidance document should concern certain actions that relate to an ANDA and have scientific significance.
During the assessment of an ANDA, FDA considers important issues that are central to product evaluation. Sometimes, an applicant may disagree with FDA, and because these disagreements often involve intricate matters, it is critical to have procedures in place to ensure open and prompt consideration of an applicant's concern(s). The procedures and policies described in this guidance are intended to formalize FDA's current and historical practices and to continue to promote rapid and fair resolution of eligible requests between an applicant and FDA.
This guidance finalizes the draft guidance for industry of the same title issued on January 11, 2024 (89 FR 1923). FDA received no comments on the draft guidance. No changes were made other than editorial changes.
This guidance is being issued consistent with FDA's good guidance practices regulation (21 CFR 10.115). The guidance represents the current thinking of FDA on “Requests for Reconsideration at the Division Level Under GDUFA.” It does not establish any rights for any person and is not binding on FDA or the public. You can use an alternative approach if it satisfies the requirements of the applicable statutes and regulations.
While this guidance contains no collection of information, it does refer to previously approved FDA collections of information. The previously approved collections of information are subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). The collections of information in 21 CFR part 314 have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0001. The collections of information pertaining to the GDUFA III commitment letter, meetings related to generic drug development, and the Generic Drug User Fee Program have been approved under OMB control number 0910-0727.
Persons with access to the internet may obtain the guidance at
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 November 18, 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
An illustrative, but not exhaustive, list of examples of standardized information collection activities related to HRSA gatherings include:
•
•
•
•
A 60-day notice published in the
As this Generic ICR for HRSA Stakeholder Gatherings will focus on the awareness, understanding, attitudes, preferences, or experiences of HRSA customers or other stakeholders (
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following meetings.
The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), title 5 U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
Pursuant to section 1009 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as amended, notice is hereby given of the following 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.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
Notice of meeting.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service gives notice of a public meeting of the Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force, in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The ANS Task Force's purpose is to develop and implement a program for U.S. waters to prevent introduction and dispersal of aquatic invasive species; to monitor, control, and study such species; and to disseminate related information.
The ANS Task Force will meet Wednesday and Thursday, November 6-7, 2024, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. each day (eastern time).
The meeting will be held via teleconference and broadcast over the internet. To register and receive the web address and telephone number for participation, contact the Executive Secretary (see
Susan Pasko, Executive Secretary, ANS Task Force, by telephone at 571-623-0608, or by email at
The Aquatic Nuisance Species (ANS) Task Force was established by the Nonindigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990, as amended (16 U.S.C. 4721-4728), and is composed of Federal and ex-officio members. The ANS Task Force's purpose is to develop and implement a program for U.S. waters to prevent introduction and dispersal of aquatic invasive species; to monitor, control, and study such species; and to disseminate related information.
This meeting is open to the public. The meeting agenda will include reports from ANS Task Force members and subcommittees; discussion on priority outputs to advance the goals identified in the ANS Task Force Strategic Plan for 2020-2025; a presentation by the U.S Geological Survey on new species occurrences in the United States; recommendations by the ANS Task Force regional panels; and public comment. The final agenda and other related meeting information will be posted on the ANS Task Force website,
If you wish to provide oral public comment or provide a written comment
Depending on the number of people who want to comment and the time available, the amount of time for individual oral comments may be limited. Interested parties should contact the ANS Task Force Executive Secretary no later than November 4, 2024, in writing (see
Please make requests in advance for sign language interpreter services, assistive listening devices, language translation services, or other reasonable accommodations. We ask that you contact the person listed in the
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.
Notice.
This notice publishes the approval of the Addendum to Tribal-State Compact for Control of Class III Blackjack on the Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Reservation in Minnesota for Class III Card Games.
The compact takes effect on October 17, 2024.
Ms. Paula L. Hart, Director, Office of Indian Gaming, Office of the Assistant Secretary—Indian Affairs, Washington, DC 20240,
Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2701
National Park Service, Interior.
Notice.
The National Park Service is soliciting electronic comments on the significance of properties nominated before October 5, 2024, for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places.
Comments should be submitted electronically by November 1, 2024.
Comments are encouraged to be submitted electronically to
Sherry A. Frear, Chief, National Register of Historic Places/National Historic Landmarks Program, 1849 C Street NW, MS 7228, Washington, DC 20240,
The properties listed in this notice are being considered for listing or related actions in the National Register of Historic Places. Nominations for their consideration were received by the National Park Service before October 5, 2024. Pursuant to Section 60.13 of 36 CFR part 60, comments are being accepted concerning the significance of the nominated properties under the National Register criteria for evaluation.
Before including your address, phone number, email address, or other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be aware that your entire comment—including your personal identifying information—may be made publicly available at any time. While you can ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be able to do so.
Nominations submitted by State or Tribal Historic Preservation Officers.
A request for removal has been made for the following resource(s):
Additional documentation has been received for the following resource(s):
U.S. International Trade Commission.
Notice.
Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined to review in part and, on review, to affirm with modification a final initial determination (“Final ID”) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”). The Commission has also determined to deny the complainant's request for oral argument. This investigation is terminated.
Ronald A. Traud, Esq., Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-3427. 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 May 5, 2022, based on a complaint filed on behalf of Medytox Inc. of the Republic of Korea (“Medytox”). 87 FR 26782, 26873 (May 5, 2022). The complaint alleged violations of subsection (a)(1)(A) of section 337 based on the importation into the United States or the sale of certain botulinum toxin products and processes for manufacturing or relating to the same by reason of theft and conversion and misappropriation of trade secrets, the threat or effect of which is to destroy or substantially injure an industry in the United States.
On February 6, 2024, the investigation was terminated as to Medytox's misappropriation of trade secrets allegations. Order No. 39 (Jan. 22, 2024),
On June 10, 2024, the ALJ issued the Final ID. On June 24, 2024, Medytox filed a petition for Commission review of the Final ID that also included a request for oral argument, and Respondents filed a contingent petition for Commission review of the Final ID. On July 2, 2024, or July 8, 2024, the parties filed responses to the petitions. On July 10, 2024, the private parties filed their public interest statements pursuant to 19 CFR 210.50(a)(4). Issues not raised in the petitions for review are deemed to have been abandoned (including Respondents' assertion in their public interest statement but omitted from their petition for review that Medytox's alleged unfair act of conversion lacks a nexus to importation of the accused products).
Having reviewed the record of the investigation, including the Final ID, the parties' submissions to the ALJ, and the petitions for review and responses thereto, the Commission has determined to review the Final ID in part. Specifically, the Commission has determined to review the Final ID's findings and conclusions regarding jurisdiction, conversion, importation, and the domestic industry and injury requirements. The Commission has determined not to review the remainder of the Final ID.
On review, the Commission modifies the Final ID's finding that the Commission has jurisdiction over this investigation by clarifying that the Commission has statutory authority. Additionally, the Commission affirms, with modifications, the Final ID's conclusion that Medytox did not show by a preponderance of the evidence that Respondents converted Medytox's property.
Further, the Commission takes no position on whether Medytox satisfied the domestic industry and injury requirements and whether Medytox satisfied the importation requirement. The Commission issues its opinion herewith setting forth its reasoning. The Commission has also determined to deny the complainant's request for oral
The Commission vote for this determination took place on October 10, 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 has determined not to review an initial determination (“ID”) (Order No. 34) of the presiding administrative law judge (“ALJ”) terminating the two remaining respondents based on settlement. The investigation is thus terminated in its entirety.
Robert Needham, Office of the General Counsel, U.S. International Trade Commission, 500 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20436, telephone (202) 205-2392. Copies of non-confidential documents filed in connection with this investigation may be viewed on the Commission's electronic docket (EDIS) at
On April 26, 2024, the Commission instituted this investigation based on a complaint, as supplemented, filed on behalf of US Conec, Ltd., of Hickory, North Carolina (“US Conec”). 89 FR 32459-60 (Apr. 26, 2024). The complaint alleged violations of section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, 19 U.S.C. 1337, based upon the importation into the United States, the sale for importation, and the sale within the United States after importation of certain fiber-optic connectors, adapters, jump cables, patch cords, products containing the same, and components thereof that infringe certain claims of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,733,466; 11,808,994; 11,906,794; 11,880,075; 11,385,415 and 10,495,823.
The Commission previously terminated the investigation in part based on the entry of consent orders with respect to the following respondents: FS.com Inc., Order No. 15 (Jun. 25, 2024), unreviewed by Comm'n Notice (Jul. 24, 2024); Shenzhen IH Optics Co., Ltd., Order No. 16 (Jun. 26, 2024),
The Commission further previously terminated the investigation in part based on US Conec's withdrawal of the complaint with respect to the following respondents: Hubbell Inc., Hubbell Premise Wiring, Inc., EZconn Corp., Changzhou Co-Net Electronic Technology Co., Ltd., Shenzhen UnitekFiber Solution Ltd., Rayoptic Communication Co., Ltd., HuNan Surfiber Technology Co., Ltd., Eaton Corp., Tripp Lite Holdings, Inc., Infinite Electronics, Inc., and L-Com, LLC. Order No. 33 (Sept. 3, 2024),
On July 9, 2024, US Conec filed a motion for leave to amend the complaint and notice of investigation to add three respondents: Protai Photonic Co., Ltd., Jarllytec Co., Ltd., and Wave2Wave Solutions Corp. d/b/a FiberSmart. The ALJ issued Order No. 27 granting the motion to allow US Conec to amend its complaint. Order No. 27 (Jul. 31, 2024),
On September 23, 2024, US Conec and the Senko Respondents jointly moved to terminate the investigation with respect to the Senko Respondents based on settlement. That same day, OUII filed a response in support of the motion. No other party responded to the motion.
On July 15, 2024, the ALJ issued the subject ID granting the motion and terminating the investigation with respect to the Senko Respondents based on settlement pursuant to Commission Rule 210.21(b)(1) (19 CFR 210.21(b)(1)). Because the Senko Respondents were the last remaining respondents in the investigation, the ID also terminates the investigation in its entirety. No petitions for review of the subject ID were received.
The Commission has determined not to review the subject ID. This investigation is hereby terminated.
The Commission vote for this determination took place on October 11, 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.
On the basis of the record
The Commission instituted these reviews on April 1, 2024 (89 FR 22445) and determined on July 5, 2024 that it would conduct expedited reviews (89 FR 73723, September 11, 2024).
The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its determinations in these reviews on October 11, 2024. The views of the Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5553 (October 2024), entitled
By order of the Commission.
On October 8, 2024, the Department of Justice lodged a proposed Stipulation Regarding the Allowance of a General Unsecured Claim of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (“Stipulation”) with the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of Delaware in
The proposed Stipulation resolves proofs of claim filed by the United States, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency, against Debtor Philadelphia Energy Solutions Refining and Marketing LLC (“PESRM”) and against a related entity, Debtor North Yard Logistics, L.P. (“North Yard”), seeking payment of a civil penalty pursuant to Section 113(e) of the Clean Air Act. As to PESRM, for alleged violations of Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act in connection with a June 2019 fire and explosion at PESRM's former refinery complex located in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. As to North Yard, for alleged violations of Section 112(r) of the Clean Air Act in connection with a liquified petroleum gas tank farm at the former refinery complex. The proposed Stipulation provides EPA with an allowed claim against PESRM in the amount of $4,200,000 and against North Yard in the amount of $26,724.
The publication of this notice opens a period for public comment on the proposed Stipulation. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, and should refer to
Any comments submitted in writing may be filed by the United States in whole or in part on the public court docket without notice to the commenter.
During the public comment period, the proposed Stipulation may be examined and downloaded at this Justice Department website:
Notice of availability; request for comments.
The Department of Labor (DOL) is submitting this Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA)-sponsored information collection request (ICR) to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Public comments on the ICR are invited.
The OMB will consider all written comments that the agency receives on or before November 18, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
Michael Howell by telephone at 202-693-6782, or by email at
In 1976, the Department issued ERISA Procedure 76-1, the Procedure for ERISA Advisory Opinions (ERISA Procedure), in order to establish a public process for requesting guidance from the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) on the application of ERISA to particular circumstances. The ERISA Procedure sets forth specific administrative procedures for requesting either an advisory opinion or an information letter and describes the types of questions that may be submitted.
As part of the ERISA Procedure, requesters are instructed to provide information to EBSA concerning the circumstances governing their request.
Comments are invited on: (1) whether the collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of the agency's estimates of the burden and cost of the collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (3) ways to enhance the quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
This information collection is subject to the PRA. A Federal agency generally cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of information, and the public is generally not required to respond to an information collection, unless the OMB approves it and displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. In addition, notwithstanding any other provisions of law, no person shall generally be subject to penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information that does not display a valid OMB Control Number.
DOL seeks PRA authorization for this information collection for three (3) years. OMB authorization for an ICR cannot be for more than three (3) years without renewal. The DOL notes that information collection requirements submitted to the OMB for existing ICRs receive a month-to-month extension while they undergo review.
Millennium Challenge Corporation.
Notice.
In accordance with the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) Advisory Council was established as a discretionary advisory committee on July 14, 2016. Its charter was most recently renewed for a fifth term on July 5, 2024. The MCC Advisory Council serves MCC solely in an advisory capacity and provides insight regarding innovations in infrastructure, technology, and sustainability; perceived risks and opportunities in MCC partner countries; new financing mechanisms for developing country contexts; and shared value approaches. The MCC Advisory Council provides a platform for systematic engagement with the private sector and other external stakeholders and contributes to MCC's mission to reduce poverty through sustainable economic growth.
Thursday, October 31, 2024, from 8:30 a.m.-12 p.m. EDT.
The meeting will be held in a hybrid format, both in-person at 1099 14th Street NW, Suite 700, Washington, DC 20005 and via conference call.
Email
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
Notice of availability of proposed records schedules; request for comments.
The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) publishes notice of certain Federal agency requests for records disposition authority (records schedules). We publish notice in the
We must receive responses on the schedules listed in this notice by December 2, 2024.
To view a records schedule in this notice, or submit a comment on one, use the following address:
•
If you are unable to comment via
Eddie Germino, Strategy and Performance Division, by email at
We are publishing notice of records schedules in which agencies propose to dispose of records they no longer need to conduct agency business. We invite public comments on these records schedules, as required by 44 U.S.C. 3303a(a), and list the schedules at the end of this notice by agency and subdivision requesting disposition authority.
In addition, this notice lists the organizational unit(s) accumulating the records or states that the schedule has agency-wide applicability. It also provides the control number assigned to each schedule, which you will need if you submit comments on that schedule.
We have uploaded the records schedules and accompanying appraisal memoranda to the
We will post comments, including any personal information and attachments, to the public docket unchanged. Because comments are public, you are responsible for ensuring that you do not include any confidential or other information that you or a third party may not wish to be publicly posted. If you want to submit a comment with confidential information or cannot otherwise use the
We will consider all comments submitted by the posted deadline and consult as needed with the Federal agency seeking the disposition authority. After considering comments, we may or may not make changes to the proposed records schedule. The schedule is then sent for final approval by the Archivist of the United States. After the schedule is approved, we will post on
We will post schedules on our website in the Records Control Schedule (RCS) Repository, at
Each year, Federal agencies create billions of records. To control this accumulation, agency records managers prepare schedules proposing retention periods for records and submit these schedules for NARA's approval. Once approved by NARA, records schedules provide mandatory instructions on what happens to records when no longer needed for current Government business. The records schedules authorize agencies to preserve records of continuing value in the National Archives or to destroy, after a specified period, records lacking continuing administrative, legal, research, or other value. Some schedules are comprehensive and cover all the records of an agency or one of its major subdivisions. Most schedules, however, cover records of only one office or program or a few series of records. Many of these update previously approved schedules, and some include records proposed as permanent.
Agencies may not destroy Federal records without the approval of the Archivist of the United States. The Archivist grants this approval only after thorough consideration of the records' administrative use by the agency of origin, the rights of the Government and of private people directly affected by the Government's activities, and whether or not the records have historical or other value. Public review and comment on these records schedules is part of the Archivist's consideration process.
1. Department of Agriculture, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, Regionalization (DAA-0463-2022-0001).
2. Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Creating Helpful Incentives to Produce Semiconductors (CHIPS) Loans Loan Guarantee and Other Transaction Agreement Records (DAA-0167-2023-0001).
3. Department of Energy, Southeastern Power Administration, Power Operations Program (DAA-0388-2024-0005).
4. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Inspector General, Records of the Immediate Office of the Inspector General (IG) of Health and Human Services (DAA-0468-2024-0002).
5. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division, Antitrust International Section Records (DAA-0060-2022-0035).
6. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, Airworthiness Directives and Alternate Methods of Compliance (DAA-0237-2023-0009).
7. Department of Transportation, Office of the Secretary of Transportation, Records of the Executive Secretariat (DAA-0398-2024-0005).
8. Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue Service, Informant Information (DAA-0058-2024-0007).
9. Library of Congress, Agency-wide, Inspector General 2024 updates (DAA-0297-2024-0013).
10. Peace Corps, Agency-wide, Peace Corps Social Media and websites (DAA-0490-2024-0004).
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS), National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and Office of Information Policy (OIP), U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ).
Notice of meeting.
We are announcing a meeting of the Chief Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Officers Council, co-chaired by the Director of OGIS and the Director of OIP.
The meeting will be on Thursday, November 7, 2024, from 10 a.m. to noon ET. Please register for the meeting no later than 11:59 p.m. ET on Tuesday, November 5, 2024 (registration information is detailed below).
The November 7, 2024, meeting will be a virtual meeting. We will send access instructions to those who register according to the instructions below.
Martha Murphy, by email at
This meeting is open to the public in accordance with the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(k)). Additional details about the meeting, including the agenda, will be available on the Chief FOIA Officers Council website at
National Science Foundation.
Notice of permit applications received.
The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish a notice of permit applications received to conduct activities regulated under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. NSF has published regulations under the Antarctic Conservation Act in the Code of Federal Regulations. This is the required notice of permit applications received.
Interested parties are invited to submit written data, comments, or views with respect to this permit application by November 18, 2024. This application may be inspected by interested parties at the Permit Office, address below.
Comments should be addressed to Permit Office, Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation, 2415 Eisenhower Avenue, Alexandria, Virginia 22314 or
Andrew Titmus, ACA Permit Officer, at the above address, 703-292-4479.
The National Science Foundation, as directed by the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978 (Pub. L. 95-541, 45 CFR part 670), as amended by the Antarctic Science, Tourism and Conservation Act of 1996, has developed regulations for the establishment of a permit system for various activities in Antarctica and designation of certain animals and certain geographic areas as requiring special protection. The regulations establish such a permit system to designate Antarctic Specially Protected Areas.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Notice of submission to the Office of Management and Budget; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. The information collection is entitled, “Requests to Agreement States and Non-Agreement States for Information.”
Submit comments by November 18, 2024. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
David Cullison, NRC Clearance Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0031 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the OMB, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC recently submitted a request for renewal of an existing collection of information to OMB for review entitled, “Requests to Agreement States and Non-Agreement States for Information.” The NRC hereby informs potential respondents that an agency may not conduct or sponsor, and that a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number.
The NRC published a
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Renewal of existing information collection; request for comment.
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) invites public comment on the renewal of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) approval for an existing collection of information. The information collection is entitled, “Tribal Participation in the Advance Notification Program.”
Submit comments by December 16, 2024. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received on or before this date.
You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject); however, the NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website:
•
•
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see “Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments” in the
David Cullison, Office of the Chief Information Officer, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-2084; email:
Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2024-0075 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publicly available information related to this action by any of the following methods:
•
•
•
•
The NRC encourages electronic comment submission through the Federal rulemaking website (
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information in comment submissions that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. All comment submissions are posted at
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that comment submissions are not routinely edited to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment into ADAMS.
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the NRC is requesting public comment on its intention to request the OMB's approval for the information collection summarized below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
The NRC is seeking comments that address the following questions:
1. Is the proposed collection of information necessary for the NRC to properly perform its functions? Does the information have practical utility? Please explain your answer.
2. Is the estimate of the burden of the information collection accurate? Please explain your answer.
3. Is there a way to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected?
4. How can the burden of the information collection on respondents be minimized, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology?
The documents identified in the following table are available to interested persons through ADAMS.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Notice.
The Commission is acknowledging a recently-filed Postal Service request for an advisory opinion regarding planned changes to its processing and transportation networks. This document invites public comments on the request and addresses several related procedural steps.
Submit notices of intervention electronically via the Commission's Filing Online system at
On October 4, 2024, the Postal Service filed a request for an advisory opinion from the Commission regarding planned changes to its processing and transportation networks.
The Postal Service also proposes to revise its service standards “to align with these operational initiatives. . . .”
The intended effective date of the Postal Service's planned changes is no earlier than 90 days after the filing of the Request.
On August 22, 2024, the Postal Service filed a notice of its intent to conduct a pre-filing conference regarding its plans to transform its processing and transportation networks and to revise service standards to align with these changes.
On August 26, 2024, the Commission issued Order No. 7414, which established Docket No. N2024-1 to consider the Postal Service's proposed changes, notified the public concerning the Postal Service's pre-filing conference, and appointed a Public Representative.
Currently, the Postal Service's legacy processing network consists of a mix of Processing and Distribution Centers (P&DCs) and Network Distribution Centers (NDCs), combined with “numerous ancillary facilities . . . .”
RPDCs will manage “the flow of mail and packages that originate or destinate in that region.”
LPCs will be designed to “handle destinating letter, flat, and package sortation operations for designated 3-Digit ZIP Codes within a region, for dispatch to Sorting and Delivery Centers (S&DCs) and delivery units.”
Some LPCs might be co-located with RPDCs and some RPDC operations might be located “in a single building or a campus of two or more buildings” based on what the Postal Service determines is most efficient and cost-effective.
In conjunction with these new facilities, the Postal Service also intends to implement its Regional Transportation Optimization (RTO) initiative on a nationwide basis.
Instead, under RTO, “certain collection/delivery facilities will have their destinating mail dropped off, and their originating mail picked up, on the same transportation route.”
Currently, the Postal Service's First-Class Mail and USPS Ground Advantage service standards “are predicated on
Under its proposed approach for inter-RPDC First-Class Mail and USPS Ground Advantage, the Postal Service would segment volume into three legs: collection to origin processing (Leg 1); origin processing facility to destination processing facility (Leg 2); and destination processing facility to delivery (Leg 3).
For Leg 2, the Postal Service will “apply [2-5] days based on the travel distance between the originating and destinating processing plants” using the new network outlined above.
The Leg 1 rules will not apply to “any products entered at a RPDC, Presort First-Class Mail, or any destination-entered volume.”
Finally, the Postal Service intends to change how it measures performance under these standards.
The Postal Service asserts that these network changes will “enable significant cost reductions in both processing operations and in [its] transportation network, while improving the work environment for [its] employees.”
Additionally, according to the Postal Service, the implementation of the RTO initiative on a nationwide basis will “result in significant improvements in transportation and processing operations.”
Overall, the Postal Service estimates that it will save “between $3.6 and $3.7 billion annually in Leg 1 and Leg 2 transportation costs, mail and package processing costs, and facility costs[ ]” through the implementation of these two initiatives.
The Postal Service states that under the new standards, “the majority of overall market-dominant volume” will have “either the same service standards . . . or an accelerated standard.”
The Postal Service is required to file its direct case along with the Request.
Additionally, the Postal Service filed 17 library references, 8 of which are available to the public and 9 of which are designated as non-public material.
The procedural rules in 39 CFR part 3020 apply to Docket No. N2024-1. Before issuing its advisory opinion, the Commission shall accord an opportunity for a formal, on-the-record hearing pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. 39 U.S.C. 3661(c). The Commission will sit
Docket No. N2024-1 is limited in scope to the specific changes proposed by the Postal Service in its Request.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.106, the Commission appoints Stephanie A. Quick to serve as presiding officer in Docket No. N2024-1, effective immediately. Ms. Quick shall have the authority delegated to the presiding officer under 39 CFR 3010.106(c), except for regulating the course of public conferences and hearings.
The Commission establishes a procedural schedule, which appears below the signature of this Order as Attachment 1.
The public portions of the Postal Service's filing are available for review on the Commission's website (
The Postal Service must serve hard copies of its Request and prepared direct evidence “only upon those persons who have notified the Postal Service, in writing, during the pre-filing conference(s), that they do not have access to the Commission's website.” 39 CFR 3020.104. If you demonstrate that you are unable to effectively use the Commission's Filing Online system or are unable to access the internet, then the Secretary of the Commission will serve material filed in Docket No. N2024-1 upon you via First-Class Mail.
The Commission's rules on how to file and access non-public material appear in 39 CFR part 3011. Each individual seeking non-public access must familiarize themselves with these provisions, including the rules governing eligibility for access; non-dissemination, use, and care of the non-public material; sanctions for violations of protective conditions; and how to terminate or amend access.
Non-public information must be redacted from filings submitted through the Commission's website; instead, non-public information must be filed under seal as required by 39 CFR part 3011 subpart B.
Except as provided in 39 CFR 3010.120(a),
Material may be filed using a method other than the Commission's website only if at least one of the following exceptions applies:
• The material cannot reasonably be converted to electronic format,
• The filer is unable to effectively use the Commission's Filing Online system and the document is 10 pages or fewer, or
• The Secretary has approved an exception to the requirements to use the Commission's Filing Online system based on a showing of good cause.
Material subject to these exceptions may be filed by mail to the Office of Secretary and Administration, Postal Regulatory Commission, 901 New York Avenue NW, Suite 200, Washington, DC 20268-0001. The posting of mailed materials to the Commission's website may be delayed.
A technical conference will be held live via Microsoft Teams on October 16, 2024, at 1:00 p.m. ET. The technical conference is an informal, off-the-record opportunity to clarify technical issues as well as to identify and request information relevant to evaluating the Postal Service's proposed changes.
The technical conference will be broadcast to the public via livestream, which will allow the public to view and listen to the technical conference, as it is occurring and after. To view and listen to the livestream, on or after 1 p.m. ET on October 16, 2024, an individual must click on the internet link that will be identified on the Commission's YouTube Channel, which is available at
To participate in this live technical conference and have the opportunity to ask questions of the Postal Service's six witnesses, an individual need not formally intervene in this docket but must register in advance as follows. Each individual seeking to participate in the live technical conference via Microsoft Teams using an individual device (
• your first and last name;
• your email address (to receive the Microsoft Teams link);
• the name(s) of the Postal Service witness(es) you would like to question and/or the topic(s) of your question(s); and
• your affiliation (if you are participating in your capacity as an employee, officer, or member of an entity such as a corporation, association, or government agency).
The
To facilitate discussion of the matters to be explored at the technical conference, the Postal Service shall, if necessary, file with the Commission any materials not already filed in Docket No. N2024-1 (such as PowerPoint presentations or Excel spreadsheets) that the Postal Service expects to present at the technical conference by October 15, 2024. Doing so will foster an orderly discussion of the matters under consideration and facilitate the ability of individuals to access these materials should technical issues arise for any participants during the live technical conference. If feasible, the recording will be available on the Commission's YouTube Channel at
Participants in the live technical conference, by participating, consent to such recording and posting. Information obtained during the technical conference or as a result of the technical conference is not part of the decisional record, unless admitted under the
The Commission reserves the right to cancel the technical conference should no parties register an intent to question the Postal Service's six witnesses.
To become a party to this proceeding, a person or entity must file a notice of intervention by October 21, 2024.
Discovery requests may be propounded upon filing a notice of intervention. Discovery that is reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence is allowed.
Each answer to a discovery request is due within 7 days after the discovery request is filed.
All discovery requests regarding the Postal Service's direct case must be filed by November 5, 2024. All discovery answers by the Postal Service must be filed by November 12, 2024. The parties are urged to initiate discovery promptly, rather than to defer filing requests and answers to the end of the period established by the Commission.
A rebuttal case is any evidence and testimony offered to disprove or contradict the evidence and testimony submitted by the Postal Service. A rebuttal case does not include cross-examination of the Postal Service's witnesses or argument submitted via a brief or statement of position. Any party that intends to file a rebuttal case must file a notice confirming its intent to do so by November 27, 2024. Any rebuttal case, consisting of any testimony and all materials in support of the case, must be filed by December 4, 2024.
A surrebuttal case is any evidence and testimony offered to disprove or contradict the evidence and testimony submitted by the rebutting party. A surrebuttal case does not include cross-examination of the rebutting party's witnesses or argument submitted via a brief or statement of position. Any party that intends to file a surrebuttal case must obtain the Commission's prior approval and must bear the burden of demonstrating exceptional circumstances that would warrant granting the motion.
The Commission expects that this case will require no more than 1 or 2 business days for hearing, but reserves 3 business days out of an abundance of caution and consistent with the pro forma schedule set forth in appendix A of 39 CFR part 3020. If no party files a notice of intent to file a rebuttal case by November 27, 2024, then the hearing of the Postal Service's direct case shall begin December 4, 2024, with additional days reserved on December 5, 2024, and December 6, 2024.
If any party files a notice of intent to file a rebuttal case by November 27, 2024, but no surrebuttal testimony will be presented, then the hearing of the Postal Service's direct case shall begin December 11, 2024, with additional days reserved on December 12, 2024, and December 13, 2024.
If any party files a notice of intent to file a rebuttal case by November 27, 2024, and the Commission approves the presentation of surrebuttal testimony, then the hearing of the Postal Service's direct case shall begin December 18, 2024, and the hearing of the surrebuttal case shall end December 20, 2024.
Evidence and testimony shall be in writing and may be accompanied by a trial brief or legal memoranda. 39 CFR 3020.122(e)(1). Whenever possible and particularly for factual or statistical evidence, written cross-examination will be used in lieu of oral cross-examination.
Oral cross-examination will be allowed to clarify written cross-examination and/or to test assumptions, conclusions, or other opinion evidence.
In lieu of submitting hard copy documents to the Commission as contemplated by 39 CFR 3020.122(e)(2), each party shall file a single document titled “Notice of Designations” containing a list for each witness that identifies the materials to be designated
Assuming that no rebuttal case is filed, each party shall file its Notice of Designations by November 26, 2024.
Assuming that no rebuttal case is filed, on December 2, 2024, the Postal Service shall file a “Notice of Designated Materials” identifying any corrections to the testimony or designated materials for each witness sponsored by the Postal Service. Attached to that notice shall be an Adobe PDF file that contains the witness's designated written responses in alphabetical order by the name of the party propounding the interrogatory followed by numerical order of the interrogatory (with any corrections to the responses highlighted). The Postal Service shall also contemporaneously file any corrections to testimony (with those corrections highlighted).
Any person that has intervened in Docket No. N2024-1 (and thereby formally became a party to this proceeding) may submit written argument by filing a brief or a statement of position; they also may request to present oral argument at the hearing.
A brief is a written document that addresses relevant legal and evidentiary issues for the Commission to consider and must adhere to the requirements of 39 CFR 3020.123(a)-(f). A statement of position is a less formal version of a brief that describes the filer's position on the Request and the information on the existing record in support of that position.
Assuming that no rebuttal case is filed, initial briefs are due December 12, 2024, and reply briefs are due December 19, 2024. If any party files a notice confirming its intent to file a rebuttal case by November 27, 2024, then the briefing schedule may be revised.
Any interested person, including anyone that has not filed a notice of intervention and become a party to this proceeding, may file a statement of position.
Oral argument has not historically been part of N-cases; the Commission would only grant a request to present oral argument upon an appropriate showing of need by the presenting party.
In section IV.D., the Commission stated that it found good cause to modify the procedural schedule such that the Commission shall issue its advisory opinion within 120 days of the filing of the Request. Therefore, absent a determination of good cause for further extension, the Commission shall issue its advisory opinion in this proceeding by January 31, 2025. “The opinion shall be in writing and shall include a certification by each Commissioner agreeing with the opinion that in his [or her] judgment the opinion conforms to the policies established under [title 39, United States Code].” 39 U.S.C. 3661(c). The advisory opinion shall address the specific changes proposed by the Postal Service in the nature of postal services.
Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3661(c), Ping Gong shall continue to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
1. The procedural schedule for this proceeding is set forth below the signature of this Order.
2. Pursuant to 39 CFR 3010.106 and 3020.122(b), the Commission appoints Stephanie A. Quick to serve as presiding officer in Docket No. N2024-1, effective immediately.
3. Stephanie A. Quick is authorized to propound formal discovery requests upon any party, at her discretion. The numerical limitation on interrogatories appearing in 39 CFR 3020.117(a) shall not apply to the Presiding Officer.
4. Stephanie A. Quick is authorized to rule on procedural issues such as motions for late acceptance and discovery-related matters such as motions to be excused from answering discovery requests.
5. Stephanie A. Quick is authorized to make other rulings in this Docket not otherwise specifically reserved to the Commission according to 39 CFR 3020 and 3010.106.
6. Pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3661(c), Ping Gong shall continue to serve as an officer of the Commission (Public Representative) to represent the interests of the general public in this proceeding.
7. The Secretary shall arrange for publication of this Order in the
By the Commission.
The Postal Service requests confidential treatment of non-public materials identified as ___ (non-confidential description of non-public materials) (hereinafter “these materials”) in Commission Docket No. N2024-1. ___ (name of participant filing motion) (hereinafter “the movant”) requests access to these materials related to Commission Docket No. N2024-1 (hereinafter “this matter”).
The movant has provided to each person seeking access to these materials:
○ This Protective Conditions Statement;
○ The Certification to Comply with Protective Conditions;
○ The Certification of Compliance with Protective Conditions and Termination of Access; and
○ The Commission's rules applicable to access to non-public materials filed in Commission proceedings (subpart C of part 3011 of the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations).
Each person (and any individual working on behalf of that person) seeking access to these materials has executed a Certification to Comply with Protective Conditions by signing in ink or by typing /s/ before his or her name in the signature block. The movant attaches the Protective Conditions Statement and the executed Certification(s) to Comply with Protective Conditions to the motion for access filed with the Commission.
The movant and each person seeking access to these materials agree to comply with the following protective conditions:
1. In accordance with 39 CFR 3011.303, the Commission may impose sanctions on any person who violates these protective conditions, the persons or entities on whose behalf the person was acting, or both.
2. In accordance with 39 CFR 3011.300(b), no person involved in competitive decision-making for any individual or entity that might gain competitive advantage from using these materials shall be granted access to these materials. Involved in competitive decision-making includes consulting on marketing or advertising strategies, pricing, product research and development, product design, or the competitive structuring and composition of bids, offers or proposals. It does not include rendering legal advice or performing other services that are not directly in furtherance of activities in competition with an individual or entity having a proprietary interest in the protected material.
3. In accordance with 39 CFR 3011.302(a), a person granted access to these materials may not disseminate these materials in whole or in part to any person not allowed access pursuant to 39 CFR 3011.300(a) (Commission and court personnel) or 3011.301 (other persons granted access by Commission order) except in compliance with:
a. Specific Commission order,
b. Subpart B of 39 CFR 3011 (procedure for filing these materials in Commission proceedings), or
c. 39 CFR 3011.305 (production of these materials in a court or other administrative proceeding).
4. In accordance with 39 CFR 3011.302(b) and (c), all persons granted access to these materials:
a. Must use these materials only related to this matter; and
b. Must protect these materials from any person not authorized to obtain access under 39 CFR 3011.300 or 3011.301 by using the same degree of care, but no less than a reasonable degree of care, to prevent the unauthorized disclosure of these materials as those persons, in the ordinary course of business, would be expected to use to protect their own proprietary material or trade secrets and other internal, confidential, commercially sensitive, and privileged information.
5. The duties of each person granted access to these materials apply to all:
a. Disclosures or duplications of these materials in writing, orally, electronically, or otherwise, by any means, format, or medium;
b. Excerpts from, parts of, or the entirety of these materials;
c. Written materials that quote or contain these materials; and
d. Revised, amended, or supplemental versions of these materials.
6. All copies of these materials will be clearly marked as “Confidential” and bear the name of the person granted access.
7. Immediately after access has terminated pursuant to 39 CFR 3011.304(a)(1), each person (and any individual working on behalf of that person) who has obtained a copy of these materials must execute the Certification of Compliance with Protective Conditions and Termination of Access. In compliance with 39 CFR 3011.304(a)(2), the movant will attach the executed Certification(s) of Compliance with Protective Conditions and Termination of Access to the notice of termination of access filed with the Commission.
8. Each person granted access to these materials consents to these or such other conditions as the Commission may approve.
Respectfully submitted,
You may delete the instructional text to complete this form. This form may be filed as an attachment to the motion for access to non-public materials under 39 CFR 3011.301(b)(5).
The Postal Service requests confidential treatment of non-public materials identified as ___ (non-confidential description of non-public materials) (hereinafter “these materials”) filed in Commission Docket No. N2024-1.
___ (name of participant filing motion) requests that the Commission grant me access to these materials to use related to Docket No. N2024-1 (hereinafter “this matter”). I certify that:
○ I have read and understand the Protective Conditions Statement and this Certification to Comply with Protective Conditions;
○ I am eligible to receive access to these materials because I am not involved in competitive decision-making for any individual or entity that might gain competitive advantage from using these materials; and
○ I will comply with all protective conditions established by the Commission.
You may delete the instructional text to complete this form. This form may be filed as an attachment to the motion for access to non-public materials under 39 CFR 3011.301(b)(6).
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.
Pursuant to 39 CFR 3041.405, the Commission gives notice that the Postal Service filed request(s) for the Commission to consider matters related to Competitive negotiated service agreement(s). The request(s) may propose the addition of a negotiated service agreement from the Competitive product list or the modification of an existing product currently appearing on the Competitive product list.
The public portions of the Postal Service's request(s) can be accessed via the Commission's website (
Section II identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, that will be reviewed in a public proceeding as defined by 39 CFR 3010.101(p), the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request. For each such 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 and 39 CFR 3000.114 (Public Representative). Section II also establishes comment deadline(s) pertaining to each such request.
The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service's request(s) identified in Section II, if any, are consistent with the policies of title 39. 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 3041. Comment deadline(s) for each such request, if any, appear in Section II.
Section III identifies the docket number(s) associated with each Postal Service request, if any, to add a standardized distinct product to the Competitive product list or to amend a standardized distinct product, the title of each such request, the request's acceptance date, and the authority cited by the Postal Service for each request.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
None.
This Notice will be published in the
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe EDGX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGX Equities”) proposes to amend its Fees 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 to adopt fees for Dedicated Cores.
By way of background, the Exchange recently began allowing Users
The Exchange proposes to assess the following monthly fees for Users that wish to use Dedicated Cores and adopt a maximum limit. First, the Exchange proposes to provide up to two Dedicated Cores to all Users who wish to use Dedicated Cores, at no additional cost. For the use of more than two Dedicated Cores, the Exchange proposes to assess the following fees: $650 per Dedicated Core for 3-15 Dedicated Cores; $850 per Dedicated Core for 16-30 Dedicated Cores; and $1,050 per Dedicated Core for 31 or more Dedicated Cores. The proposed fees are progressive and the Exchange proposes to include the following example in the Fees Schedule to provide clarity as to how the fees will be applied. Particularly, the Exchange will provide the following example: if a User were to purchase 16 Dedicated Cores, it will be charged a total of $9,300 per month ($0 * 2 + $650 * 13 + $850 * 1). The Exchange also proposes to make clear in the Fees Schedule that the monthly fees are assessed and applied in their entirety and are not prorated. The Exchange notes the current standard fees assessed for BOE Logical Ports, whether used with Dedicated or shared CPU cores, will remain applicable and unchanged.
Since the Exchange currently has a finite amount of physical space in its data centers in which its servers (and therefore corresponding CPU Cores) are located, the Exchange also proposes to prescribe a maximum limit on the number of Dedicated Cores that Users may purchase each month. The purpose of establishing these limits is to manage the allotment of Dedicated Cores in a fair manner and to prevent the Exchange from being required to expend large amounts of resources in order to provide an unlimited number of Dedicated Cores. The Exchange previously established a limit for Members of a maximum number of 60 Dedicated Cores and Sponsoring Members a limit
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.
The Exchange believes the proposal is reasonable because the Exchange is offering any Users who wishes to utilize Dedicated Cores up to two Dedicated Cores at no additional cost. For example, of the Users that currently maintain Dedicated Cores, 42% maintain only 1 or 2 Dedicated Cores and therefore pay no additional fees. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable because Dedicated Cores provide a valuable service in that it can provide reduced latency, enhanced throughput, and improved performance compared to use of a shared CPU Core since a firm using a Dedicated Core is utilizing the full processing power of a CPU Core. The Exchange also emphasizes however, that the use of Dedicated Cores is not necessary for trading and as noted above, is entirely optional. Users can also continue to access the Exchange through shared CPU Cores at no additional cost. Indeed, 17% of the Exchange's Members currently use Dedicated Cores, and as noted above, of those who do, 42% take only 1 or 2 Dedicated Cores at no additional cost. For example, less than half of the members of the Exchange's affiliate Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc., (“Cboe EDGA”) currently use Dedicated Cores on Cboe EDGA. Depending on a firm's specific business needs, the proposal enables Users to choose to use Dedicated Cores in lieu of, or in addition to, shared CPU Cores (or as emphasized, not use Dedicated Cores at all). If a User finds little benefit in having Dedicated Cores based on its business model and trading strategies, or determines Dedicated Cores are not cost-efficient for its needs or does not provide sufficient value to the firm, such User may continue its use of the shared CPU Cores, unchanged. The Exchange also has no plans to eliminate shared CPU Cores nor to require Users to purchase Dedicated Cores.
The Exchange has seen general interest in Dedicated Cores from a variety of market participants, with varying size and business models. Such market participants include proprietary trading firms (who tend to be more latency sensitive), as well as sell-side market participants and buy-side market participants (who tend to be less latency sensitive). Further, Members have various reasons for obtaining Dedicated Cores. Some Members for example, may be seeking to further reduce latency, whereas others may use Dedicated Cores as a general risk mitigation by siloing their respective activity. Of further note, only 55% of Members that are propriety trading firms (who again, generally tend to be more latency sensitive) utilize Dedicated Cores, and of that 55%, 33% are utilizing the 1 to 2 free Dedicated Cores available to all Users. The lack of universal, or even widespread, adoption by all such users therefore demonstrates that purchasing Dedicated Cores is not effectively a requirement to compete for any one type of market participant, including latency sensitive market participants. Instead, Dedicated Cores are an optional and voluntary connectivity offering, which market participants are free to choose whether or not to utilize based on whether they meet their unique business needs.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed Dedicated Core fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they continue to be assessed uniformly to similarly situated users in that all Users who choose to purchase Dedicated Cores will be subject to the same proposed tiered fee schedule. Moreover, all Users are entitled to up to 2 Dedicated Cores at no additional cost and as previously discussed, 42% of all Users that take Dedicated Cores (including both latency sensitive and non-latency sensitive Users) take only 1 or 2 Dedicated Cores at no additional cost. The Exchange believes the proposed ascending fee structure is also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is designed so that firms that use a higher allotment of the Exchange's finite number of Dedicated Cores pay higher rates, rather than placing that burden on market participants that have more
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to limit the number of Dedicated Cores Users can purchase because the Exchange has a finite amount of space in its third-party data centers to accommodate CPU cores, including Dedicated Cores. The Exchange must also take into account timing and cost considerations in procuring additional Dedicated Cores and related hardware such as servers, switches, optics and cables, as well as the readiness of the Exchange's data center to accommodate additional Dedicated Cores in the Exchange's respective Order Handler Cabinets.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed tiered fee structure will apply equally to all similarly situated Users that choose to use Dedicated Cores. As discussed above, Dedicated Cores are optional and Users may choose to utilize Dedicated Cores, or not, based on their views of the additional benefits and added value provided by utilizing a Dedicated Core. The Exchange believes the proposed fees will be assessed proportionately to the potential value or benefit received by Users with a greater number of Dedicated Cores and notes that Users may determine at any time to cease using Dedicated Cores. As discussed, Users can also continue to access the Exchange through shared CPU Cores at no additional cost. Finally, all Users will be entitled to two Dedicated Cores at no additional cost.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change 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, including competition for exchange memberships. Market Participants have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on, including 15 other equities exchanges, as well as off-exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading. Indeed, participants can readily choose to submit their order flow to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On August 19, 2024, Cboe Exchange, Inc. (“Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Section 19(b)(2) of the Act
The Commission finds it appropriate to designate a longer period within which to take action on the proposed rule change so that it has sufficient time to consider the proposed rule change. Accordingly, the Commission, pursuant to Section 19(b)(2) of the Act,
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
On June 25, 2024, Cboe BZX Exchange, Inc. (“BZX” or “Exchange”) filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”), pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Exchange Act”)
BZX Rule 14.8 (General Listing Requirements—Tier I) sets forth listing requirements for closed-end management investment companies registered under the 1940 Act (“CEFs”).
The Commission is instituting proceedings pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act,
The development and enforcement of meaningful corporate governance exchange listing standards is of substantial importance to financial markets and the investing public, especially given investor expectations regarding the nature of companies that have achieved an exchange listing for their securities and the role of an exchange in overseeing its market and ensuring compliance with its listing standards.
In particular, the Commission has consistently recognized the importance of the annual shareholder meeting requirement to the protection of investors and the public interest.
The Exchange states in support of its proposal that it believes the “burdensome” annual shareholder meeting requirement is unnecessary for CEFs given the investor protections afforded under the 1940 Act.
The Commission received comments supporting the proposal.
The Commission also received comments opposing the proposal.
The Commission has concerns about whether BZX's proposal to exempt CEFs from the annual shareholder meeting requirement set forth in BZX Rule 14.10(f) is designed to protect investors and the public interest, as required by Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act.
Moreover, the Commission has concerns with the sufficiency of the Exchange's analysis and whether the Exchange has met its burden to demonstrate that its proposal is consistent with the Exchange Act.
As a result, the Commission believes there are questions as to whether the proposal is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
The Commission requests that interested persons provide written submissions of their data, views, and arguments with respect to the issues identified above, as well as any other concerns they may have with the proposal. In particular, the Commission invites the written views of interested persons concerning whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, is consistent with Section 6(b)(5) of the Exchange Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views, and arguments regarding whether the proposed rule change, as modified by Amendment No. 1, should be approved or disapproved by November 7, 2024. Any person who wishes to file a rebuttal to any other person's submission must file that rebuttal by November 21, 2024. The Commission asks that commenters address the sufficiency 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. 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-2024-055. 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 Equities”) proposes to amend its Fees 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
The Exchange proposes to amend its fee schedule to adopt fees for Dedicated Cores.
By way of background, the Exchange recently began to allow Users
The Exchange proposes to assess the following monthly fees for Users that wish to use Dedicated Cores and adopt a maximum limit. First, the Exchange proposes to provide up to two Dedicated Cores to all Users who wish to use Dedicated Cores, at no additional cost. For the use of more than two Dedicated Cores, the Exchange proposes to assess the following fees: $650 per Dedicated Core for 3-15 Dedicated Cores; $850 per Dedicated Core for 16-30 Dedicated Cores; and $1,050 per Dedicated Core for 31 or more Dedicated Cores. The proposed fees are progressive and the Exchange proposes to include the following example in the Fees Schedule to provide clarity as to how the fees will be applied. Particularly, the Exchange will provide the following example: if a User were to purchase 16 Dedicated Cores, it will be charged a total of $9,300 per month ($0 * 2 + $650 * 13 + $850 * 1). The Exchange also proposes to make clear in the Fees Schedule that the monthly fees are assessed and applied in their entirety and are not prorated. The Exchange notes the current standard fees assessed for BOE Logical Ports, whether used with Dedicated or shared CPU cores, will remain applicable and unchanged.
Since the Exchange currently has a finite amount of physical space in its data centers in which its servers (and therefore corresponding CPU Cores) are located, the Exchange also proposes to prescribe a maximum limit on the number of Dedicated Cores that Users may purchase each month. The purpose of establishing these limits is to manage the allotment of Dedicated Cores in a fair manner and to prevent the Exchange from being required to expend large amounts of resources in order to provide an unlimited number of Dedicated Cores. The Exchange previously established a limit for Members of a maximum number of 60 Dedicated Cores and Sponsoring Members a limit of maximum number of 25 Dedicated Cores for each of their Sponsored Access relationship.
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.
The Exchange believes the proposal is reasonable because the Exchange is offering any User who wishes to utilize Dedicated Cores up to two Dedicated Cores at no additional cost. For example, of the Users that currently maintain Dedicated Cores, 32% maintain only 1 or 2 Dedicated Cores and therefore pay no additional fees. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable because Dedicated Cores provide a valuable service in that it can provide reduced latency, enhanced throughput, and improved performance compared to use of a shared CPU Core since a firm using a Dedicated Core is utilizing the full processing power of a CPU Core. The Exchange also emphasizes however, that the use of Dedicated Cores is not necessary for trading and as noted above, is entirely optional. Users can also continue to access the Exchange through shared CPU Cores at no additional cost. Indeed, only 16% of the Exchange's Members currently use Dedicated Cores and as noted above, of that 16%, 32% take 1 or 2 Dedicated Cores at no additional cost. Depending on a firm's specific business needs, the proposal enables Users to choose to use Dedicated Cores in lieu of, or in addition to, shared CPU Cores (or as emphasized, not use Dedicated Cores at all). If a User finds little benefit in having Dedicated Cores based on its business model and trading strategies, or determines Dedicated Cores are not cost-efficient for its needs or does not provide sufficient value to the firm, such User may continue its use of the shared CPU Cores, unchanged. The Exchange also has no plans to eliminate shared CPU Cores nor to require Users to purchase Dedicated Cores.
The Exchange has seen general interest in Dedicated Cores from a variety of market participants, with varying size and business models. Such market participants include proprietary trading firms (who tend to be more latency sensitive), as well as sell-side market participants and buy-side market participants (who tend to be less latency sensitive). Further, Members have various reasons for obtaining Dedicated Cores. Some Members for example, may be seeking to further reduce latency, whereas others may use Dedicated Cores as a general risk mitigation by siloing their respective activity. Of further note, only 50% of Members that are propriety trading firms (who again, generally tend to be more latency sensitive) utilize Dedicated Cores, and of that 50%, 36% are utilizing the 1 to 2 free Dedicated Cores available to all Users. The lack of universal, or even widespread, adoption by all such users therefore demonstrates that purchasing Dedicated Cores is not effectively a requirement to compete for any one type of market participant, including latency sensitive market participants. Instead, Dedicated Cores are an optional and voluntary connectivity offering, which market participants are free to choose whether or not to utilize based on whether they meet their unique business needs.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed Dedicated Core fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they continue to be assessed uniformly to similarly situated users in that all Users who choose to purchase Dedicated Cores will be subject to the same proposed tiered fee schedule. Moreover, all Users are entitled to up to 2 Dedicated Cores at no additional cost and, as previously discussed, 32% of all Users that take Dedicated Cores (including both latency sensitive and non-latency sensitive Users) take only 1 or 2 Dedicated Cores at no additional cost. The Exchange believes the proposed ascending fee structure is also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is designed so that firms that use a higher allotment of the Exchange's finite number of Dedicated Cores pay higher rates, rather than placing that burden on market participants that have more modest needs who will have the flexibility of obtaining Dedicated Cores at lower price points in the lower tiers. As such, the proposed fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the ascending fee structure reflects the (finite) resources consumed by the various needs of market participants—that is, the lowest Dedicated Core consuming Users pay the least, and highest Dedicated Core consuming Users pay the most. Other exchanges similarly assess higher fees to those that consume more Exchange resources, including the Exchange on its options platform.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to limit the number of Dedicated Cores Users can purchase because the Exchange has a finite amount of space in its third-party data centers to accommodate CPU cores, including Dedicated Cores. The Exchange must also take into account timing and cost considerations in procuring additional Dedicated Cores and related hardware such as servers, switches, optics and cables, as well as the readiness of the Exchange's data center to accommodate additional Dedicated Cores in the Exchange's respective Order Handler Cabinets.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed tiered fee structure will apply equally to all similarly situated Users that choose to use Dedicated Cores. As discussed above, Dedicated Cores are optional and Users may choose to utilize Dedicated Cores, or not, based on their views of the additional benefits and added value provided by utilizing a Dedicated Core. The Exchange believes the proposed fees will be assessed proportionately to the potential value or benefit received by Users with a greater number of Dedicated Cores and notes that Users may determine at any time to cease using Dedicated Cores. As discussed, Users can also continue to access the Exchange through shared CPU Cores at no additional cost. Finally, all Users will be entitled to two Dedicated Cores at no additional cost.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change 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, including competition for exchange memberships. Market Participants have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on, including 15 other equities exchanges, as well as off-exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading. Indeed, participants can readily choose to submit their order flow to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the 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 neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Act”),
The Exchange is filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) a proposed rule change to amend the LTSE Fee Schedule (the “Fee Schedule”) to adopt certain connectivity fees effective October 1, 2024. The text of the proposed rule change is available at 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 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 to establish a new section (C. Connectivity) in the Long-Term Stock Exchange Fee Schedule and adopt fees for Cross-Connect (Primary), Cross-Connect (Disaster Recovery), Cross-Connect (Test Environment) and Logical Connectivity (all Environments) that will apply to all market participants connecting to the Exchange.
The Exchange proposes to offer to both Members and non-Members the choice of a 10 Gigabit (“Gb”) ultra-low latency (“ULL”) fiber cross-connection to the Exchange's Primary and Disaster Recovery facilities, as well as a 10Gb cross-connection to the Test Environment facility. The Exchange proposes to establish a Cross-Connect fee of $5,500 per 10Gb physical interface per month that will be assessed to Members and non-Members for connecting to the Primary facility. The Exchange proposes to establish a Cross-Connect fee of $2,750 per 10Gb physical interface per month that will be assessed to Members and non-Members for connecting to both the Disaster Recovery facility or the Test Environment.
Monthly network connectivity fees for Members and non-Members for connectivity will be assessed in any month the Member or non-Member is credentialed to use any of the LTSE Application Programming Interfaces (“APIs”) in either the Primary, Disaster Recovery or test environments.
The Exchange proposes to establish a $450 fee for all Logical Connectivity sessions. These application sessions, commonly known as ports, are utilized to perform a particular function on the Exchange, such as order entry or order cancellation, receipt of drop copies, proprietary market data dissemination, or requesting data to be backfilled (
In proposing to charge fees for connectivity to LTSE, the Exchange has sought to be especially diligent in assessing those fees in a transparent way against its own aggregate costs of providing the related services, and also carefully and transparently assessing the impact on Members—both generally and in relation to other Members,
The Exchange notes it operates a unique model where the LTSE trading system and services are provided on an outsourced basis by MEMX Technologies LLC.
Further, while the Exchange has been operating since September 2020, it only entered the DLSA with MEMX Technologies LLC in January of this year and launched the new trading system in September 2024. Therefore, the Exchange's most recent publicly available financial statement (2023 Audited Unconsolidated Financial Statement) is not an accurate reflection of the total annual costs associated with the development and operation of Connectivity on LTSE. Accordingly, the Exchange believes it is more appropriate to justify its fees using cost figures that are isolated specifically for LTSE on an annualized basis, and utilizing a recent monthly billing cycle and extrapolated annualized costs on a going-forward basis.
LTSE recently calculated its aggregate monthly costs for providing Connectivity to the Exchange at $193,637 beginning October 1, 2024. Because LTSE offered all connectivity free of charge from its launch in September 2020 until October of this year, LTSE has borne 100% of all connectivity costs. Now, in order to cover some of the aggregate costs of providing connectivity to market participants (both Members and non-Members)
In order to determine the Exchange's costs for providing the services associated with the Connectivity Fees, the Exchange conducted an extensive review in which the Exchange analyzed every expense item in the Exchange's general expense ledger to determine whether each such expense relates to the services associated with the Connectivity Fees, and, if such expense did so relate, what portion (or percentage) of such expense actually supports those services. The sum of all such portions of expenses represents the total cost of the Exchange to provide the services associated with the Connectivity Fees. For the avoidance of doubt, no expense amount was allocated twice. The Exchange is also providing detailed information regarding the Exchange's cost allocation methodology—namely, information that explains the Exchange's rationale for determining that it was reasonable to allocate certain expenses described in this filing towards the total cost to the Exchange to provide Connectivity.
The Exchange believes that the Connectivity Fees are fair and reasonable because they will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit, when comparing the total annual expense that the Exchange projects to incur in connection with providing the services associated with the proposed Connectivity Fees versus the total annual revenue of the Exchange projects to collect in connection with providing those services. For 2024, the total annual expense for providing the services associated with the Connectivity Fees is projected to be approximately $4.5 million. The $4.5 million in expense includes expenses associated with providing all ports and all connectivity alternatives.
The following chart details the individual line-item costs considered by LTSE to be related to offering connectivity as well as the percentage of the Exchange's overall costs per year such costs represent for such area (
Below are additional details regarding each of the line-item costs considered by LTSE to be related to offering connectivity.
As discussed above, LTSE has undertaken a unique model where it has outsourced its technology to a third-party technology provider. As such the costs associated with connectivity for this provider include (1) costs for the technology used to complete connections to the Exchange and to connect to external markets, (2) costs the third-party provider incurs to provide physical connectivity in the data centers where it maintains its equipment—such as dedicated space, security services, cooling and power, (3) charges from the third-party provider for use of physical ports and logical ports, and (3) depreciation of physical assets and software, which also includes assets used for testing and monitoring of infrastructure.
For personnel costs (Human Resources), LTSE calculated an allocation of LTSE employee time for employees whose functions include providing and maintaining connectivity and performance thereof (technical operations personnel, market operations personnel, and software engineering personnel). The Exchange also allocated Human Resources costs to provide connectivity to a limited subset of personnel with ancillary functions related to establishing and maintaining such connectivity (such as information security and finance personnel), for which the Exchange allocated cost on an employee-by-employee basis (
Data Center costs include an allocation of the costs the Exchange incurs to monitor its trading platform in third-party data centers where it maintains its equipment as well as related costs (the Exchange does not own the Primary Data Center or the Secondary Data Center, but instead, leases space in data centers operated by third parties).
LTSE offers its Members the ability to connect to the Exchange in order to transmit orders to and receive information from the Exchange. Members can also choose to connect to LTSE indirectly through physical connectivity maintained by a third-party extranet. Extranet physical connections may provide access to one or multiple Members on a single connection. Users of LTSE physical connectivity services (both Members and non-Members) seeking to establish one or more connections with the Exchange submit a request directly to Exchange personnel. Upon receipt of the completed instructions, LTSE establishes the physical connections requested by the User. The number of physical connections assigned to each User as of September 30, 2024, ranges from one to three, depending on the scope and scale of the Member's trading activity on the Exchange as determined by the Member, including the Member's determination of the need for redundant connectivity. The Exchange notes that 58% of its Members do not maintain a physical connection directly with the Exchange in the Primary Data Center (though many such Members have connectivity through a third-party provider) and another 41% have either one or two physical connections to the Exchange in the Primary Data Center.
As described above, to cover the aggregate costs of providing physical connectivity to Users and make a modest profit, as described below, the Exchange is proposing to charge a fee of $5,500 per month for each physical connection in the Primary Data Center and a fee of $2,750 per month for each physical connection in the Disaster Recovery Data Center and Test Environment. There is no requirement that any Member maintain a specific number of physical connections and a Member may choose to maintain as many or as few of such connections as each Member deems appropriate. The Exchange notes, however, that pursuant to Rule 2.250 (Mandatory Participation in Testing of Backup Systems), the Exchange does require a small number of Members to connect and participate in functional and performance testing as announced by the Exchange, which occurs at least once every 12 months. Specifically, Members that have been determined by the Exchange to contribute a meaningful percentage of the Exchange's overall volume must participate in mandatory testing of the Exchange's backup systems (
The proposed fee will not apply differently based upon the size or type of the market participant, but rather based upon the number of physical connections a User requests, based upon factors deemed relevant by each User (either a Member, service bureau or extranet). The Exchange believes these factors include the costs to maintain connectivity, business model and choices. The proposed fee of $5,500 per month for physical connections at the Primary Data Center is designed to permit the Exchange to cover a portion
Similar to other exchanges, LTSE offers its Members application sessions, also known as logical ports, for order entry and receipt of trade execution reports and order messages. Members can also choose to connect to LTSE indirectly through a session maintained by a third-party service bureau. Service bureau sessions may provide access to one or multiple Members on a single session. Users of LTSE connectivity services (both Members and non-Members) seeking to establish one or more application sessions with the Exchange shall submit a request to the Exchange via the LTSE User Portal or directly to Exchange personnel. Upon receipt of the completed instructions, LTSE assigns the User the number of sessions requested by the User. The number of sessions assigned to each User as of September 30, 2024, ranges from one (1) to more than 58 depending on the scope and scale of the Member's trading activity on the Exchange (either through a direct connection or through a service bureau) as determined by the Member. For example, by using multiple sessions, Members can segregate order flow from different internal desks, business lines, or customers. The Exchange does not impose any minimum or maximum requirements for how many application sessions a Member or service bureau can maintain, and it is not proposing to impose any minimum or maximum session requirements for its Members or their service bureaus.
As described above, to cover the aggregate costs of providing application sessions to Users and to make a modest profit, as described below, the Exchange is proposing to charge a fee of $450 per session per month. The Exchange notes that it is proposing to waive the fees for Members and Non-Members their first three sessions, so that market participants can have no cost to connect to the Disaster Recovery Center or a Test Environment port. The Exchange believes that providing three free sessions will encourage Members to connect to the Exchange's backup trading systems and to conduct appropriate testing of their use of the Exchange.
The proposed fee of $450 per month for each Logical Connectivity session is designed to permit the Exchange to cover some of the costs allocated to providing application sessions, which would also help fund future expenditures (increased costs, improvements, etc.).
The proposed fee is also designed to encourage Users to be efficient with their application session usage, thereby resulting in a corresponding increase in the efficiency that the Exchange would be able to realize in managing its aggregate costs for providing connectivity services. There is no requirement that any Member maintain a specific number of application sessions and a Member may choose to maintain as many or as few of such ports as each Member deems appropriate. The platform has been designed such that Order Entry Ports can handle a significant amount of message traffic (
The proposed fee will not apply differently based upon the size or type of the market participant, but rather based upon the number of application sessions a User requests, based upon factors deemed relevant by each User (either a Member or service bureau on behalf of a Member). The Exchange believes these factors include the costs to maintain connectivity and choices Members make in how to segment or allocate their order flow.
As discussed above, the proposed fees for connectivity services do not by design apply differently to different types or sizes of Members. As discussed in more detail in the Statutory Basis section, the Exchange believes that the likelihood of higher fees for certain Members subscribing to connectivity services usage than others is not unfairly discriminatory because it is based on objective differences in usage of connectivity services among different Members. The Exchange's incremental aggregate costs for all connectivity services are disproportionately related to Members with higher message traffic and/or Members with more complicated connections established with the Exchange, as such Members: (1) consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network; (2) transact the vast majority of the volume on the Exchange; and (3) require the high-touch network support services provided by the Exchange and its technology service provider, including network monitoring, reporting and support services, resulting in a much higher cost to the Exchange to provide such connectivity services. For these reasons, LTSE believes it is not unfairly discriminatory for the Members with higher message traffic and/or Members with more complicated connections to pay a higher share of the total connectivity services fees. While Members with a business model that results in higher relative inbound message activity or more complicated connections are projected to pay higher fees, the level of such fees is based solely on the number of physical connections and/or application sessions deemed necessary by the Member and not on the Member's business model or type of Member. The Exchange notes
Finally, the fees for connectivity services will help to encourage connectivity services usage in a way that aligns with the Exchange's regulatory obligations. As a national securities exchange, the Exchange is subject to Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity (“Reg SCI”).
The Exchange believes that the proposed fees for connectivity services to LTSE are reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because, as described above, the proposed pricing for connectivity services is directly related to the relative costs to the Exchange to provide those respective services and does not impose a barrier to entry to smaller participants.
The Exchange recognizes that there are various business models and varying sizes of market participants conducting business on the Exchange. The Exchange's incremental aggregate costs for all connectivity services are disproportionately related to Members with higher message traffic and/or Members with more complicated connections established with the Exchange, as such Members: (1) consume the most bandwidth and resources of the network; (2) transact the vast majority of the volume on the Exchange; and (3) require the high-touch network support services provided by the Exchange and its staff, including network monitoring, reporting and support services, resulting in a much higher cost to the Exchange to provide such connectivity services. Accordingly, the Exchange believes the allocation of the proposed fees that increase based on the number of physical connections or application sessions is reasonable based on the resources consumed by the respective type of market participant (
With regard to reasonableness, the Exchange understands that when appropriate given the context of a proposal the Commission has taken a market-based approach to examine whether the SRO making the proposal was subject to significant competitive forces in setting the terms of the proposal. In looking at this question, the Commission considers whether the SRO has demonstrated in its filing that: (i) there are reasonable substitutes for the product or service; (ii) “platform” competition constrains the ability to set the fee; and/or (iii) revenue and cost analysis shows the fee would not result in the SRO taking supra-competitive profits. If the SRO demonstrates that the fee is subject to significant competitive forces, the Commission will next consider whether there is any substantial countervailing basis to suggest the fee's terms fail to meet one or more standards under the Exchange Act. If the filing fails to demonstrate that the fee is constrained by competitive forces, the SRO must provide a substantial basis, other than competition, to show that it is consistent with the Exchange Act, which may include production of relevant revenue and cost data pertaining to the product or service.
LTSE believes the proposed fees for connectivity services are fair and reasonable as a form of cost recovery for the Exchange's aggregate costs of offering connectivity services to Members and non-Members. The proposed fees are expected to generate monthly revenue of approximately $120,000
The Exchange further believes that the proposed fees, as they pertain to purchasers of each type of connectivity alternative, constitute an equitable allocation of reasonable fees charged to the Exchange's Members and non-Members and are allocated fairly amongst the types of market participants using the facilities of the Exchange.
As described above, the Exchange believes the proposed fees are equitably allocated because the Exchange's incremental aggregate costs for all connectivity services are disproportionately related to Members with higher message traffic and/or Members with more complicated connections established with the Exchange, as such Members: (1)
Commission staff previously noted that the generation of supra-competitive profits is one of several potential factors in considering whether an exchange's proposed fees are consistent with the Act.
The proposed fees for connectivity services will allow the Exchange to cover certain costs incurred by the Exchange's technology provider associated with providing and maintaining necessary hardware and other network infrastructure as well as network monitoring and support services; without such hardware, infrastructure, monitoring and support the Exchange would be unable to offer the connectivity services. The Exchange routinely works with its technology provider to improve the performance of the network's hardware and software. The costs associated with maintaining and enhancing a state-of-the-art exchange network is a significant portion of the overall expense of the technology provider's services, and thus the Exchange believes that it is reasonable and appropriate to help offset those costs by adopting fees for connectivity services. The Exchange's Cost Analysis estimates the monthly costs to provide connectivity services at $375,597. Based on current connectivity services usage, the Exchange would generate monthly revenues for the rest of 2024 of approximately $120,000. Even if the Exchange earns that amount or incrementally more, the Exchange believes the proposed fees for connectivity services are fair and reasonable because they will not result in excessive pricing or supra-competitive profit, when comparing the total expense of LTSE associated with providing connectivity services versus the total projected revenue of the Exchange associated with network connectivity services.
The Exchange notes that other exchanges offer similar connectivity options to market participants and that the Exchange's fees are a discount as compared to the majority of such fees.
In conclusion, the Exchange submits that its proposed fee structure satisfies the requirements of Sections 6(b)(4) and 6(b)(5) of the Act
In accordance with Section 6(b)(8) of the Act,
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change to apply Connectivity Fees to Users would place certain market participants at the Exchange at a relative disadvantage compared to other market participants because the proposed connectivity pricing is associated with relative usage of the Exchange by each market participant and does not impose a barrier to entry to smaller participants. The Exchange believes its proposed pricing is reasonable and lower than what other exchanges charge and, when coupled with the availability of third-party providers that also offer connectivity solutions, that participation on the Exchange is affordable for all market participants, including smaller trading firms. Therefore, the fees may stimulate intramarket competition by attracting additional firms to become Members of LTSE. As described above, the connectivity services purchased by market participants typically increase based on their additional message traffic and/or the complexity of their operations. The market participants that utilize more connectivity services typically utilize the most bandwidth, and those are the participants that consume the most resources from the network. Accordingly, the proposed fees for connectivity services do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the allocation of the proposed Connectivity Fees reflects the network resources consumed by the various size of market participants and the costs to the Exchange of providing such connectivity services.
As it relates to the reorganization of the fee schedule, as discussed above, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed change would impose any burden on competition because such change serves to create an easier to read fee schedule to avoid any Member confusion.
The Exchange does not believe the proposed fees for Connectivity to LTSE places an undue burden on competition on other SROs that is not necessary or appropriate. Additionally, other exchanges have similar connectivity alternatives for their participants, but with higher rates to connect.
The Exchange neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
This proposed rule change establishes dues, fees or other charges among its members and, as such, may take effect upon filing with the Commission 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 the rule change if it appears to the Commission that the action is necessary or appropriate in the public interest, for the protection of investors, or would otherwise further 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)
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 802.01C (“Price Criteria for Capital or Common Stock”) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual to modify the implications of a reverse stock split for an issuer that falls below compliance with the price criteria set forth in that rule. 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.
Section 802.01C (“Price Criteria for Capital or Common Stock”) of the NYSE Listed Company Manual (the “Manual”) provides that a listed company will be considered to be below compliance standards if the average closing price of a security as reported on the consolidated tape is less than $1.00 over a consecutive 30 trading-day period (the “Price Criteria”). While the term “Price Criteria” is used as a defined term in Section 802.01C, the current rule does not actually provide a definition for the term. Consequently, the Exchange proposes to define the term in the rule using the definition set forth in the immediately preceding sentence.
Once notified that it has fallen below the Price Criteria, the company must bring its share price and average share price back above $1.00 by six months following receipt of the notification. A company is not eligible to follow the procedures outlined in Sections 802.02 and 802.03 of the Manual with respect to this criteria. The company must, however, notify the Exchange, within 10 business days of receipt of the notification, of its intent to cure this deficiency or be subject to suspension and delisting procedures as set forth in Section 804.00 of the Manual. The company can regain compliance at any time during the six-month cure period if on the last trading day of any calendar month during the cure period the company has a closing share price of at least $1.00 and an average closing share price of at least $1.00 over the 30 trading-day period ending on the last trading day of that month. In the event that at the expiration of the six-month cure period, both a $1.00 closing share price on the last trading day of the cure period and a $1.00 average closing share price over the 30 trading-day period ending on the last trading day of the cure period are not attained, the Exchange will commence suspension and delisting procedures as set forth in Section 804.00.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a company determines that, if necessary, it will cure the price condition by taking an action that will require approval of its shareholders, it must so inform the Exchange in the above referenced notification, must obtain the shareholder approval by no later than its next annual meeting, and must implement the action promptly thereafter. The company will be deemed to have regained compliance with the Price Criteria if the price promptly exceeds $1.00 per share, and the price remains above the level for at least the following 30 trading days. The action taken by a company to cure its noncompliance with the Price Criteria that is subject to shareholder approval is generally a reverse stock split.
The Exchange proposes to amend Section 802.01C to limit the circumstances under which a listed company may utilize a reverse stock split to regain compliance with the Price Criteria. Specifically, the Exchange proposes that, notwithstanding the general ability of a company to utilize a reverse stock split as a mechanism for regaining compliance with the Price Criteria if a company's security fails to meet the Price Criteria and (i) the company has effected a reverse stock split over the prior one-year period
As described above, many companies seek to cure their noncompliance with the Price Criteria or seek to increase their stock price for other reasons by effectuating a reverse stock split. However, the Exchange has observed that some companies, typically those in financial distress or experiencing a prolonged operational downturn, engage in a pattern of repeated reverse stock splits. The Exchange believes that such behavior is often indicative of deep financial or operational distress within such companies rendering them inappropriate for trading on the Exchange for investor protection reasons. In these situations, the Exchange has observed that the challenges facing such companies, generally, are not temporary and may be so severe that the company is not likely to maintain or regain compliance on a sustained basis.
The Exchange believes that the restrictions set forth in this proposal on the excessive use of reverse splits as a means of maintaining or regaining compliance with the Price Criteria will protect investors by resulting in the delisting of companies whose history of recurring inability to maintain price compliance is indicative of their financial instability and unsuitability for continued listing.
The Exchange believes that the proposed rule change is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange believes that it is consistent with the protection of investors and the public interest to delist any company that takes a deliberate action that causes it to fall below an Exchange listing standard, including as in the current proposal, the effectuation of a reverse split that causes a company to fall below a quantitative continued listing standard.
The Exchange believes that the adoption of the term “Price Criteria” as a defined term provides helpful clarification of the rule without making any substantive change to the rule text.
The Exchange believes the proposed rule change furthers the objectives of Section 6(b)(7) of the Act
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose any burden on competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of Section 6(b)(8) of the Act.
The Exchange believes that the proposal will not impose a burden on intermarket competition that is not necessary or appropriate in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed rule change is designed to protect investors and facilitate a fair and orderly market, which are both important purposes of the Act. To the extent that there is any impact on intermarket competition, it is incidental to these objectives.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change imposes a burden on intra-market competition because the provisions apply to all market participants and issuers on the Exchange equally.
No written comments were solicited or received with respect to the proposed rule change.
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.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”),
Cboe BYX Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “BYX Equities”) proposes to amend its Fees 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 to adopt fees for Dedicated Cores.
By way of background, the Exchange recently began to allow Users
The Exchange proposes to assess the following monthly fees for Users that wish to use Dedicated Cores and adopt a maximum limit. First, the Exchange proposes to provide up to two Dedicated Cores to all Users who wish to use Dedicated Cores, at no additional cost.
Since the Exchange currently has a finite amount of physical space in its data centers in which its servers (and therefore corresponding CPU Cores) are located, the Exchange also proposes to prescribe a maximum limit on the number of Dedicated Cores that Users may purchase each month. The purpose of establishing these limits is to manage the allotment of Dedicated Cores in a fair manner and to prevent the Exchange from being required to expend large amounts of resources in order to provide an unlimited number of Dedicated Cores. The Exchange previously established a limit for Members of a maximum number of 60 Dedicated Cores and Sponsoring Members a limit of a maximum number of 25 Dedicated Cores for each of their Sponsored Access relationships.
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.
The Exchange believes the proposal is reasonable because the Exchange is offering any Users who wishes to utilize Dedicated Cores up to two Dedicated Cores at no additional cost. For example, of the Users that currently maintain Dedicated Cores, 38% maintain only 1 or 2 Dedicated Cores and therefore pay no additional fees. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable because Dedicated Cores provide a valuable service in that it can provide reduced latency, enhanced throughput, and improved performance compared to use of a shared CPU Core since a firm using a Dedicated Core is utilizing the full processing power of a CPU Core. The Exchange also emphasizes however, that the use of Dedicated Cores is not necessary for trading and as noted above, is entirely optional. Users can also continue to access the Exchange through shared CPU Cores at no additional cost. Indeed, 18% of the Exchange's Members currently use Dedicated Cores and as noted above, of those who do, 38% take only 1 or 2 Dedicated Cores at no additional cost. Depending on a firm's specific business needs, the proposal enables Users to choose to use Dedicated Cores in lieu of, or in addition to, shared CPU Cores (or as emphasized, not use Dedicated Cores at all). If a User finds little benefit in having Dedicated Cores based on its business model and trading strategies, or determines Dedicated Cores are not cost-efficient for its needs or does not provide sufficient value to the firm, such User may continue its use of the shared CPU Cores, unchanged. The Exchange also has no plans to eliminate shared CPU Cores nor to require Users to purchase Dedicated Cores.
The Exchange has seen general interest in Dedicated Cores from a variety of market participants, with varying size and business models. Such market participants include proprietary trading firms (who tend to be more latency sensitive), as well as sell-side market participants and buy-side market participants (who tend to be less latency sensitive). Further, Members have various reasons for obtaining Dedicated Cores. Some Members for example, may be seeking to further reduce latency, whereas others may use Dedicated Cores as a general risk mitigation by siloing
The Exchange also believes that the proposed Dedicated Core fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they continue to be assessed uniformly to similarly situated users in that all Users who choose to purchase Dedicated Cores will be subject to the same proposed tiered fee schedule. Moreover, all Users are entitled to up to 2 Dedicated Cores at no additional cost and as previously discussed, 38% of all Users that take Dedicated Cores (including both latency sensitive and non-latency sensitive Users) take only 1 or 2 Dedicated Cores at no additional cost. The Exchange believes the proposed ascending fee structure is also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is designed so that firms that use a higher allotment of the Exchange's finite number of Dedicated Cores pay higher rates, rather than placing that burden on market participants that have more modest needs who will have the flexibility of obtaining Dedicated Cores at lower price points in the lower tiers. As such, the proposed fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the ascending fee structure reflects the (finite) resources consumed by the various needs of market participants—that is, the lowest Dedicated Core consuming Users pay the least, and highest Dedicated Core consuming Users pay the most. Other exchanges similarly assess higher fees to those that consume more Exchange resources.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to limit the number of Dedicated Cores Users can purchase because the Exchange has a finite amount of space in its third-party data centers to accommodate CPU cores, including Dedicated Cores. The Exchange must also take into account timing and cost considerations in procuring additional Dedicated Cores and related hardware such as servers, switches, optics and cables, as well as the readiness of the Exchange's data center to accommodate additional Dedicated Cores in the Exchange's respective Order Handler Cabinets.
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed tiered fee structure will apply equally to all similarly situated Users
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change 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, including competition for exchange memberships. Market Participants have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on, including 15 other equities exchanges, as well as off-exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading. Indeed, participants can readily choose to submit their order flow to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the 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 neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (“Act”)
The Exchange proposes to amend the Exchange's Pricing Schedule at Options 7, Section 2(1).
While the changes proposed herein are effective upon filing, the Exchange has designated that the amendments be operative on October 1, 2024.
The text of the proposed rule change is available on the Exchange's website at
In its filing with the Commission, the Exchange included statements concerning the purpose of and basis for the proposed rule change and discussed any comments it received on the proposed rule change. The text of these statements may be examined at the places specified in Item IV below. The Exchange has prepared summaries, set forth in sections A, B, and C below, of the most significant aspects of such statements.
The Exchange proposes to amend a number of incentives for Lead Market Makers (“LMMs”),
Today, in Penny Symbols, the Exchange pays the following Maker Rebates: Lead Market Makers a Maker Rebate of $0.24 per contract; Market Makers a Maker Rebate of $0.20 per contract; Non-Customer
Today, in Non-Penny Symbols, the Exchange pays the following Maker Rebates/Fees: Lead Market Makers a Maker Rebate of $0.45 per contract; Market Makers a Maker Rebate of $0.40 per contract; Non-Customer and Firm a Maker Fee of $0.45 per contract; and Customer a Maker Rebate of $1.10 per contract. Today, in Non-Penny Symbols, the Exchange pays the following Taker Fees: Lead Market Makers, Market Makers, Non-Customer and Firm a Taker Fee of $1.25 per contract; and Customer a Taker Fee of $0.79 per contract.
The Exchange proposes to amend the incentives in note 2 of Options 7, Section 2(1) that currently provide:
Lead Market Makers and Market Makers that either (1) execute more than 0.45% Customer Total Consolidated Volume (“TCV”) per day which adds liquidity in a given month (excluding Lead Market Maker and Market Maker volume which adds liquidity in SPY), or (2) increase their combined Lead Market Maker and Market Maker volume which adds liquidity in a given month by at least 70% above their March 2024 volume as measured by a percentage of TCV (excluding Lead Market Maker and Market Maker volume which adds liquidity in SPY), will receive the following incentives: (i) an additional $0.05 per contract Maker Rebate in Penny Symbols excluding SPY, (ii) an additional $0.01 per contract Maker Rebate in SPY, and (iii) an additional $0.24 per contract Maker Rebate in Non-Penny Symbols. Lead Market Makers and Market Makers with no volume in the add liquidity segment for the month of March 2024 may qualify for the additional Maker Rebates by having any new volume (excluding SPY volume) considered as added volume. This note 2 incentive will be available through September 30, 2024.
Proposed note 2 provides LMMs and MMs two separate paths to receive the additional Maker Rebates described above. The first path is based on liquidity adding volume on BX as a percentage of Customer Total Consolidated Volume, which is defined as the total national volume cleared at The Options Clearing Corporation in the Customer range in equity and ETF options in that month.
The second path is a growth incentive aimed at rewarding LMMs and MMs to grow the extent of their liquidity adding activity on the Exchange over time, relative to a benchmark month. Currently, LMMs and MMs who did not have any combined Lead Market Maker and Market Maker add liquidity volume for the month of March 2024 (and therefore lack March 2024 baseline volume against which to measure subsequent growth) would meet the proposed growth requirement through whatever volume of LMM and MM add liquidity activity (excluding in SPY) during the first month of use.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend note 2 to change the March 2024 baseline volume against which to measure subsequent growth to September 2024. Similar to the prior note incentive, the Exchange will sunset the proposed note 2 incentives after six months, in this case April 30, 2025. The Exchange believes that the note 2 incentives will continue to encourage Members to send order flow to BX.
The Exchange proposes to amend the incentives in note 4 in Options 7, Section 2(1) that currently provide:
Participants that increase their executed Customer volume which removes liquidity in a given month by at least 70% above their March 2024 volume as measured by a percentage of TCV will receive a Taker Fee discount of $0.05 per contract in Penny Symbols excluding AAPL, SPY, QQQ, and IWM. Participants with no Customer volume in the remove liquidity segment for the month of March 2024 may qualify for the Taker Fee discount by having any new volume considered as added volume. This note 4 incentive will be available through April 30, 2025.
Currently, the growth incentives in note 4 of Options 7, Section 2(1) have similar qualifications as the growth incentive in note 2 in that Members are measured relative to a benchmark month. Specifically, Members that increase their executed Customer volume which removes liquidity in a given month by at least 70% above their March 2024 volume as measured by a percentage of TCV receive a Taker Fee discount of $0.05 per contract in Penny Symbols excluding AAPL, SPY, QQQ, and IWM. Accordingly, qualifying Members are paid a Customer Taker Fee of $0.35 (instead of $0.40) per contract in Penny Symbols. The Exchange excludes AAPL, SPY, QQQ, and IWM from the note 4 incentive because Members are already paying lower Customer Taker Fees of $0.33 per contract for those symbols today.
At this time, the Exchange proposes to amend note 4 to change the March 2024 baseline volume against which to measure subsequent growth to September 2024. Similar to the prior note incentive, the Exchange will sunset the proposed note 4 incentives after six months, in this case April 30, 2025. The Exchange believes that the note 4 incentives, as amended, would ensure that the proposed growth incentive is timely and meets the intended purpose of encouraging increased order flow and Customer liquidity removing activity.
The Exchange believes that its proposal is consistent with Section 6(b) of the Act,
The Exchange's proposed changes to its schedule of credits are reasonable in several respects. As a threshold matter, the Exchange is subject to significant competitive forces in the market for options securities transaction services that constrain its pricing determinations in that market. The fact that this market is competitive has long been recognized by the courts. In
The Commission and the courts have repeatedly expressed their preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. In Regulation NMS, while adopting a series of steps to improve the current market model, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the market system “has been remarkably successful in promoting market competition in its broader forms that are most important to investors and listed companies.”
Numerous indicia demonstrate the competitive nature of this market. For example, clear substitutes to the Exchange exist in the market for options security transaction services. The Exchange is only one of eighteen options exchanges to which market participants may direct their order flow. Within this environment, market participants can freely and often do shift their order flow among the Exchange and competing venues in response to changes in their respective pricing schedules. As such, the proposal represents a reasonable attempt by the Exchange to increase its liquidity and market share relative to its competitors.
The Exchange believes that the amended note 2 incentives are reasonable for several reasons. As discussed above, note 2 would continue to provide LMMs and MMs two separate paths to receive the proposed additional Maker Rebates of (i) $0.05 per contract
As discussed above, the second path would continue to be a growth incentive that would provide LMMs and MMs with the additional Maker Rebates outlined above if they increase their combined LMM and MM volume which adds liquidity in a given month by at least 70% above their September 2024 volume as measured by a percentage of TCV (excluding LMM and MM volume which adds liquidity in SPY). The Exchange believes that its proposal is reasonable because it will provide extra incentives to LMMs and MMs to engage in substantial amounts of liquidity adding activity on the Exchange, as well as to substantially grow the extent to which they do so relative to a recent benchmark month. The Exchange believes that if the proposed growth incentive is effective, any ensuing increase in liquidity adding activity on BX will improve the quality of the market overall, to the benefit of all market participants. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to consider any new add liquidity volume (excluding SPY volume) for LMMs and MMs with no such volume for the month of September 2024 in order for those market participants to receive the proposed additional Maker Rebates in note 2. The proposed growth incentive is designed to attract additional liquidity from new LMMs and MMs as well as existing LMMs and MMs who may not have a large footprint on BX today. To the extent this proposal attracts such LMM and MM add liquidity volume to BX, all market participants should benefit through more trading opportunities and tighter spreads. An overall increase in activity would deepen the Exchange's liquidity pool, support the quality of price discovery, promote market transparency and improve market quality for all investors. As discussed above, the Exchange intends for the proposed note 2 incentives, including the growth incentive, to sunset on April 30, 2025, and will use this time to evaluate suitable parameters for such market participants in the targeted segment. The Exchange believes that this will ensure that the proposed incentives are timely and meet the intended purpose of encouraging increased order flow and liquidity adding activity. As noted above, other options exchanges (including the Exchange's affiliate) have previously adopted substantially similar growth incentives.
The Exchange further believes that it is reasonable to exclude LMM and MM liquidity adding volume in SPY from both paths because SPY is the most actively traded symbol on BX, and Exchange believes that LMMs and MMs will continue to be incentivized to bring SPY liquidity adding volume on BX despite the exclusion of SPY volume from the note 2 qualifications. Further, the Exchange is encouraging SPY liquidity adding volume separately through the proposed additional $0.01 per contract Maker Rebate in SPY described above.
The Exchange believes that the proposed note 2 incentives are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons that follow. As a general matter, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide the note 2 incentives to only LMMs and MMs because these market participants have different requirements and additional obligations to the Exchange that other market participants do not (such as quoting requirements). As noted above, LMMs would ultimately receive higher Maker Rebates than MMs when combining the current base rebates with the proposed additional rebates.
The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to consider any new add liquidity volume (excluding SPY volume) for LMMs and MMs with no such volume in September 2024 in order for those market participants to receive the proposed additional Maker Rebates because this is designed to attract additional liquidity and order flow from new and existing LMMs and MMs to the Exchange, as discussed above. In turn, this additional liquidity should benefit all market participants through increased liquidity and order interaction. Furthermore, the proposed growth incentive will be temporary and sunset on April 30, 2025, to ensure that the incentive is timely and meets the intended purpose of encouraging increased order flow and liquidity adding activity.
The Exchange believes that the proposed growth incentive in new note 4 of Options 7, Section 2(1) is reasonable for the reasons that follow. As discussed above, Members that increase their executed Customer volume which removes liquidity in a given month by at least 70% above their September 2024 volume as measured by a percentage of TCV will receive a Taker Fee discount of $0.05 per contract in Penny Symbols excluding AAPL, SPY, QQQ, and IWM. Accordingly, qualifying Members would pay a Customer Taker Fee of $0.35 (instead of $0.40) per contract in Penny Symbols excluding
The Exchange believes that the proposed growth incentive is reasonable because it will provide extra incentives to Members to engage in substantial amounts of Customer liquidity removing activity on the Exchange, as well as to substantially grow the extent to which they do so relative to a recent benchmark month. The Exchange believes that if the proposed growth incentive is effective, any ensuing increase in liquidity removing activity on BX will increase trading opportunities for all market participants. The Exchange also believes that it is reasonable to consider any new Customer remove liquidity volume for Members with no such volume for the month of September 2024 in order for those Members to receive the proposed Taker Fee discount in note 4. The proposed growth incentive is designed to attract additional Customer order flow from new Members as well as existing Members who may not have a large footprint on BX today. To the extent this proposal attracts such order flow to BX, all market participants should benefit through more trading opportunities. As discussed above, the Exchange intends for the proposed growth incentive in note 4 to sunset on April 30, 2025, and will use this time to evaluate suitable parameters for such market participants in the targeted segment. The Exchange believes that this will ensure that the proposed incentive is timely and meets the intended purpose of encouraging increased order flow and Customer liquidity removing activity. As noted above, other options exchanges (including the Exchange's affiliate) have previously adopted similar growth incentives.
Further, the Exchange believes that the proposed note 4 incentive is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory for the reasons that follow. As a general matter, the Exchange believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to provide the note 4 incentive to only Customer orders because the proposed changes are intended to increase Customer order follow, particularly Customer remove liquidity order flow, to BX. An increase in Customer order flow enhances liquidity on the Exchange to the benefit of all market participants by providing more trading opportunities, which in turn attracts other market participants that may interact with this order flow.
The Exchange also believes that it is equitable and not unfairly discriminatory to consider any new Customer remove liquidity volume for Members with no such volume in September 2024 in order for those Members to receive the proposed Taker Fee discount because this is designed to attract additional liquidity and order flow from new and existing Members to the Exchange, as discussed above. In turn, this additional liquidity should benefit all market participants through increased liquidity and order interaction. Furthermore, the proposed growth incentive will be temporary and sunset on April 30, 2025, to ensure that the incentive is timely and meets the intended purpose of encouraging increased Customer order flow and liquidity removing activity.
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.
In terms of intra-market competition, the Exchange does not believe that its proposal will place any category of market participant at a competitive disadvantage. As it relates to the proposed note 2 incentives offered to LMMs and MMs, the Exchange believes that the additional Maker Rebates should encourage the provision of liquidity from both existing and new LMMs and MMs that enhances the quality of the Exchange's market and increases the number of trading opportunities on the Exchange for all market participants who will be able to compete for such opportunities. Similarly, for the proposed note 4 incentive offered to Customers, the Exchange likewise believes that the Taker Fee discount should encourage additional Customer order flow from both existing and new Members, which would enhance BX's market quality and increase trading opportunities to the benefit of all market participants.
In terms of inter-market competition, the Exchange notes that it operates in a highly competitive market in which market participants can readily favor competing venues if they deem fee levels at a particular venue to be excessive, or rebate opportunities available at other venues to be more favorable. In such an environment, the Exchange must continually adjust its fees to remain competitive with other options exchanges. Because competitors are free to modify their own fees in response, and because market participants may readily adjust their order routing practices, the Exchange believes that the degree to which fee changes in this market may impose any burden on competition is extremely limited. In sum, if the changes proposed herein are unattractive to market participants, it is likely that the Exchange will lose market share as a result. Accordingly, the Exchange does not believe that the proposed changes will impair the ability of members or competing order execution venues to maintain their competitive standing in the financial markets.
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
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission” or “SEC”).
Notice.
Notice of application for an order under sections 6(b) and 6(e) of the Investment Company Act of 1940 (the “Act”) granting an exemption from all provisions of the Act, except sections 9, 17, 30, 36 through 53 and the rules and regulations under the Act. With respect to sections 17(a), (d), (e), (f), (g) and (j) of the Act, sections 30(a), (b), (e), and (h) of the Act and the Rules and Regulations and rule 38a-1 under the Act, Applicants (as defined below) request a limited exemption as set forth in the application.
The requested exemption would permit Applicants to enter an order to exempt certain limited liability companies, partnerships, business trusts, or other entities (“Funds”) formed for the benefit of eligible employees of Jane Street Group, LLC and its affiliates from certain provisions of the Act. Each Fund will be an “employees' securities company” within the meaning of section 2(a)(13) of the Act.
Jane Street Group, LLC; Edgar Street Capital, LLC and Elizabeth Street Capital, LLC.
The application was filed on December 28, 2021, and amended on June 13, 2022, October 19, 2022, March 30, 2023, and July 17, 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 Commission's Secretary at
Toyin Momoh, Senior Counsel, or Lisa Reid Ragen, Branch Chief, at (202) 551-5325 (Division of Investment Management, Chief Counsel's Office).
For Applicants' representations, legal analysis, and conditions, please refer to Applicants' fourth amended and restated application, dated July 17, 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”),
Cboe EDGA Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange” or “EDGA Equities”) proposes to amend its Fees 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 to adopt fees for Dedicated Cores.
By way of background, the Exchange recently began to allow Users
The Exchange proposes to assess the following monthly fees for Users that wish to use Dedicated Cores and adopt a maximum limit. First, the Exchange proposes to provide up to two Dedicated Cores to all Users who wish to use Dedicated Cores, at no additional cost. For the use of more than two Dedicated Cores, the Exchange proposes to assess the following fees: $650 per Dedicated Core for 3-10 Dedicated Cores; $850 per Dedicated Core for 11-15 Dedicated Cores; and $1,050 per Dedicated Core for 16 or more Dedicated Cores. The proposed fees are progressive and the Exchange proposes to include the following example in the Fees Schedule to provide clarity as to how the fees will be applied. Particularly, the Exchange will provide the following example: if a User were to purchase 11 Dedicated Cores, it will be charged a total of $6,050 per month ($0 * 2 + $650 * 8 + $850 * 1). The Exchange also proposes to make clear in the Fees Schedule that the monthly fees are assessed and applied in their entirety and are not prorated. The Exchange notes the current standard fees assessed for BOE Logical Ports, whether used with Dedicated or shared CPU cores, will remain applicable and unchanged.
Since the Exchange currently has a finite amount of physical space in its data centers in which its servers (and therefore corresponding CPU Cores) are located, the Exchange also proposes to prescribe a maximum limit on the number of Dedicated Cores that Users may purchase each month. The purpose of establishing these limits is to manage the allotment of Dedicated Cores in a fair manner and to prevent the Exchange from being required to expend large amounts of resources in order to provide an unlimited number of Dedicated Cores. The Exchange previously established a limit for Members of a maximum number of 60 Dedicated Cores and Sponsoring Members a limit of a maximum number of 25 Dedicated Cores for each of their Sponsored Access relationships.
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.
The Exchange believes the proposal is reasonable because the Exchange is offering any User who wishes to utilize Dedicated Cores up to two Dedicated Cores at no additional cost. For example, of the Users that currently maintain Dedicated Cores, 39% maintain only 1 or 2 Dedicated Cores and therefore pay no additional fees. The Exchange believes the proposed fees are reasonable because Dedicated Cores provide a valuable service in that it can provide reduced latency, enhanced throughput, and improved performance compared to use of a shared CPU Core since a firm using a Dedicated Core is utilizing the full processing power of a CPU Core. The Exchange also emphasizes however, that the use of Dedicated Cores is not necessary for trading and as noted above, is entirely optional. Users can also continue to access the Exchange through shared CPU Cores at no additional cost. Indeed, only 17% of the Exchange's Members currently use Dedicated Cores and as noted above, of those 17%, 39% take only 1 or 2 Dedicated Cores at no additional cost. Depending on a firm's specific business needs, the proposal enables Users to choose to use Dedicated Cores in lieu of, or in addition to, shared CPU Cores (or as emphasized, not use Dedicated Cores at all). If a User finds little benefit in having Dedicated Cores based on its business model and trading strategies, or determines Dedicated Cores are not cost-efficient for its needs or does not provide sufficient value to the firm, such User may continue its use of the shared CPU Cores, unchanged. The Exchange also has no plans to eliminate shared CPU Cores nor to require Users to purchase Dedicated Cores.
The Exchange has seen general interest in Dedicated Cores from a variety of market participants, with varying size and business models. Such market participants include proprietary trading firms (who tend to be more latency sensitive), as well as sell-side market participants and buy-side market participants (who tend to be less latency sensitive). Further, Members have various reasons for obtaining Dedicated Cores. Some Members for example, may be seeking to further reduce latency, whereas others may use Dedicated Cores as a general risk mitigation by siloing their respective activity. Of further note, only 59% of Members that are propriety trading firms (who again, generally tend to be more latency sensitive) utilize Dedicated Cores, and of that 59%, 30% are utilizing the 1 to 2 free Dedicated Cores available to all Users. The lack of universal, or even widespread, adoption by all such users therefore demonstrates that purchasing Dedicated Cores is not effectively a requirement to compete for any one type of market participant, including latency sensitive market participants. Instead, Dedicated Cores are an optional and voluntary connectivity offering, which market participants are free to choose whether or not to utilize based on whether they meet their unique business needs.
The Exchange also believes that the proposed Dedicated Core fees are equitable and not unfairly discriminatory because they continue to be assessed uniformly to similarly situated users in that all Users who choose to purchase Dedicated Cores will be subject to the same proposed tiered fee schedule. Moreover, all Users are entitled to up to 2 Dedicated Cores at no additional cost and as previously discussed, 39% of all Users that take Dedicated Cores (including both latency sensitive and non-latency sensitive Users) take only 1 or 2 Dedicated Cores at no additional cost. The Exchange believes the proposed ascending fee structure is also reasonable, equitable and not unfairly discriminatory as it is designed so that firms that use a higher allotment of the Exchange's finite number of Dedicated Cores pay higher rates, rather than placing that burden on market participants that have more modest needs who will have the flexibility of obtaining Dedicated Cores at lower price points in the lower tiers. As such, the proposed fees do not favor certain categories of market participants in a manner that would impose a burden on competition; rather, the ascending fee structure reflects the (finite) resources consumed by the various needs of market participants—that is, the lowest Dedicated Core consuming Users pay the least, and highest Dedicated Core consuming Users pay the most. Other exchanges similarly assess higher fees to those that consume more Exchange resources.
The Exchange believes it is reasonable to limit the number of Dedicated Cores Users can purchase because the Exchange has a finite amount of space in its third-party data centers to accommodate CPU cores, including Dedicated Cores. The Exchange must also take into account timing and cost considerations in procuring additional Dedicated Cores and related hardware such as servers, switches, optics and
The Exchange does not believe that the proposed rule change will impose any burden on intramarket competition that is not necessary in furtherance of the purposes of the Act because the proposed tiered fee structure will apply equally to all similarly situated Users that choose to use Dedicated Cores. As discussed above, Dedicated Cores are optional and Users may choose to utilize Dedicated Cores, or not, based on their views of the additional benefits and added value provided by utilizing a Dedicated Core. The Exchange believes the proposed fee will be assessed proportionately to the potential value or benefit received by Users with a greater number of Dedicated Cores and notes that Users may determine at any time to cease using Dedicated Cores. As discussed, Users can also continue to access the Exchange through shared CPU Cores at no additional cost. Finally, all Users will be entitled to two Dedicated Cores at no additional cost.
Next, the Exchange believes the proposed rule change 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, including competition for exchange memberships. Market Participants have numerous alternative venues that they may participate on, including 15 other equities exchanges, as well as off-exchange venues, where competitive products are available for trading. Indeed, participants can readily choose to submit their order flow to other exchange and off-exchange venues if they deem fee levels at those other venues to be more favorable. Moreover, the Commission has repeatedly expressed its preference for competition over regulatory intervention in determining prices, products, and services in the securities markets. Specifically, in Regulation NMS, the Commission highlighted the importance of market forces in determining prices and SRO revenues and, also, recognized that current regulation of the 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 neither solicited nor received comments on the proposed rule change.
The foregoing rule change has become effective pursuant to Section 19(b)(3)(A) of the Act
Interested persons are invited to submit written data, views and arguments concerning the foregoing, including whether the proposed rule change is consistent with the Act. Comments may be submitted by any of the following methods:
• Use the Commission's internet comment form (
• Send an email to
• Send paper comments in triplicate to Secretary, Securities and Exchange Commission, 100 F Street NE, Washington, DC 20549-1090.
For the Commission, by the Division of Trading and Markets, pursuant to delegated authority.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 5.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Florida (FEMA-4806-DR), dated August 10, 2024.
Issued on October 9, 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.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Florida, dated August 10, 2024, is hereby amended to extend the deadline for filing applications for physical damages as a result of this disaster to November 12, 2024.
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4830-DR), dated October 9, 2024.
Issued on October 9, 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 President's major disaster declaration on October 9, 2024, Private Non-Profit organizations that provide essential services of a governmental nature may file disaster loan applications 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 207538 and for economic injury is 207540.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 4.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of Georgia (FEMA-4830-DR), dated September 30, 2024.
Issued on October 9, 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.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Georgia, dated September 30, 2024, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a notice of an Administrative declaration of a disaster for the State of New York dated 10/10/2024.
Issued on 10/10/2024.
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 205726 and for economic injury is 205730.
The States which received an EIDL Declaration are New York, Pennsylvania.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Notice.
This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for Public Assistance Only for the State of North Carolina (FEMA-4827-DR), dated October 2, 2024.
Issued on October 2, 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
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 207208 and for economic injury is 207210.
60-Day notice and request for comments.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) intends to request approval, from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for the collection of information described below. The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) requires Federal agencies to publish a notice in the
Submit comments on or before December 16, 2024.
Send all comments to Nathaniel Bishop, Program Analyst, Office of Entrepreneurship Education, SBA,
Nathaniel Bishop, Program Analyst, Office of Entrepreneurship Education, SBA,
Section 5004 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Pub. L. 117-2) authorized SBA to establish a Community Navigator Pilot Program. Under this authority, SBA will make grants to private nonprofit organizations, resource partners, States, Tribes and units of local government to ensure the delivery of free community navigator services to current or prospective owners of small businesses in order to improve access to COVID-related assistance programs and resources.
To facilitate expeditious implementation of the program, SBA obtained emergency approval from OMB, including waiver of the public comment notice required by 5 CFR 1320.8(d). That authority expires on December 31, 2021. SBA is publishing this notice as a prerequisite to obtaining an extension of the approval period of the information collection, which consists of application requirements for the program, SBA Form 3516, Community Navigators Pilot Program Client and Program Information Form, and quarterly reporting requirements.
Information collected from applicants to the Community Navigator Program will be used to determine applicant's eligibility for an award. At this time the application period is no longer open; however, SBA is extending this requirement in the event an additional funding opportunity becomes available. Form 3516 will collect data on the clients served by the awardees of the Community Navigator Pilot Program, which will be used to track grantee performance and help to evaluate program success. The grantees' quarterly performance reports will help SBA to assess program activity and the extent to which grantees are achieving desired program results and appropriately utilizing grant funds in support of the Community Navigator Program.
SBA is requesting comments on (a) Whether the collection of information is necessary for the agency to properly perform its functions; (b) whether the burden estimates are accurate; (c) whether there are ways to minimize the burden, including through the use of automated techniques or other forms of information technology; and (d) whether there are ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information.
U.S. Small Business Administration.
Amendment 2.
This is an amendment of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the Commonwealth of Virginia (FEMA-4831-DR), dated October 1, 2024.
Issued on October 8, 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.
The notice of the President's major disaster declaration for the State of Virginia, dated October 1, 2024, is hereby amended to include the following areas as adversely affected by the disaster:
All other information in the original declaration remains unchanged.
Surface Transportation Board.
Notice; correction.
The Surface Transportation Board (Board) published a document in the
Chris Oehrle, PRA Officer, Surface Transportation Board, 395 E Street SW, Washington, DC 20423-0001, or
In the
Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR).
Notice and request for comments.
In a notice published on September 18, 2024, the U.S. Trade Representative announced certain modifications to the actions taken in the Section 301 investigation of China's acts, policies, and practices related to technology transfer, intellectual property, and innovation. Additionally, the U.S. Trade Representative announced 14 temporary exclusions for solar manufacturing equipment and a list of subheadings eligible for consideration of temporary exclusion under an exclusion process for certain machinery used in domestic manufacturing. This notice announces that USTR will open an electronic portal for exclusion requests on October 15, 2024, and sets out the procedures for submitting requests.
You must submit all requests, responses to requests, and replies to responses through the online portal:
For general questions about this notice, contact Philip Butler and Megan Grimball, Chairs of the Section 301 Committee at 202.395.5725. For specific questions on customs classification, contact
For background on the proceedings in this investigation, please see the prior notices including 82 FR 40213 (August 24, 2017), 83 FR 14906 (April 6, 2018), 83 FR 28710 (July 6, 2018), and 83 FR 40823 (August 23, 2018).
On September 8, 2022, USTR announced that in accordance with Section 307(c)(3) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2417(c)(3)), the U.S. Trade Representative would conduct a review of the two actions taken, as modified, in this investigation.
Based on information obtained during the review, USTR, in consultation with the Section 301 Committee, prepared a comprehensive report that included findings on the effectiveness of the actions taken in this investigation 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, “Four-Year Review of Actions Taken in the Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation” (Report), was published on May 14, 2024, and is available on the USTR website.
On May 14, 2024, taking into consideration the U.S. Trade Representative's findings in the Report and recommendations, the President issued a Memorandum (President's 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 directed the U.S. Trade Representative to prioritize, in particular, exclusions for certain solar manufacturing equipment.
Consistent with the President's direction, USTR issued a
In accordance with section 307(a)(2) of the Trade Act (19 U.S.C. 2417(a)(2)), USTR invited comments from interested persons and opened a 30-day docket on May 29, 2024 (USTR-2024-0007). With respect to the machinery exclusion process, USTR requested comments on whether the 312 subheadings proposed should or should not be eligible for consideration in the machinery exclusion process and whether certain subheadings under Chapters 84 and 85 that cover machinery used in domestic manufacturing were omitted and should be included.
On September 18, 2024, the U.S. Trade Representative announced modifications to the actions, including certain adjustments to the modifications proposed in the May 28 notice.
USTR invites interested persons, including trade associations, to submit requests for temporary exclusion from the Section 301 tariffs. The subheadings eligible for consideration of temporary exclusion under the machinery exclusion process are set forth in Annex E of the September 18 notice.
As explained in more detail below, each request specifically must identify a particular product, and provide supporting data and the rationale for the requested exclusion. USTR will evaluate each request on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the asserted rationale for the exclusion, whether the exclusion would undermine the objective of the Section 301 investigation, and whether the request defines the product with sufficient precision. Any exclusion will be effective starting from the date of publication of the exclusion determination in the
The U.S. Trade Representative will monitor exclusions granted and the overall impact of exclusions, including the 14 temporary exclusions for solar manufacturing equipment announced in the September 28 notice, and the product specific exclusions extended on May 30, 2024,
Set out below is a summary of the information to be entered on the exclusion request form. Each requester must provide contact information, including the full legal name of the organization making the request, whether the requester is a third party (law firm, trade association, or customs broker) submitting on behalf of an organization or industry, and the primary point of contact (requester and/or third-party submitter). The requester may report whether the requester's business satisfies the Small Business Administration's size standard for a small business, which are identified by North American Industry Classification Systems Codes and are found in 13 CFR 121.201. With regard to product identification, any request for exclusion must include the following information:
• The 10-digit subheading of the HTSUS applicable to the manufacturing equipment requested for exclusion. If no 10-digit subheading is available (
• A complete and detailed description of the manufacturing equipment. A detailed description of the manufacturing equipment includes, but is not limited to, its physical characteristics (
• Whether the manufacturing equipment of concern is subject to an antidumping or countervailing duty order issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce.
• Whether the manufacturing equipment will be used for domestic manufacturing, how the equipment will be used, and the manufacturing sector.
• If applicable, documents showing grant funding from, or grant application to, a federal investment program related to the domestic manufacturing at issue, such as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), CHIPS and Science Act, Build America Buy America (BABA), and Rural Energy for America Program (REAP).
• Whether the manufacturing equipment of concern, or comparable manufacturing equipment, is available from sources in the United States or third countries and any attempts of the requesting organization to source the manufacturing equipment from the United States or third countries.
• Whether the requesting organization has purchased the manufacturing equipment of concern from a source in the United States or in a third country in the past five years and why the manufacturing equipment is no longer available from this source.
• Whether the manufacturing equipment of concern is strategically important or related to “Made in China
In addressing each factor, the requester should provide support for their assertions. Requesters also may provide any other information or data that they consider relevant to an evaluation of the request.
After a request for exclusion of a particular product is posted on USTR's online portal, interested persons will have 30 days to respond to the request, indicating support or opposition and providing reasons for their view. A response to a product exclusion request must be submitted using USTR's online portal at
• Their relationship to the manufacturing equipment identified (manufacturer, industry association, other).
• Reasons for objecting to the exclusion request.
• Whether the manufacturing equipment is currently manufactured in the United States or third countries, and the substitutability of equipment from the United States or third country sources as compared to the Chinese-origin manufacturing equipment identified in the exclusion request.
• A description of the manufacturing equipment from the United States or third country sources relative to the description cited in the exclusion request.
• Whether the objecting organization within the last two years attempted to sell, or successfully sold, the manufacturing equipment described in the exclusion request, or comparable manufacturing equipment, to the organization requesting the exclusion.
After a response is posted on USTR's online portal, the requester will have the opportunity to reply to the response using the same portal. Any reply must be submitted within the later of 15 days after the posting of a response, or 15 days after the closing of the 30-day response period. A reply to a response must be submitted using USTR's online portal at
As noted above, interested persons must submit requests for exclusions in the period between the opening of the portal on October 15, 2024, and the March 31, 2025 submission deadline. Any responses to those requests must be submitted within 30 days after the requests are posted. Any reply to a response must be submitted within 15 days after the response is posted. Interested persons seeking to exclude two or more pieces of manufacturing equipment must submit a separate request for each product,
You must submit written comments using the appropriate docket on the portal at
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. Additionally, parties will be able to upload documents and indicate whether the documents are BCI or public. Requesters will be able to review the public version of their submission before the submission is posted.
Clearly mark any page containing BCI as `BUSINESS CONFIDENTIAL' on the top of that page and 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
In accordance with the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) and its implementing regulations, USTR submitted a request to the Office of Management and Budget to reinstate an expired information collection request (ICR) titled 301 Exclusion Requests, control number 0350-0015, which is now due to expire on September 30, 2027.
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
Written comments should be submitted by November 18, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent
Amanda J. Shotto by email at:
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, this notice announces that FRA is forwarding the Information Collection Request (ICR) summarized below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes the information collection and its expected burden. On July 30, 2024, FRA published a notice providing a 60-day period for public comment on the ICR. FRA received no comments in response to the notice.
Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before November 18, 2024.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed ICR should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice to
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 issue two notices seeking public comment on information collection activities before OMB may approve paperwork packages. See 44 U.S.C. 3506, 3507; 5 CFR 1320.8 through 1320.12. On July 30, 2024, FRA published a 60-day notice in the
Before OMB decides whether to approve this proposed collection of information, it must provide 30 days' notice for public comment. Federal law requires OMB to approve or disapprove paperwork packages between 30 and 60 days after the 30-day notice is published. 44 U.S.C. 3507(b)-(c); 5 CFR 1320.12(d); see also 60 FR 44978, 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. The 30-day notice informs the regulated community of its opportunity to file relevant comments and affords the agency adequate time to consider public comments before it renders a decision. 60 FR 44983, Aug. 29, 1995. Therefore, each respondent should submit their comments to OMB within 30 days of publication to best ensure having their full effect.
Comments are invited on the following ICR regarding: (1) whether the information collection activities are necessary for FRA to properly execute its functions, including whether the information will have practical utility; (2) the accuracy of FRA's estimates of the burden of the information collection activities, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used to determine the estimates; (3) ways for FRA to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information being collected; and (4) ways to minimize the burden of information collection activities on the public, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
The summary below describes the ICR that FRA will submit for OMB clearance as the PRA requires:
In 2015, Congress instructed the Secretary of Transportation to conduct a nationwide disparity and availability study on the availability and use of small businesses owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and veteran-owned small businesses in publicly funded intercity rail passenger transportation projects.
The report for the study was provided to Congress in 2022. The report noted a gap in data available for analysis to determine if there is any disparity in rail transportation grant awards. To address the data gap identified in the report, FRA is proposing to add new form, FRA F 6180.281 titled, Small Business (SB) Commitments/Awards and Payments. The proposed data collection will address this gap and aid future considerations of the application of the DBE program.
The purpose of FRA F 6180.281 is to collect data from grant recipients to determine the amount of dollars from FRA grants and contracts that flow to small, women-owned and Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (DBE). This would identify all prime contractors, sub-contractors, consultants, and vendors that FRA grant recipients worked with and on which they spent grant funds. Additionally, the proposed new form, FRA F 6180.281 “SB Commitments/Awards and Payments” would be used by FRA to carry out its oversight responsibilities of non-Federal entities receiving grant funds.
This collection of information aligns with DOT's Strategic Goal of Equity as it supports establishing economic equity for small businesses owned by disadvantaged individuals and promoting development opportunities.
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.
Human Resources and Administration/Operations, Security, and Preparedness (HRA/OSP), Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, this notice announces that the Human Resources and Administration/Operations, Security, and Preparedness (HRA/OSP), Department of Veterans Affairs, will submit the collection of information abstracted below to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The PRA submission describes the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and burden, and it includes the actual data collection instrument.
Comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection should be sent by November 18, 2024.
To submit comments and recommendations for the proposed information collection, please type the following link into your browser:
VA PRA information: Maribel Aponte, 202-461-8900,
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The
Department of Veterans Affairs.
Notice.
As required by the Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2023, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is hereby giving notice of Cost-of-Living Adjustments (COLA) in certain benefit rates. These COLAs affect the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) Program. The rate of the adjustment is tied to the increase in Social Security benefits, effective December 1, 2023, as announced by the Social Security Administration (SSA). SSA has announced an increase of 3.2%.
The increases in amounts became effective December 1, 2023.
Gabrielle Mancuso, Lead Management and Program Analyst, Pension and Fiduciary Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20420; 202-632-8862. This is not a toll-free number.
Under the provisions of Public Law 118-6, VA is required to increase, effective December 1, 2023, the benefit rates of DIC programs by the same percentage as
SSA has announced a 3.2% COLA increase in Social Security benefits effective December 1, 2023. Therefore, applying the same percentage, the following increased rates for the DIC program became effective December 1, 2023:
If at the time of the Veteran's death, the Veteran was in receipt of or entitled to receive compensation for a service-connected disability rated totally disabling (including a rating based on individual unemployability) for a continuous period of at least 8 years immediately preceding death AND the surviving spouse was married to the Veteran for those same 8 years, add: $342.46.
For each dependent child under the age of 18, add: $399.54.
If the surviving spouse is entitled to Aid and Attendance benefits, add $399.54.
If the surviving spouse is entitled to Housebound benefits, add $181.17.
If the surviving spouse has one or more children under the age of 18 on the award per 38 U.S.C. 1311(f), add the 2-year transitional benefit of $342.00.
(a) Surviving spouse of Aviation Cadet or other service not covered by this table is paid the DIC rate for enlisted E-3.
(b) Veteran who served as Sgt. Major of the Army or Marine Corps, Senior Enlisted Advisor of the Navy, Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force, or Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps, or as Master Chief Petty Officer of the Coast Guard.
(c) Veteran who served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Chief of Staff of the Army or Air Force, Chief of Naval Operations, Commandant of the Marine Corps, or as Commandant of the Coast Guard.
(d) If surviving spouse is entitled to aid and attendance, add $399.54; if entitled to housebound, add $187.17.
(e) Add $399.54 for each child under 18.
(f) Add $342.46 if Veteran rated totally disabled for 8 continuous years prior to death and surviving spouse was married to Veteran those same 8 years.
(g) Base rate is $1,955.21 if Veteran rated totally disabled 8 continuous years prior to death and surviving spouse was married to Veteran those same 8 years.
For each child over the age of 18 who is attending an approved course of education, the rate is $338.49.
For each child over the age of 18 who is helpless, the rate is $680.94.
For each additional child, add $242.91 to the total payable amount to be paid in equal shares to each child.
For each additional helpless child over 18, add $399.54 to the amount payable to the helpless child.
Denis McDonough, Secretary of Veterans Affairs, signed and approved this document on October 8, 2024, and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs.